Clinton Calls Out GOP Obstruction For Putting ‘Our National Security At Risk’
Clinton Calls Out GOP Obstruction For Putting ‘Our National Security At Risk’
Yesterday, Secretary Clinton called out the Senate GOP on their efforts to obstruct or delay the New START treaty. She noted that this obstructionist effort has real national security consequences:
This is a critical point. Opposing ratification means opposing the inspections that provide us a vital window into Russia’s arsenal… when the Senate returns, they must act, because our national security is at risk. There is an urgency to ratify this treaty because we currently lack verification measures with Russia which only hurts our national security interests. Our ability to know and understand changes in Russia’s nuclear arsenal will erode without the treaty. As time passes, uncertainty will increase. With uncertainty comes unpredictability, which, when you’re dealing with nuclear weapons, is absolutely a problem that must be addressed. Ratifying the new START treaty will prevent that outcome.
If Senate Republicans are concerned about Russian intentions, as they claim, then they should vote for — not against — this treaty. This is because without a New START treaty in place our military will have no idea what the Russians are doing with their nuclear arsenal. Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association notes that:
For 250 days since START I expired there has been no verification system in place… Until New START is approved by the Senate, the United States will rapidly lose insight into Russia’s strategic nuclear forces, forcing both sides to engage in more costly force modernization and hedging strategies.
This loss of intelligence and confidence is critical. With both the US and Russia having nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert and able to destroy all major cities and kill millions of people in 30 minutes, it is an extremely bad idea to have a situation in which both sides become uncertain about the nuclear intentions of the other. On top of that it is also clear that relations with Russia will plummet if START is not ratified. The reset will be collapse and as both militaries lose confidence in their intelligence of the other, skepticism about intentions and motives will only increase. If the GOP kills new START it will quite likely put US-Russia relations on an increasingly dangerous downward spiral.
We don’t worry about nuclear war very much anymore, but should this treaty fail to be ratified the chances of the unthinkable happening — intentionally or accidentally — increase. Now this doesn’t mean that nuclear war is inevitable or even likely. But extremely unlikely events happen all the time. No one would have predicted that the biggest story of the year would be a massive oil spill in the Gulf. This point clearly comes across in the new documentary film Countdown to Zero:
Now it says something about the myopic recklessness of Senators like Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, and Bob Corker who are willing to endanger nuclear stability and US national security just to either deny President Obama a “victory” or to get more nuclear pork for their home state.
- Comments
- 1
Smoggy Senators Protest EPA Plan To Save Thousands Of Children’s Lives
Smoggy Senators Protest EPA Plan To Save Thousands Of Children’s Lives
In a startling act of fealty to polluter interests, several senators are fighting scientifically guided smog limits that would save thousands of lives a year. Under the guidance of administrator Lisa Jackson, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working to clean up one of George W. Bush’s most blatant acts of ignoring science and disregarding the law, when he personally overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee for an ozone limit no higher than 70 ppb, setting instead an arbitrary and capricious standard of 75 ppb. Jackson intends to instead follow the law by setting a 60-70 ppb standard. However, a group of Democratic and Republican senators led by retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) are trying to http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=32172&message=1preserve Bush’s toxic legacy on behalf of the coal and oil industries in their states, complaining to Jackson that her plan “will have a significant negative impact on our states’ workers and families”:
We believe that changing the rules at this time will have a significant negative impact on our states’ workers and families and will compound the hardship that many are now facing in these difficult economic times.
The pro-smog letter was also signed by Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Kit Bond (R-MO) and David Vitter (R-LA).
Remarkably, the senators do not seem cognizant of Bush’s well-reported act of malfeasance, complaining that “the Agency has not presented new data or evidence to justify its course of action”:
Instead, outside of the regular five-year review process, EPA is choosing to interpret the same basic body of information that existed in 2008 and reach a different conclusion. . .
Given the absence of new or different scientific data, EPA should maintain the current ozone standards, which EPA finalized only two years ago and concluded were adequately protective of public health and welfare with an adequate of safety [sic].
Actually the conclusion EPA staff and scientists drew in 2008, based on the scientific evidence that “ozone has a direct impact on rates of heart and respiratory disease and resulting premature deaths,” was that a standard no higher than 70 ppb was needed. The agency calculated that a standard of 65 ppb “would avoid 3,000 to 9,200 deaths annually,” two to three times more than a 75 ppb standard. The difference is that George W. Bush is no longer the decider.
The senators also claim that the previous smog standards harmed the economy:
We note that many states are only recently coming into attainment with the 1997, 0.084 ppm ozone standard. Attaining that standard required costly mandates on businesses, which greatly restricted the ability of local communities to grow their economies. . .
While we believe we can and should continue to improve our environment, we have become increasingly concerned that the Agency’s environmental policies are being advanced to the detriment of the people they are intended to protect. That is, these policies are impacting our standard of living by drastically increasing energy costs and decreasing the ability of our states to create jobs, foster entrepreneurship, and give manufacturers the ability to compete in the global marketplace.
The claim that attainment with the 1997 standard “greatly restricted the ability of local communities to grow their economies” is without evidence. In fact, the only noticeable effect of the 1997 standards on the economy was to dramatically cut the regulated pollution, making millions of children healthier, even as the economy steadily grew, as this EPA chart shows:
Finally, the senators claim — again without evidence — that “non-attainment” penalties under the Clean Air Act “undermine the economic viability of communities within our states.” In fact, “there is no clear evidence that non-attainment designations or progress in addressing air quality prevent areas from growing,” EPA officials informed the Wonk Room. Areas such as Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and many others have been non-attainment for years and have had very strong growth rates. The EPA tells the Wonk Room:
We see no significant differences in the trend of employment, wages and number of establishments between attainment and non-attainment areas.
There is clear evidence, however, that this effort to ensure that more children have asthma attacks comes on behalf of coal and oil corporations in the senators’ states. Peabody Energy, the “world’s leading coal company,” is based in Missouri and has mines in Indiana, and is a top campaign contributor to McCaskill, Bond, Lugar and Bayh. Murray Energy, the “largest privately owned coal company in America,” is based in Voinovich’s state. Landrieu and Vitter have collected a combined $1.5 million from the pollution industry, whose refineries and power plants keep killing children and keep sending these senators back to Washington.
Rubio Claims It’s ‘A Misnomer’ To Say He Wants To Preserve The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich
Rubio Claims It’s ‘A Misnomer’ To Say He Wants To Preserve The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich
Republicans have been defending their desire to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy — which the Obama administration would like to see expire at the end of the year — by falsely claiming that they will affect a multitude of small businesses. Florida’s Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio is willing to take this concocted version of reality so far as to claim that it’s actually a “misnomer” to call them tax cuts for the wealthy at all:
RUBIO: There is a misnomer, it’s not the very wealthiest Americans.
Q: Top two percent.
RUBIO: No, but listen, there’s a bunch of businesses in America that pay their taxes on the personal level.
Q: Two percent of small businesses operators…
RUBIO: No, 20 million Americans work for companies who are organized as S-corporations whose taxes will go up if the Democrat [sic] plan passes.
Watch it:
The anchor conducting the interview was absolutely right on both counts: allowing the top two income tax brackets to rest back to the levels at which they were under President Clinton would affect about two percent of American households and fewer than two percent of small businesses. In fact, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, about three percent of people with any business income at all — from a business large or small — would see their taxes increase under Obama’s plan.
Rubio attempts to cloud the water by pointing to S-corporations, which are companies that typically don’t pay federal corporate income taxes, but pass their earnings on to people who then file personal income taxes. However, as Dylan Matthews noted, the vast majority of those reporting S-corporation income that would be affected by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts are super-rich:
Only 34 percent of those making between $200-500,000 report making income from partnerships or S corporation, while 60.4 percent of those between $500,000 and $1 million, 78.4 percent of those making between $2-5 million, and 89.2 percent of those making over $10 million do. Given that the vast majority of high income filers–79.4 percent– make between $200-500,000, this suggests that the filers reporting small business income who would be affected by letting the tax cuts expire come disproportionately from the ranks of the super-rich.
The average annual income of those affected by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich is $800,000. And even if these rates are bumped up, due to the lower marginal rates on the lower- and middle-class that Obama would like to keep, “taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001.”
Plus, this whole debate is occurring at a time when fully one quarter of the total income in the country is being made by the richest one percent of households. And that is no misnomer.
Insurers Lobbying To Weaken Regulations, Despite Record Profits
Insurers Lobbying To Weaken Regulations, Despite Record Profits
Over the last several months, I’ve noted that even while the economy is in recession and a growing number of Americans are going without health insurance coverage, the big health insurers are posting higher profits. Americans are actually using less care — filing fewer claims — but still paying more in premiums.
Wellpoint, the nation’s largest insurer by membership, “reported a 4% increase in profit for the second quarter that helped generate earnings of $1.6 billion since the beginning of the year – a 26% increase over the same period in 2009,″ and Aetna said its “second-quarter profits rose 42 percent, with a net income of $491 million, compared with $346.6 million for the same quarter last year.” Earlier this week, HCAN released a report which found that CEOs from the 10 largest for-profit health insurance companies “collected pay of $228.1 million, up from $85.5 million in 2008.” Collectively, that’s a “167 percent raise,” while “Americans saw their averages wages increase by about 2 percent.”
Insurers are spending less on health care and seeing higher profits:
Despite these riches, the industry is still lobbying regulators to soften the medical loss ratio reporting requirements and other mandates that are part of health care law. For instance, the Hill’s Healthwatch reports that lobbyists are using the August recess to lobby lawmakers “for greater flexibility” to avoid the stringent grandfathering regulations that exempt certain plans from reform’s new consumer protections. They’re pressing for rules that would allow the insurance industry to reclassify administrative expenses as medical spending and are now wrangling with regulators over “which tax payments can be deducted” from the revenue part of the medical loss ratio.
Insurers are spending millions in premium dollars to lobby for regulations that would protect their profits and argue that they could be subject to future economic woes. But the industry’s financial prowess (their incredible profits) implies that issuers can withstand fairly stringent medical loss ratio reporting requirements and afford to charge smaller premiums. That’s something regulators should remember as they’re being lobbied by insurers.
One Year Extension Of The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Costs $36 Billion, Benefits 2 Percent Of Americans
One Year Extension Of The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Costs $36 Billion, Benefits 2 Percent Of Americans
This week, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation released an analysis of what would happen to the tax code if the Republican proposal to extend all of the Bush tax cuts were adopted. The tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, and the Obama administration has proposed renewing only those for the lower- and middle-class.
“You will find Republicans resisting very strongly any bill that allows taxes to be raised on any segment of Americans today,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), while Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has said the House GOP will throw “everything we’ve got” into preserving the tax cuts for the wealthy. And too many Democrats — like Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) — have been cowed into expressing a willingness to extend the tax cuts temporarily for a year or two.
According to the JCT analysis, extending the cuts for the wealthy — which affect two percent of the population — for just one year will cost $36 billion. Obama’s plan, meanwhile, really focuses the tax increase at the very top of the income scale:
The biggest burden would fall on the 608,000 taxpayers who make between $500,000 and $1 million and the 315,000 who earn more than $1 million; the first group would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000, and the second group would owe $31 billion more, or almost $100,000 on average, the analysis said.
That may seem like a lot, but even under Obama’s plan, the very rich will be paying less in taxes than they did in 2001, since they would be paying a lower marginal rate on their first $250,000 in income. As the New York Times noted, “taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001.” For those earning between $250,000 and $500,000, meanwhile, the increase is “relatively low,” said Roberton Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute. “It’s less than 1 percent.”
So Obama’s plan has taxpayers still paying less than they were at the beginning of the decade, while adding $36 billion less to the deficit than the GOP’s preferred policy outcome. As Michael Tomasky put it, the Republican plan is simply “another stroll down the supply-side hall of mirrors”:
For the Republicans, now that we’re talking about tax cuts for the wealthy, that isn’t enough, the deficit must be made even worse! … This is their agenda. If it’s for millionaires, it’s good. Period. It’s never been quite this naked, but there it is.
It’s worth remembering that income inequality is currently the worst it has been since the 1920s. The richest 1 percent of households now receive nearly 25 percent of the country’s income, after earning less than 10 percent in the 1970s.
Anti-Gay Conservatives Call For Gay Judges To Recuse Themselves From Marriage Cases
Anti-Gay Conservatives Call For Gay Judges To Recuse Themselves From Marriage Cases
Prop. 8 Judge Vaughn Walker
As California awaits Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision whether to indefinitely stay his opinion striking down Proposition 8, anti-gay groups are already clamouring for a do-over. In an op-ed echoing a claim by various right-wing hate groups, anti-gay law professor John Eastman claims that Judge Walker’s decision must be tossed out because of widely shared rumors that Walker is gay:
If Judge Walker is indeed in a long-term, same-sex relationship, he certainly has an “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding” – he and his partner are now permitted to marry! – and that, according to Judge Walker’s own finding, has financial benefits as well. Such conflicts would have required recusal, and cannot be waived by the parties.
If the relationship does not create such a conflict, it nevertheless creates the circumstance “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That ground for disqualification can be waived by the parties, but the judge must “disclose on the record the basis of the disqualification” and then only continue after the parties have agreed in writing to his continued involvement. No such disclosure and agreement occurred in this case.
Judge Walker’s failure to disqualify himself or at least to disclose his potentially disqualifying relationship to the parties requires that the opinion in the case be vacated and a new trial conducted before a different judge.
Eastman, however, not only misstates the law, he aligns himself with some of the most hateful arguments of the post-Jim Crow era. As Professor Sherrilyn Ifill explains, Jim Crow supporters such as the Ku Klux Klan repeatedly argued that black judges must recuse themselves from racial justice cases, and their arguments were repeatedly struck down.
In perhaps the most famous of these cases, lawyers representing the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell requested that federal district judge Constance Baker Motley recuse herself from hearing a case brought by women lawyers at the firm who charged discrimination in hiring and promotion. . . . Motley refused to withdraw from presiding over the case, offering the now classic explanation that “if background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex, often with distinguished law firm or public service backgrounds.”
A year earlier, federal district judge A. Leon Higginbotham (also now deceased) refused to recuse himself from a case adjudicating the claims of African-American union members who charged that a local contractors’ union discriminated against them. . . . Judge Higginbotham argued that “[white] litigants are going to have to accept the new day where the judiciary will not be entirely white and where some black judges will adjudicate cases involving race relations.” From Texas to Illinois, other black federal judges fought off similar motions filed by defendants in civil rights cases, including one in which lawyers for the Ku Klux Klan sought to remove Judge Gabrielle McDonald from hearing a case on the grounds that she was “prejudiced against the Ku Klux Klan.”
Eastman attempts to deflect these precedents by claiming that Walker does not need to recuse himself because he is gay, but simply because he might someday wish to marry a man. This argument, however, proves way too much. Justice Clarence Thomas, who is openly black, may wish to stay in a hotel some day, but he is not required to recuse himself from cases challenging the ban on discrimination in public accommodations.
Moreover, the anti-gay right’s own arguments against marriage equality defeat their case against Walker’s recusal. If anti-gay bigots are correct that same-sex marriage weakens opposite-sex marriages, then any married judge would be required to recuse themselves, or at least make a formal disclosure of their marriage, because they would have a personal stake in preventing their own divorce.
George Will’s Churchill Problem, And Ours
George Will’s Churchill Problem, And Ours
Whenever conservative pundits start mooning over Winston Churchill, which is often, it’s a good bet that they’re getting ready to insist that America must “get serious” about something or other, “getting serious” usually translating as “blow something up.” So it is with George F. Will, whose piece today is the latest entry in the “Obama must get tough on Iran” campaign that went into high gear with the release of Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic article.
Granted an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Will notes that Netanyahu keeps a photograph of Winston Churchill in his office. Will thinks this is very significant:
Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.
Will doesn’t bother to explain what these “facts” about Iran actually are, but that’s not the point. The point is that Netanyahu doesn’t flinch! Even when refusing to honor Israel’s past commitments to the United States, something that really bothers conservatives when other countries do it. But, apparently for Will, scoring points on President Obama with the most overused and uncreative historical analogy in the canon is more important than protecting American credibility against recalcitrant client states.
As for the right’s ongoing love affair with Churchill, you’ll excuse me for quoting from a May 2008 piece in which I noted that, for conservative ideology to function properly, “it must always be 1938, the storm must always be gathering. There must always be new Hitlers to confront”:
But what if we discarded the facile conservative equation of “national security” with “the willingness to use force,” understanding that real national security involves having the judgment to know when and how to use force productively? Let’s grant for the moment President Bush’s contention that Iran is the new Nazi Germany. Given the fact that the policies of George Bush have done so much to empower the Nazis in Europe … oops, I mean Iran in the Middle East, it’s clear that in this interpretation, the role of Neville Chamberlain is played by George Bush. [...]
Bush and his allies presented the invasion of Iraq as the act of a Churchill, a bold and heroic (so heroic!) thrust at the heart of tyranny. Five years later, a strong consensus regards the Iraq invasion as a feckless and impetuous blunder based on a serious misapprehension of the region and a total lack of appreciation of the potential consequences. It was the act of a Chamberlain.
Just as Churchill had to deal with the consequences of Chamberlain’s misjudgment of the historical moment, so Obama continues to wrestle with problems created and exacerbated by the incompetence of his predecessor, George W. Bush. It is no small irony that Bush and his bungling enablers imagined themselves to be Churchill’s heirs.
Hopefully, Obama will have the wisdom to ignore such facile comparisons as Will’s, which are intended to pressure him into a more belligerent posture toward Iran — a posture from which his critics, of course, intend to make it impossible for him to climb down. At the very least, though, isn’t it time to find some other historical figures to lazily misapply to current debates (I’m sure Victor Davis Hanson could be a huge help here), and give poor Winston a rest?
Finally, a note: In place of Churchill’s bust, the Oval Office now has Martin Luther King, Jr’s. Will should consider whether that’s a trade that bothers him, and why.
Qualified Soldiers Discharged, Despite Coming End Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Qualified Soldiers Discharged, Despite Coming End Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Last night, Rachel Maddow dedicated the better part of her program to three servicemembers who are leaving the military because of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which prohibits gays and lesbian from serving openly in the armed forces. Despite the pending legislation to begin the process of repealing the ban and Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ new “more humane” standards for discharging gay servicemembers, highly trained and decorated soldiers are still being pushed out of the service because of their sexual orientation.
Capt. Jonathan Hopkins — a graduate of West Point and a veteran of three combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan — was discharged on Tuesday after being outed for being gay. Cadet Katherine Miller is voluntarily resigning from West Point, because she can no longer put “the personal aspects” of her identity “on the back seat.” And Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach — a 19 year veteran of the Air Force, who has been cited by his fellow service members for raising morale — is now suing the federal government to stop his imminent discharge and force the military to apply the new discharge guidelines and the Ninth Circuit’s Witt standard to DADT cases. If they don’t, qualified members will continue to leave the institution:
CAPT. JONATHAN HOPKINS: “My battalion commander brought me in, it was the same day that I was announced that I was on promotion for — to ‘major’ a year early, which only a small minority of the Army receives. At the same time, he said, but also you`re under investigation for being gay. It`s really kind of exemplifies the paradox here that some of the people the Army judges to be among the best also might be taken out by this policy that isn`t based on your performance but instead on how you were born.”
CADET KATHERINE MILLER: “I knew that I really wanted to go to West Point and I really wanted to serve my country.
And I was able to put my – personal aspects of my identity in the backseat….But being re-closeted has been a much bigger challenge than I ever anticipated. It`s taken a much bigger toll socially, mentally, emotionally than I could have imagined.”LT. COL. VICTOR FEHRENBACH: “And when the secretary announced these new standards in March, he said that they did apply to open cases, and my case is still open to this date. And those — each one of those factors that he announced applies to my case. And if they don`t apply to my case, then, Rachel, they don`t — they don`t apply to any case.”
Watch a compilation:
In the Witt case, the court reviewed the constitutionality of DADT in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas and found that for soldiers like Fehrenbach, who are discharged within the geographical confines of the Ninth Circuit, the military must “demonstrate that the individual ‘undermined good order and discipline’ in his or her unit and that “the only way to preserve good order and discipline” would be to discharge the soldier. The Pentagon still refuses to apply the Witt standard or the new “more humane” policy to Fehrenbach’s discharge.
And while the only way to permanently change the law is through Congressional action, Fehrenbach believes that President Obama could do more to stop the discharges of gay soldiers. As he notes above, Obama could issue an executive order, declare a “stop-loss,” or create very high requirements for enforcement. “He looked me right in the eye, and he said, ‘We`re going to get this done,’ Fehrenbach recalled. In March of 2008, Obama also told the Advocate Magazine, “We’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe.” In November of 2009, he added, “We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country. We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage … especially when we are fighting two wars.”
Perhaps keeping those commitments in mind, Fehrenbach told Maddow, “We definitely need the president to step forward and to lead this fight to end this discrimination, this unconstitutional law.”
The Chamber Of Commerce Speaks Up On Immigration
The Chamber Of Commerce Speaks Up On Immigration
Over the past year, the Chamber of Commerce has been pretty silent in the immigration debate. Most notably, the powerful business group was absent from the coalition of Latino, labor, faith, and advocacy groups that fought an uphill battle this year under the umbrella of the Reform Immigration for America campaign to get comprehensive immigration reform on the table in 2010. However, this week the Chamber spoke out on two issues: the $600 million border bill and high-skilled immigrant labor.
Yesterday, officials from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council on International Personnel blasted the recently approved $600 million border bill that would be paid for by an increase the work-visa fees foreign companies must pay if they have more than 50 employees in their U.S. operations and hire more than half their workforce using H-1B or L-1 visas. The Chamber’s senior vice president for labor, Randel Johnson, called the provision “an easy political shot.” Ron Somers, president of the U.S.-India Business Council, was similarly inflamed. “We urge the Congress and the Obama administration to amend this new funding method for border security and any policies that would harm America’s economic interest and undermine the burgeoning economic, trade and strategic relationship with India,” stated Somers.
Looking to the future, the Chamber also released a report yesterday calling on Congress to reform the H1-B high-skilled labor visa system to “let business and economic needs determine the composition of an employer’s workforce, not an arbitrary quota, lottery or commission.” The Chamber argues, “the best policy would ease the way for employers to sponsor high skilled individuals for green cards by exempting from labor certification and current employment- based immigrant quotas many who now languish in 6 to 20 year queues.” The Chambers calls for “let[ting] market decide on the number of new skilled foreign nationals who work in America each year” and sharply criticizes the position of labor groups which believe an independent commission of experts, modeled after the International Trade Commission, should regularly recommend and update visa quotas in response to the nation’s economic and labor needs.
Ultimately, labor groups understandably oppose “letting the market decide” because experience has shown that often boils down to what making businesses more profitable — which isn’t necessarily synonymous with what’s good for American workers. They claim “broader decisions about immigration policy should not be delegated to employers, who cannot be relied upon to protect the best interests of workers or the nation” and that a labor commission would take a more holistic approach, examining “the impact of immigration on the economy, wages, the workforce and business.” The idea of an independent commission has been endorsed by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Migration Policy Institute, which argues that “managing immigration in the national interest requires a[n]…institutional capacity to monitor and analyze information as the basis for making changes.”
However, labor and business appear to agree on one thing: on its own, the $600 million border bill won’t solve any of these issues and will do little to fix the nation’s broken immigration system.
Beck Attacks CAP For Proposing Small Education Cuts, But Wants To ‘Get Rid Of’ The Entire Education Department
Beck Attacks CAP For Proposing Small Education Cuts, But Wants To ‘Get Rid Of’ The Entire Education Department
Yesterday, Fox News’ Glenn Beck seemingly stumbled upon a Center for American Progress report from April that recommends programs that can be cut or reformed within the Department of Education in order to save taxpayers money and ensure that tax dollars are used in a way that can benefit the most students in the most efficient way possible. Considering that Beck fancies himself a crusader against wasteful government spending, you’d think this is the kind of effort he’d endorse.
But no. Instead, Beck went on a tirade, ludicrously claiming that CAP is advocating we “just get rid of American history, the Constitution, and education on finance”:
This is great. George Soros, his think tank that runs the entire country now, the Center for American Progress. They have something called Education Transformation: Doing What Works in Education Reform. We have to watch what we’re spending, I think we all agree on that right? We all have to look at what we’re spending. Here’s what’s in the report. Programs recommended for elimination. Small, niche programs, low-impact programs such as The Academies for American History and Civics, which provide workshops on American history. That must go.
And We the People, this little niche program is an earmark grant to the Center for Civic Education to instruct students on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why would we need that “niche program”? And Excellence in Economic Education, which teaches financial literacy. Wow. So if we can just get rid of American history, the Constitution, and education on finance we’d be fixed.
Watch it:
This is pretty rich coming from a guy who has advocated eliminating the entire Department of Education, including all of the programs he’s now saying are vital. “All right, today, we’ve decided we’re going to get rid of the Department of Education. I don’t know why this is such a ridiculous idea,” Beck said on April 14, the same month the CAP report came out. “It would save us $100 billion.”
Meanwhile, the recommendations for program elimination had nothing to do with the subject matter of the program, but with the fact that they’re small, not streamlined with the rest of the Education Department, and are not achieving their goals. For instance, the Academies for American History and Civics is a $1.8 million program (yes, $1.8 million in a $3.6 trillion federal budget) “with no supporting evaluation or performance reports. The teacher workshops are not coordinated with ESEA Title II professional development programs…or based on the needs of states and localities.”
Education spending makes up three percent of the federal budget and just nine percent of spending on education in the country, with the rest coming from the states. To think that cutting a single $1.8 million program that doesn’t work means we “get rid of American history” is simply absurd. Every student will still be going to history and civics class tomorrow if this program disappears today.
Furthermore, the Obama administration, in it’s 2010 education budget, has $40 million for programs on teaching American history, and another $119 million for programs on teaching economics. Did Beck deign to mention these? Of course not. But none of them would exist if his plan to abolish the entire Education Department were adopted.
The CAP report also recommended cutting the “Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners” program. We’re looking forward to Beck’s staunch defense of that today.
Big Oil’s Long History Of Compromising National Security For Profit
Big Oil’s Long History Of Compromising National Security For Profit
Our guest blogger is Rebecca Lefton, of CAP’s Progressive Media.
Months after the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, BP is delaying deepwater drilling off the coast of Libya and exploratory drilling off of the Scottish Shetland islands. The delays also reflect the political pressure BP faces because of its lobbying efforts “over the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya that led to the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.” Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is planning to send members to the UK and Scotland to question witnesses on the role of BP in the release of the Lockerbie bomber. This development follows the postponement of a Senate Foreign Relations hearing because the witnesses declined to show.
As we recently reported, 2010 lobbying disclosures reveal that Big Oil is influencing foreign policy by lobbying on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act as it is debated in the Senate. But this is not anything new. The oil industry and related trade associations have been lobbying to secure their bottom lines by risking our national safety for decades, including advocating for the removal of sanctions against oil-rich countries Iran and Libya.
Big Oil Fights Libyan Sanctions
The U.S. imposed unilateral sanctions in 1986 that froze Libyan assets, and banned all trade and financial dealings with the country. Following the Lockerbie bombing in December 1988 when a Libyan bomb exploded Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York killing 270 people, Congress passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 1996. The act was intended to limit the flow of revenues that could be used to finance terrorist actions or obtain weapons of mass destruction, and to put pressure on Libya to comply with UN resolutions that included extraditing for trial those involved with the Lockerbie bombing.
Dick Cheney, then a former secretary of defense, worked hand in hand with oil companies to pursue the removal of sanctions against Iran and Libya, which they argued hurt business. In June, 1998, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, said in a speech at the Cato Institute:
Our government has become sanctions-happy.
Working closely with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and front group USA* Engage, Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Burma, Nigeria, India and Pakistan during his tenure at Halliburton which lasted from 1995 to 2000 before joining the White House as George W. Bush’s vice president.
USA*Engage, Halliburton, and Conoco
USA*Engage is a coalition front group opposing unilateral sanctions made up of more than 400 — and at that point more than 670 — companies, trade associations and other organizations from all sectors of the U.S. economy. Halliburton was a principal member of USA*Engage, whose members also included oil giants Conoco, Mobil, and Texaco. USA*Engage and Halliburton shared lobbyist Don Deline, vice president for government affairs at Halliburton. Deline served as Chair of USA*Engage from 2000 until June 2003 when he was replaced by Robert W. Haines, then Manager of International Relations for Exxon Mobil.
Conoco has been a strong supporter of USA*Engage, and is also a member of the Iranian Trade Association, an organization formed in 1997 opposing U.S. sanctions against Iran. According to The New York Times, Conoco “led the effort to repeal the Iran-Libyan Sanctions Act, which prohibits American companies from investing in those countries, paving the way for European and Asian oil conglomerates to develop some of the best oil and gas fields in the world.” The Times points out that Conoco had a long history of doing business in Libya, pumping 500,000 barrels of oil a day for 47 years until sanctions were imposed under Reagan in 1986. The company’s strategy also looked to Iran for its offshore gas deposits.
Dick Cheney’s Secret Energy Task Force
As one of his first acts in office, President Bush appointed Cheney to take the lead in crafting a new energy policy for the United States. Cheney created a secret energy task force that was strongly represented by the oil industry and its trade association representatives, including BP, Shell, Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Archie Dunham, then CEO of Conoco and board member of API, met with Cheney on March 21, 2001 while the energy task force was crafting its report.
An April draft of the energy task force report included language that would lift sanctions against Iraq, Iran, and Libya to advance “energy security” through increased production of oil resources in these countries. The final National Energy Policy Report did not refer specifically to these three countries. However, it did include a recommendation that the President direct the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce to review and reform sanctions factoring in “energy security.” API said it was disappointed the report did not specifically recommend easing sanctions against Iran and Libya. Nonetheless, the report reflected the influence of the oil industry-based task force with its emphasis on “energy security” — that is, access to international oil and gas resources in unstable regions — stating:
Energy security must be a priority of U.S. trade and foreign policy.
At the same time, Congress was in a heated debate about whether or not to renew ILSA for five more years, which was being fueled by the oil industry’s push to block its reauthorization. Dunham was a witness before Congress in May, 2001 opposing the extension of ILSA. As the sunset period for ILSA approached, Bush was walking a fine line over the White House’s position on the sanctions, in part because Bush did not “want to look like a puppet of Big Oil” but oil companies would become enraged if the administration were to support renewal. In a seeming compromise, the Bush administration pushed Congress to limit the extension to only two years instead of five, “once the administration completes reviews of Iran policy and the overall use of sanctions.” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who introduced the bill to renew the law, said:
I hope that the president hears our message and puts to rest the idea that ILSA might expire or be weakened because ILSA has been one of the best weapons our country has had in our war against terrorism, because it’s aimed at cutting off the flow of money that terrorist groups depend on to fund their attacks and operations.
Despite Cheney’s efforts on behalf of Big Oil, that August Congress voted overwhelmingly to extend the sanctions for another five years.
The timeline below is a glimpse of the engagement of Big Oil in the national security dialogue and the role of key players like former Vice President Dick Cheney in influencing the debate: More »
The WonkLine: August 12, 2010
The WonkLine: August 12, 2010
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 9:30 a.m. roundup of the latest news about health care, the economy, national security, immigration and climate policy. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below. You can also follow The Wonk Room on Twitter.
Economy
“In an acknowledgment that the foreclosure crisis is far from over, the Obama administration on Wednesday pumped $3 billion into programs intended to stop the unemployed from losing their homes,” the New York Times reports.
“The U.S. ran a surprisingly large trade deficit in June” — the largest since the financial crisis hit in 2008 — “raising concerns that the economic recovery is losing steam faster than previously thought.”
According to the latest available Census data, Social Security is keeping nearly 20 million Americans out of poverty.
Immigration
The Immigration Policy Center points out that a study showing that one in 12 babies born in the U.S. in 2008 were offspring of undocumented immigrants is misleading.
Due to the state’s crackdown on illegal immigration, there has been a sharp and notable decrease in day laborers seeking work in Arizona.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is getting blasted by the GOP for saying, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.”
Environment
“Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic face millions of dollars of damage” after flood waters carved “a swath of destruction” and “have killed at least 11 people in central Europe and damaged hundreds of homes and businesses,” while “overnight thunderstorms brought new misery to a remote area of northwestern China as the death toll from weekend flooding and massive landslides rose to 1,117.”
“Pakistani flood survivors already short on food and water began the fasting month of Ramadan on Thursday” as “one fifth of the nation is underwater,” and for “many in the Middle East, the dawn-to-dusk fast poses a particular challenge amid a sweltering heatwave.”
Health Care
“The Goldwater Institute said it will file a lawsuit challenging federal health care reform passed by Congress earlier this year. Goldwater attorney Clint Bolick will announce details of the suit Thursday in Phoenix.”
“Maine residents will now be able to go online to learn about the benefits of federal health care reform. The state launched a new website yesterday which offers a full outline of the Affordable Care Act as well as Maine’s plan for implementation. ”
“Health plans will lobby lawmakers and regulators over the August recess for greater flexibility to avoid some provisions of the healthcare reform law.”
CNN POLL: 52% Believe Gays And Lesbians Should Have Constitutional Right To Marry
CNN POLL: 52% Believe Gays And Lesbians Should Have Constitutional Right To Marry
A week after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, a new CNN Opinion Research Poll finds that while a majority of Americans don’t believe that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, most (52%) think that they should:
An increasing number of polls have shown that number of Americans who support marriage equality, know and respect gay people is rising and several surveys have found that were the vote held today, Californians would not have approved Proposition 8. In fact, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute survey, one-in-four Californians report that their views on rights for gay and lesbian people has become more supportive over the last five years — compared to only 8% who say they have become more opposed and a majority — and 51%, said they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
But of course as Walker argued in his Prop 8 ruling, since the Supreme Court has found marriage to be a “fundamental right,” it already exists (for all persons) within the constitution. The growing public acceptance of same-sex marriage, moreover, is significant, but not determinative. “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right,” he wrote. “To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as ‘the right to same-sex marriage’ would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”
“That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections,’” he added.
Climate Experts Agree: Global Warming Caused Russian Heat Wave
Climate Experts Agree: Global Warming Caused Russian Heat Wave
As Russia chokes from a heat wave of unprecedented ferocity, president Dmitry Medvedev has strengthened his call for the world’s leaders to take action to fight global warming pollution. The scientific community has warned for decades that burning coal and oil without limit would intensify heat waves, droughts, and floods. Now that the planet is at its hottest in recorded history, freak climate disasters are arriving with increasing frequency. Some scientists are now stating the obvious: Russia’s heat wave simply would not have happened without the influence of fossil fuel pollution on our atmosphere. University of Texas climate scientist Michael Tobis is “hazarding a guess” that “the Russian heat wave of 2010 is the first disaster unequivocally attributable to anthropogenic climate change”:
But right now I feel like hazarding a guess. As far as I understand, nothing like this has happened before in Moscow. . . . The formerly remarkable heat wave of 2001, then, is “the sort of thing we’ll see more of” with global warming. But it may turn out reasonable, in the end, to say “the Russian heat wave of 2010 is the first disaster unequivocally attributable to anthropogenic climate change.”
Meteorologist Rob Carver, the Research and Development Scientist for Weather Underground, agrees. Using a statistical analysis of historical temperature records, Dr. Carver estimates that the likelihood of Moscow’s 100-degree record on July 29 is on the order of once per thousand years, or even less than once every 15,000 years — in other words, a vanishingly small probability. However, those tiny odds are based on the assumption that the long-term climate is stable, an assumption that is no longer true.
Like Dr. Tobis, Carver believes that manmade global warming has fundamentally altered weather patterns to produce the killer Russian heat wave. “Without contributions from anthropogenic climate change,” Carver said in an email interview with the Wonk Room, “I don’t think this event would have reached such extremes or even happened at all”:
I agree with Michael Tobis’s take at Only In It For the Gold that something systematic has changed to alter the global circulation and you’ll need a coupled atmosphere/ocean global model to understand what’s going on. My hunch is that a warming Arctic combined with sea-surface-temperature teleconnections altered the global circulation such that a blocking ridge formed over western Russia leading to the unprecedented drought/heat wave conditions. Without contributions from anthropogenic climate change, I don’t think this event would have reached such extremes or even happened at all. (You may quote me on that.)
Just as the Russian heat wave is fueled by global warming, so is the rest of the world’s killer climate. World-renowned climatologist Kevin Trenberth explained in an interview with Wired’s Brandon Keim that the Eurasian heat wave is part of the even larger circulation pattern that has produced the catastrophic southeast Asia monsoon:
The two things are connected on a very large scale, through what we call an overturning or monsoonal circulation. There is a monsoon where upwards motion is being fed by the very moist air that’s going onshore, and there are exceptionally heavy rains. That drives rising air. That air has to come down somewhere. Some of it comes down over the north.
Dr. Rob Carver’s analysis of the statistical likelihood of the Moscow heatwave: More »
Perry Calls Congress’ Insistence That He Spend Federal Education Money On Education An ‘Injustice’
Perry Calls Congress’ Insistence That He Spend Federal Education Money On Education An ‘Injustice’
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) made a big show a few months ago of refusing to apply for the Obama administration’s Race to the Top Program, which provides competitive grants to states for implementing education reforms. Perry falsely claimed that it was some sort of nationalization of the education system, saying “this administration’s attempt to bait states into adopting national standards is an effort to undermine states’ authority to determine how their students are educated.”
Since then, however, Perry has made it very clear that he’s happy to accept federal education funding, so long as he can use it however he likes. Case in point, the state aid bill that passed yesterday includes $10 billion in money to prevent teacher layoffs — including $800 million for Texas — but comes with the stipulation that Texas must commit to maintaining its current level of education funding in order to qualify for the additional money.
The reason for making the grant conditional was good, as Texas pocketed the education money that it received from the Recovery Act (i.e. the stimulus package), but then cut its education budget by the same amount and put the money into a Rainy Day Fund, so there was no additional money for schools. “We didn’t send that federal aid for education to Texas to plug a mismanaged state budget. We sent it to help our schoolchildren,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX).
Perry, however, is not taking the conditions imposed very well:
It is unfortunate that Washington continues to play partisan games with Texans’ tax dollars and the very future of our children. Texas will not surrender to Washington’s one-size-fits-all, deficit-spending mindset or let Washington do to the Texas budget what they have done to the federal budget. We’ll continue to work with state leaders, including the attorney general, to fight this injustice.
So Perry is going to fight Washington’s “deficit-spending mindset” by advocating that Washington give money to the states with no regard for how it’s going to be used?
Leaving aside the legal arguments, Perry’s essentially saying that he should be given a slush fund from the federal government, and that Congress should allow money meant to save nearly 13,400 jobs in the Texas education system to be shuffled around to wherever he deems appropriate. In a signal of how fed up the Texas education establishment is with Perry, the conditions placed on the money were “endorsed by the Texas Association of School Boards and other statewide educator groups.”
When he initially made hay of rejecting stimulus money for extended unemployment benefits, Perry said, “we can take care of ourselves. And we do not need any more strings from Washington attached to programs.” I think we can now safely interpret that as meaning he wants the money, but to use however he’d like.
Center For Military Readiness Suggests Its Own DADT Poll May Be Biased
Center For Military Readiness Suggests Its Own DADT Poll May Be Biased
The Center For Military Readiness (CMR) has released a survey on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that contradicts the existing data on whether or not Americans support repealing the ban against gays and lesbians in the military. In contrast to other polls which have found that some 78% of voters think openly gay or homosexual should “be allowed to serve,” this poll concluded that “the largest group of respondents – 48 percent – opposes repealing the 1993 law. Forty-five percent favored repealing Don’t Ask.” Here are its main findings:
- When two statements from the 1993 law were presented verbatim, 92% agreed – including 77% strongly – that “the primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.”
- A plurality of voters wanted Congress to give deference to the four chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
- Likely voters opposed the imposition of career penalties on military personnel and chaplains who do not support homosexuality in the military.
This afternoon, I asked Tommy Sears, executive director of CMR about why his results were so different from other, more mainstream findings. Our 15 minute conversation only reaffirmed the notion that the poll was results determinative, designed to confuse Senators about the state of public opinion as they prepare to vote for the Defense Authorization bill.
For instance, Sears admitted that the group chose to frame the question about support for DADT in terms of the status quo (i.e. do you support changing the policy vs. are you okay with gays serving openly in the military) to counter what he described as “a pre-orchestrated campaign on the part of advocacy groups and media outlets over the last 17 years.” Sears argued that these groups have successfully confused voters, so that “people probably have been working under the assumption that homosexuals are eligible for the military and they are not.” Working to unravel these assumptions, the group asked voters if they would support changing the existing policy (seemingly) after the questions about the “primary purpose of the armed force,” penalties for those who disagree, and issue priority, thus creating an order bias against ending the ban and suggesting that the status quo would advance the needs of the institution.
“I think the questions are pretty straight forward and speak for themselves,” Sears said repeatedly when I asked him about obvious bias in the “deference” towards the military question. The group gave voters two options for who Congress should listen to when considering repealing DADT: 1) “advocates who want to overturn the law and to require the armed forces to accept professed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in the military” and 2) “to the four chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, who have expressed concerns about overturning the current law.” But as Sears himself explained, to the unsuspecting voter, the “four chiefs” detail is too nuanced (option 1 also ignores the fact that gays and lesbians are already serving in the ranks and that the regulations surrounding transgender people would reamin in place). The real choice is between “whether gay activists should be the deciding factor or military leadership.” This way, the survey purposely omits the fact that prominent military leaders — like Secretary of State Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen — favor repealing the ban and presents the military as monolithically supportive of the status quo. “There is a difference of opinion among the military leadership at this time, certainly between Admiral Mullen and the Chiefs, I certainly concede that,” he told me.
Still, the most troubling result found that “52% majority of respondents opposed career penalties that would discriminate against persons who do not support homosexuality in the military.” This question seemed particularly manipulative, since the idea of punishing individuals who oppose gay people has been used as a straw man to generate fear among the electorate and lacked a rational basis. I asked Sears about the probability of instituting the policy. “I have as yet to hear anyone in the government state that position and we would certainly take a strong position against that as an organization,” he admitted. “But what’s being proposed by advocates of repeal is that sort of policy.”
Despite his concessions, Sears still stood by the impartiality of his survey. “We’re not leading people anywhere,” he told me. “The questions were specifically constructed out of language that is in the law and using the same language that advocates of repeal of the law have used in their own arguments and we got the results we got.”
What Would An Attack On Iran Really Achieve?
What Would An Attack On Iran Really Achieve?
Jeffrey Goldberg has a big new article in which he reports that, having “interviewed roughly 40 current and past Israeli decision makers about a military strike, as well as many American and Arab officials,” “a consensus emerged that there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July.”
In the article, Goldberg lists the likely consequences that would follow an Israeli strike, writing that such an attack stand[s] a good chance of changing the Middle East forever”:
- sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well;
- creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity;
- rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally;
- inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran;
- causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973;
- placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way;
- and accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.
All of this, Goldberg writes, “regardless of whether Israel succeeds.” So those are the downsides. (Actually, Goldberg forgot an important one: As Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and former IAEA chief Hans Blix have both pointed out, “if Iran were not determined before to go for nuclear weapons, any attack from the outside would lead them to such a determination.”)
On the upside, Goldberg writes, “If a strike does succeed in crippling the Iranian nuclear program… Israel, in addition to possibly generating some combination of the various catastrophes outlined above, will have removed from its list of existential worries the immediate specter of nuclear-weaponized, theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism.”
There’s quite a lot that’s wrong with this calculus. Numerous analysts doubt that Israel is capable of carrying out a successful strike. As Brookings’ Ken Pollack wrote in his 2004 book The Persian Puzzle, “Given the size of the various Iranian nuclear facilities, it would not be possible for Israel to destroy all of them in a single raid as it did Osiraq. Nor would it be politically, militarily, or logistically possible for Israel to sustain multiple such strikes over the many days, if not weeks, it would take for all its F-151s to accomplish the job.”
Likewise, a March 2009 study by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that, while an Israeli strike was possible, “the number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate.
Almost as troubling as considering the low likelihood of success/high likelihood of disaster of such a strike, however, is the manner in which Goldberg — in what seems like an effort to justify the strategic calculation — uncritically transmits a number of questionable claims about actual Iranian intentions toward Israel. Such as:
“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” [Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu] said. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.”
As I’ve written before, the idea that Iran is “a messianic apocalyptic cult” is simply unsupported by any serious examination of Iran’s past behavior. I would hope Netanyahu is smart enough to know this, (as I know for a fact a number of close advisers are). And while I’m not at all interested in parsing the numerous offensive, threatening statements about both Israel and Jews from Iran’s leaders over the years, I don’t see how the continuing existence of a 3000 year old Iranian Jewish community demonstrates the “eliminationist anti-Semitism” of the Iranian government.
It’s quite true that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran opens up a whole complex of problems, but the likelihood of an Iranian first strike, or of their handing off weapons (to which they’ve committed a huge amount of resources and endured considerable international opprobrium to develop) to terrorist proxies, is not high among them. Iran is not irrational, nor is it suicidal. So it’s disturbing to see Netanyahu peddling this stuff, and irresponsible for Goldberg to pass it along without scrutiny.
As a side note, given what Goldberg reports Israel is willing to endure — and, more importantly, willing to cause the U.S. to endure — compared to what Israel can realistically hope to achieve with a strike on Iran, it’s worth asking who is actually the more “irrational” actor here.
To state what should be pretty obvious, the article represents a new stage in an ongoing attempt to pressure President Obama into a more belligerent posture toward Iran, with the stated reasoning (no alternative view is entertained by Goldberg) that only by threatening war can Obama convince the Iranians that he’s “serious” about stopping their nuclear program and chill the Israelis out. It’s worth pointing out, though, that this approach clearly failed during the Bush administration — belligerence only seems to have convinced the Iranians that they needed to accelerate their program.
It’s also important to understand that, if Obama does succumb to this pressure and escalates his anti-Iranian rhetoric, the very same people who are now insisting that it’s the only way to avoid war with Iran will later insist that the preservation of American credibility requires going to war with Iran.
Texas State Rep. Debbie Riddle: ‘Anchor Babies’ Are ‘Little Terrorists’
Texas State Rep. Debbie Riddle: ‘Anchor Babies’ Are ‘Little Terrorists’
A few weeks ago, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told Fox Business News anchor Eric Bolling that about a “lady on the plane” who told him that her son-in-law was with Hamas and was planning on having a child in the U.S. that Gohmert thinks will likely come back to “blow us up.” Based on this conversation, Gohmert concluded that the U.S. should “clarify” the 14th amendment to prevent the children of immigrants from automatically becoming citizens upon birth in the U.S. Yesterday, Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle (R) echoed Gohmert’s argument on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Apparently, Riddle told Cooper’s producer that some of the U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants are “little terrorists, who will then come back to the U.S. and do us harm.” However, she couldn’t produce a shed of evidence:
COOPER: Representative Riddle, you told my producer that pregnant women are coming here as tourists, having babies, and then going back home — quote — “with the nefarious purpose of turning them into little terrorists, who will then come back to the U.S. and do us harm.” You said it’s part of an organized terrorist element and could cost us lives. Where did you hear that?
RIDDLE: That is information that is coming to my office from former FBI officials.
COOPER: What former FBI officials — I mean, what evidence is there of some sort of long-term plot to have American babies born here and then become terrorists — raised as terrorists overseas and then come back here? [...]
RIDDLE: Well, actually, I — when your folks called me in the preliminary, that was part of the conversation. They did not tell me that you were going to grill me for this specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight. They did not tell me that, sir.
Watch it:
Riddle’s colleague, Texas state Rep. Rafael Anchia (D) pointed out to Riddle that all the 9/11 bombers were all here legally and that the Times Square bomber was a naturalized citizen. Riddle also erroneously claimed that “There is not another country in the world where you or Representative Anchia or anyone else can go and be there illegally” — a statement which Anchia and Cooper both immediately dismissed.
Riddle also plans on introducing an Arizona copycat law in the Texas legislature, stating, “I am not put off by the threat of legal action against a bill here in Texas. If all attempts at the state level to protect our nation’s sovereignty are struck down by the courts, it will only serve to stoke the raging signal fire alerting Washington, D.C., to the fact that there is finally no one left to blame but themselves for the lack of law and order along our country’s borders.”
Pence Hides Behind His Constituents To Promote Tax Cuts For The Rich
Pence Hides Behind His Constituents To Promote Tax Cuts For The Rich
Last month, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said that the House GOP is going to throw “everything we’ve got” into ensuring that the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans don’t expire on schedule at the end of the year. President Obama and most Congressional Democrats have proposed allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire, while renewing them for the lower- and middle-class.
Last night, Pence granted an interview to CNBC’s supply-side guru Larry Kudlow, who asked if the GOP was gaining any traction in its push to spend $830 billion renewing tax cuts for those at the very top of the income scale. Rather than argue his position on the merits, Pence hid behind his constituents, saying “they don’t want to see taxes go up in January on any American.” “I think if the American people let their voice be heard right now, even this fall before this election, I believe we can still preserve the tax relief of 2001 and 2003,” added Pence:
It’s one of my frustrations from being here in Washington talking to you instead of a my job fair in Muncie, Indiana today, and that is, the longer members of Congress in both parties are home, the more they’re going to continue to hear from their constituents that they want to get spending under control, they want to get the economy moving, and they don’t want to see taxes go up in January on any American. And the more the American people have a chance to deliver that message, the more I believe we might have a chance to preserve the tax relief of 2001 and 2003…I think if the American people let their voice be heard right now, even this fall before this election, I believe we can still preserve the tax relief of 2001 and 2003.
Watch it:
Contrary to Pence’s assertion, “the American people” seem to overwhelmingly favor taxing the wealthy more in order to reduce the deficit. In fact, as Matt Yglesias noted, “higher taxes on the rich is basically the only deficit-reducing policy measure the public supports.”
According to a Qunnipiac University poll, 60 percent of Americans support raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 annually,while 72 percent and a majority of Republicans favor raising taxes on those making more than one million. Even the Pete Peterson-funded America Speaks project named a five percent tax increase on millionaires as its second-most preferred deficit reduction step (after raising the limit on taxable earnings for Social Security).
Within Pence’s own district — where the median income is about $45,000 — just 1.4 percent of taxpayers would see any tax increase whatsoever if the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.
GOP Says States Don’t Need Extra Funds For Medicaid Programs: ‘There’s No National Emergency’
GOP Says States Don’t Need Extra Funds For Medicaid Programs: ‘There’s No National Emergency’
Yesterday, the Congress finally passed a $26 billion aid package designed to help states “open their school years with fewer layoffs” and “pay health care benefits for the poor.” In addition to the education spending, “the bill will send $16.1 billion to state governments to help shore up Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care program for lower-income people.” ““I’m grateful that Congress has passed legislation that will keep Michigan teachers educating our children and ensure that our citizens have access to health care services,” Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) said in a stement, echoing the sentiment of state lawmakers across the country. Throughout the recession, states have struggled with lower than expected revenues and rising Medicaid caseloads and some have already made painful cuts to their health programs or increased taxes.
But Republicans in Congress — who characterized the measure as an unfunded bailout for “special interests” and the states — are arguing that states don’t need the extra health care funding:
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): “Washington Democrats claim that spending an additional $180 million per day on Medicaid will somehow create jobs when it is in reality a giveaway to state bureaucrats at the expense of American taxpayers. While Democrats want to add another $16 billion to the cost of the Medicaid program, states would be better off if Congress would simply help them address the 40 percent of their Medicaid expenditures that are either criminally fraudulent or simply unnecessary.” [House website, 8/10/2010]
REP. JOE BARTON (R-TX): “There’s no national emergency…New York has a Medicaid reimbursement rate at 350 percent of poverty, which is pushing about $80,000 for a family of four.” “This is money we don’t have being spent on programs that are not in dire emergency at a time when the unemployment rate is 10 percent.” [The Hill, 8/10/2010]
REP. PETE HOEKSTRA (R-MI): “Bailing out unions is not the solution to fixing K-12 education or states failing to budget for Medicaid. Government needs to get out of the way and allow for more local control and decision-making.” [House website, 8/10/2010]
REP. JEB HENSARLING (R-TX): “There’s a national emergency—apparently Congress has not spent enough money.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/11/2010]
While the additional spending package will provide only temporary relief to overstretched state budgets, without the funding, states would have been forced to lay off tens of thousands of employees and cut essential services from fire fighters to care for the elderly and disabled. Medicaid recipients would have had to pay higher co-pays or face strict eligibility requirements. In fact, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), at least 31 states have already “implemented cuts that will restrict eligibility for health insurance programs and/or access to health care services.” In Arizona, for instance, over 1 million low-income residents have “lost access to Medicaid services offered by the state, including emergency dental services, medically necessary dentures, insulin pumps, airway devices for people with chronic lung disease, gastric bypass surgery, certain hearing aids for the deaf or severely hard of hearing, and prosthetics.”
In February, 47 governors signed on to a National Governors Association letter urging congressional leadership of both parties to extend the “enhanced federal match for Medicaid (FMAP) for two additional quarters.” “States and territories are in the process of finalizing budgets for FY 2011 that our legislatures will be considering over the next several months. Timely passage of an extension of ARRA’s enhanced FMAP would greatly assist us in maintaining services and further stabilizing the economy,” the letter said.
Significantly, some GOP governors with presidential aspirations have agreed with Congressional Republicans. “It’s probably not going to help the economy,” Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said, after initially signing on to the February letter. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) released a similar statements.
Register
RSSLogin
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
