Don Blankenship: The Science Of Climate Change Is ‘Humorous,’ Mountaintop Removal ‘Small Afterdamage’
Don Blankenship: The Science Of Climate Change Is ‘Humorous,’ Mountaintop Removal ‘Small Afterdamage’
Coal baron Don Blankenship, the CEO of Massey Energy, perhaps perturbed by the recent opprobrium received by BP CEO Tony Hayward, wants to remind us that he is still the most evil man in America. The explosion of the Blankenship’s Upper Big Branch mine after deliberate safety violations killed 29 miners in the worst coal disaster in 40 years, but the news was overshadowed by BP’s Deepwater Horizon explosion weeks later. Massey Energy is the leading practitioner of mountaintop removal mining, which has led to ecological catastrophe in four Appalachian states, but BP’s blowout hit four states and the Gulf of Mexico.
In an interview with the New York Times, Blankenship argued that climate scientists are clinically insane, blowing up mountains doesn’t harm the environment, renewable energy and over-regulation caused the Bush recession, and critics of his social Darwinism are really just socialists. Up is down in Blankenship’s world: destroying mountains for their coal helps the environment while environmentalists harm the environment.
Blankenship’s words of wisdom on mountaintop removal:
“When the job is finished and reclaimed and revegetated, I think it would be hard to argue any meaningful or extensive damage to the environment.”
“Surface mining provides the funding to make improvements in people’s lives. And that is more important than the small afterdamage of the environment, if you can say that is even damage.”
Blankenship’s words of wisdom on global warming:
Anyone who says they can tell you the temperature of the earth in a hundred years, you should put a straitjacket on them. They don’t have any idea. It’s almost humorous that a country that can’t predict its budget deficit in a year could predict the temperature in a hundred years. The problem with the world’s climate is that it’s impacted by a lot of things. We all know that.
Blankenship’s philosophy of life — the power of denial:
It’s good to be villainized by people who don’t understand and that are wrong. United Mine Workers was a long time the most violent union in America, they committed violence against us, and we beat them, we wouldn’t expect them to like us. Some people believe in CO2 so strongly it trumps every other thought that they’ve got, so we wouldn’t expect them to favor coal mining. Some people believe that the country should be socialized so they are opposed to free enterprise. I mean, you have to have your own beliefs, your own core beliefs, your own strengths and do what you think is right. You can’t do what others believe is right, you have to do what you believe is right.
Watch it:
“There has to be pragmatism in what we do,” Blankenship argues, where “pragmatism” means denying the reality of anything that prevents him from destroying the planet and others’ lives for cash.
- Comments
- 0
Senate Hopeful Randy Parraz Sues Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Today, civil and labor rights activist and senatorial candidate Randy Parraz (D-AZ) served Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a civil lawsuit. In the suit, which was filed earlier this month, Parraz claims that he was wrongfully arrested by the sheriff’s deputies in 2008. Arpaio’s spokesman has indicated that “the sheriff’s office doesn’t comment on pending lawsuits.” However, a press release issued by Parraz’s campaign for Senate provides more details:
Two years ago, in the spring of 2008, Parraz helped launch Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48436029644 to expose Sheriff Arpaio’s abuses of power, including racial profiling. Parraz led a delegation of about a hundred MCSA members before the Board of Supervisors demanding they address Sheriff Joe’s actions. [...]
On September 29, 2008, Mr. Parraz spoke up at a Board of Supervisors meeting without being recognized by the Supervisor Board Chairman Andrew Kunasek. His six second statement was in regard to the request that the Board of Supervisors place certain issues on their agenda for public consideration. Following the event, in a clear attempt to intimidate the Maricopa citizens’ group, Arpaio’s Sheriff Deputies arrested Parraz because of the views he expressed and his leadership role within the community. The arrest was video taped.
Parraz’s complaint will join the hundreds of lawsuits that are already collecting dust on Arpaio’s desk. It also echoes the abuse of power allegations that that triggered an FBI investigation that is currently ongoing. Apparently, several well-known Arizona public figures other than Parraz who were also critical of Arpaio were paid “unwelcome visits” by Arpaio’s officials. The victims have accused Arpaio of “using his position to settle political vendettas.”
Perhaps coincidentally, the Washington Post reported today that Arpaio may soon face yet another lawsuit — from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ, which is investigating allegations of civil rights abuses on behalf of Arpaio’s deputies, claims that his officials are refusing to cooperate with federal agents. As a result, the DOJ is threatening to sue the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office “to compel access to the requested documents, facilities, and personnel.”
Randy Parraz is the only Latino Democratic candidate for US Senate in the entire nation.
Rep. Steve King Unloads On Climate Change Scientists: ‘Frauds’ Practicing ‘Modern Version Of The Rain Dance’
Rep. Steve King Unloads On Climate Change Scientists: ‘Frauds’ Practicing ‘Modern Version Of The Rain Dance’
During two Iowa town halls last week, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) put his natural penchant for outlandish statements on display. Prior to calling President Obama a “Marxist” who “does not have an American experience,” King fielded a number of questions about energy and climate change. His responses revealed a man not just skeptical of climate change, but downright hostile to science in general.
King began by contending that the 97% of scientists who support the evidence behind manmade climate change are “frauds.” He then proceeded to call the notion of manmade climate change “not rational” but “a religion” like “the modern version of the rain dance”:
KING: Every civilization, according to this Professor Brown, has not only always paid attention to the weather. Every civilization has tried to affect and change the weather. So whether it’s the Chinese seeding clouds, whether it’s some of the industrialized nations in the world trying to get together for cap-and-trade to try to reduce the CO2 emissions. You know, this might be the modern version of the rain dance.[...] It’s not rational, it’s a religion that we’re up against. I mean that from the broadest sense of the word. It’s something you can’t necessarily prove.
King later admitted that he doesn’t just disagree with taking steps to combat climate change, but he fundamentally opposes climate change science. King recoils at the fact that most GOP leaders agree with the science, arguing instead that “you don’t ever give up a premise unless you happen to believe that they’re right. And we should not concede the science of this.” He proceeded to put his minimal scientific understanding on full display, agreeing with a constituent who was “amazed” that people faulted carbon dioxide when it’s the main ingredient plants use to produce oxygen:
KING: They have not made that scientific case. I have always argued against the science. Some of our leadership have said “don’t argue the science.” They get pollsters in and coach us. I’m not very coachable…(laughing)…But I’ve said “you don’t ever give up a premise unless you happen to believe that they’re right.” And we should not concede the science of this. And they say, “you should just argue the economics, not the science.” Well, no. They were wrong on the science[...]
CONSTITUENT: Do you realize that carbon dioxide is the main ingredient plants use with sunshine to make oxygen and sugars for us to eat and for animals. What’s the matter with carbon dioxide? It’s amazing to me the way some of these people think.
KING: I agree with you. There have been many times in the history of the planet that we’ve had higher concentrations of CO2 than we have here today. There are a couple of German engineers that took that theory apart and proved it wrong in a lab. I’ve read through that, but I’d have to go back to school for a half a year or a year to tell you I followed every bit of their rationale. But the presumption of the Greenhouse Effect is at least, from what I saw, was pretty convincingly rebutted.
However, instead of using science to predict and fight climate change, King advised instead that we turn instead to the Bible. Given that rising sea levels are threatening to swallow up entire nations, that may not be such bad advice:
CONSTITUENT: It’s got nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It’s got to do with socialization [sic]. Just like their tax on energy. That’s got nothing to do with our benefit. Where’s this tax go to that they’re wanting to spend for their supposedly bad things we got ahold of? Where does it go to? And who’s blamed?
KING: I think you make an important point. I know that there is a good number of them that believe that the science says that the earth is getting warmer and we can control it. Some of them really believe it. Control is a big part of it. I finally found a book that I’d been looking for – one to help me figure out what’s going on – and the answers are in the Bible.
Listen here:
Ted Olson On Mosque: ‘I Think Probably The President Was Right About This’
This afternoon, Ted Olson — whose wife died in the September 11th attacks — distanced himself from other conservatives and told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that he did not oppose the building of a mosque near ground zero. “It may not make me popular with some people, but I think probably the President was right about this,” he began:
OLSON: I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices or structures, places of religious worship or study where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing. And that we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue. It shouldn’t be a Republican or Democrat issue either. I believe Governor Christie from New Jersey said it as well, that this should not be in that political partisan marketplace.
Watch it:
On Proposition 8, Olson said that he expected the ninth circuit court of appeals to stay Judge Walker’s decision and “keep everything as it is until we get a chance to decide this case on the merits.” “We will argue that case in early December. That’s where we are anxious to get a decision promptly,” he said.
Olson also argued that fighting for marriage was consistent with conservative values. “What could be, at the end of the day, more conservative than two loving people, that want to get married, that want to build a family, that want to be part of our neighborhoods and community — that is a conservative value.”
Deficit Fraud Blunt Calls For Permanent Taxpayer Giveaways To The Real Estate Industry
Deficit Fraud Blunt Calls For Permanent Taxpayer Giveaways To The Real Estate Industry
Yesterday, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who is running for Missouri’s open Senate seat, unveiled his jobs plan at an event with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Of course, it’s full of the boiler plate GOP standards about cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating regulations. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch actually dinged the plan as “heavy on Republican goals — extending the key tax cuts — and talking points,” noting that “despite being a plan intended to boost jobs, it mentions the phrase ‘job-killing’ 10 times, mostly in reference to Obama policies.”
But one aspect of the plan, in particular, caught my attention. Blunt spends a lot of time in the document fearmongering about the deficit, saying “we must put a stop to this reckless and embarrassing culture of running up the bill and passing it along to our children and grandchildren.” He even advocates rescinding the stimulus money that has yet to be spent, which amounts to a tax increase on the middle class, as $65 billion in remaining stimulus funds have already been dedicated to middle class tax cuts.
But Blunt’s concern about spending evaporates when it comes to having the federal government subsidize the real estate industry, as he calls for permanently extending the home buyers tax credit, which has mercifully expired:
Recently it was announced that new home purchases had fallen off more than 30%. Clearly people respond to tax incentives and the recently-expired home owners’ tax credit is no exception. Encouraging people who can afford it to purchase homes helps employ homebuilders, real estate workers, bank employees, and keeps liquidity in the market.
The home buyer’s tax credit was enacted as part of the stimulus and then extended a couple of times, and by all accounts it was a complete and total boondoggle, costing taxpayers billions to subsidize activity that was going to happen anyway. And Blunt wants to make it permanent, removing any pretense that it’s a measure to spur economic recovery.
According to the National Association of Realtors — the real estate industry’s own lobbying arm — only 350,000 of the first 2 million credits were claimed by buyers who would not have bought their home anyway, costing “$43,000 for every new homebuyer who would not have bought a house without the tax break” up to that point. Calculated Risk figures that, when all is said and done, the credit “will probably cost taxpayers over $100,000 for each additional home sold.”
Not only that, but millions of dollars in credits were spent inappropriately, including $9 million sent to prison inmates and another $14 million to buyers who weren’t qualified for the program. The credit was even sent to some children.
Even the credit’s staunchest supporters — like Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) — said that the credit’s “sunsetting is an incentive to drive people to the marketplace” and poo-pooed the notion of extending it forever, which pretty clearly turns it into a permanent subsidy to the real estate industry. But since Blunt has received far more money from the finance/insurance/real estate sector than any other in his career, maybe that’s precisely the point, no matter what it costs.
Wall Street Journal, AIPAC Refute Claim That Obama Is ‘Anti-Israel’
Charles Levinson reports in the Wall Street Journal that, despite tensions between the U.S. and Israel over settlements and the peace process, “military commanders from the two countries have dramatically stepped up cooperation”:
U.S. military aid to Israel has increased markedly this year. Top-ranking U.S. and Israeli soldiers have shuttled between Tel Aviv and Washington with unusual frequency in recent months. A series of joint military exercises in Israel over the past months has included a record number of American troops. [...]
The military cooperation began to intensify even as diplomatic relations between Washington and Israel frayed. The effort stems from policy directives the White House gave the Pentagon early in Mr. Obama’s presidency to “deepen and expand the quantity and intensity of cooperation to the fullest extent,” according to a senior administration official.
Asked for comment via email, American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spokesman Josh Block said “Clearly the Obama administration remains deeply committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance, and supporting aid to Israel and deepening our military cooperation is just one aspect of that.”
All of this tracks with what I heard when I visited Israel in June. As I wrote with David Halperin in Foreign Policy shortly after, “Notwithstanding the incessant neoconservative drumbeat that Obama is ’selling Israel out,’ there was consensus among the Israeli officials with whom we spoke that military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the US and Israel is robust.” We found this to be especially true in regard to intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and Israel on the Iranian nuclear issue, which one official acknowledged is “even better than under President Bush.”
What, then, to make of claims from some on the right like Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), who recently told The Hill “I believe the Obama administration is the most anti-Israel administration in the modern history of the state of Israel.” Or from the Emergency Committee for Israel, whose director Noah Pollak bemoaned “the hostility of the Obama administration to the traditional closeness of the two nations”? Are they simply arguing in bad faith, and trying to raise money off the false perception that President Obama is abandoning Israel?
Or is it just that, for the extreme right, in the words of Elliott Abrams, the considerable support that the Obama administration continues to extend to Israel is just “not good enough” — the only acceptable “pro-Israel” position is to march lockstep with what Bibi Netanyahu wants, even when it undermines U.S. credibility and hampers U.S.’s ability to achieve its goals in the region?
Did The Broken Immigration System Bring Down American Apparel?
Last year, around this time, American Apparel Inc. — the largest clothing manufacturer in the United States — was informed by federal immigration agents that 1,600 of its 5,600 factory employees might be working illegally. Unable to prove otherwise, the company was forced to lay off more than a quarter of its factory work force in Los Angeles. Today, the company announced that it “expected another quarterly loss and warned that it was again close to breaching a loan covenant,” in other words, bankruptcy. The New York Daily News reports:
The retailer is in talks to obtain new financing to shore up its struggling operations, which have been hit by slackening demand for its hipster fashions, as well as an immigration crackdown last year that forced the company to dismiss 1,500 undocumented workers at its factory in Los Angeles. [...]
Last year’s immigration crackdown was a startling slap in the face for American Apparel, which for years has lobbied for immigrant workers’ rights in its “Legalize L.A.” campaign. “If it weren’t for the immigration bust by the Obama administration, the company would have been OK this year,” according to a source close to American Apparel.
American Apparel has long advocated for immigration reform, “running ads, putting up billboards and selling T-shirts that read ‘Legalize L.A.: Immigration Reform Now,’ with 100 percent of its net proceeds from the shirts going to Los Angeles-based immigrant rights groups.” However, in the absence of immigration reform, there has been a shift away from workplace immigration raids and towards a crackdown on employers. The thinking is that immigration officials are targeting “unscrupulous” employers who exploit immigrant labor or who deprive hardworking Americans of jobs they want — however, that isn’t always the case.
American Apparel hasn’t been free of controversy when it comes to their human resources practices in its retail stores. However, at the company’s L.A.-based factory — where most of American Apparel’s immigrant employees work — workers are far from exploited. In fact, the company has built its “sweatshop free” brand on it. American Apparel pays its workers $10 to $12 an hour, well above minimum wage, and provides health benefits and guaranteed year-round employment. The company also claims to “offer parking, subsidized public transport, subsidized lunches, free onsite massages, a bike lending program, a program of paid days off, ESL classes and much more.”
It’s also not clear that U.S. citizen workers were lining up at American Apparel doors one they heard they were hiring. However, it is obvious that the audit devastated both the company and the workers who were let go. The company’s founder and chief executive, Dov Charney, wrote, “Because of a broken system, we were forced to let go of many factory workers — people who have been part of our family for nearly 10 years — and the country seems further from addressing this issue than ever.” The fired workers were even worse off as they struggled to make ends meet in a terrible economy.
Watch a video on the “personal and political ramifications” of American Apparel’s ICE audit:
Icing American Apparel from Patrick Burke on Vimeo.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D-CA) called the terminations “devastating” and his office publicly asked the federal government “to focus on employers that exploit and abuse their workers.” Ultimately, Villaraigosa hits the nail on the head. Rather than crippling one of the few clothing manufacturers left in the U.S. — one that pays its workers a decent wage and has dedicated a portion of its profits to advocating for immigration reform — perhaps the focus in the absence of major reform should be on punishing those employers who make a profit by exploiting immigrant workers via the strengthening of our nation’s labor laws.
Rossi Inflates His State’s Wealthy Population By 24 Times To Push For Extending Bush Tax Cuts
Rossi Inflates His State’s Wealthy Population By 24 Times To Push For Extending Bush Tax Cuts
Last night, Dino Rossi officially became the Republican Senate candidate in Washington. Earlier this week, he tried to portray his desire to repeal the estate tax as a measure that will help small businesses, when in fact, the overwhelming majority of the benefits from repeal would go to the ultra-wealthy. And that’s not the only way in which Rossi is going to bat for the rich.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) has embraced the Obama administration’s proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans to expire, while renewing those for the lower- and middle-class. Rossi, though, wants to extend all of the cuts, saying that allowing those for the rich to expire is a “class warfare program”:
Rossi argued that 2 1/2 million people in Washington benefit from the 2001 Bush tax cuts, the extension of which will be a major issue in Congress this fall. Rossi described as “this class warfare program” the Obama administration’s plan to extend the cuts enjoyed by middle-income taxpayers, while repealing tax cuts for high-income households.
Rossi is very confused about the numbers here or is entirely unclear about what the administration’s proposal is. There are about 6.7 million people in Washington state, so for Rossi’s number to be accurate, he’s either claiming that Obama and Murray want to raise taxes on people that they don’t, or he is claiming that more than one-third of the state’s population is making more than $200,000 per year.
Back in reality, the median income in Washington is about $52,000, according to the state’s Office of Financial Management. According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, there are 105,209 households in the state that would be affected by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (or about 1.6 percent of the total population). So Rossi inflated his state’s wealthy population by 24 times.
Washington State (where Rossi formerly served in the state senate) also has one of the country’s most regressive tax systems, as it relies very heavily on sales and excise taxes and has no state income tax. The poorest 20 percent of Washington taxpayers pay more than 17 percent of their income in state taxes, while the richest one percent pay less than three percent.
Rossi himself made somewhere between $380,000 and $1.5 million last year, and has investments worth between $4 million and $15 million. So his taxes most certainly would go up if the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. But the same can’t be said for the vast majority of Washington’s residents.
GOP IA State Candidate Deletes Offensive Facebook Posts, But Unsure If AIDS Is Punishment For Gays
GOP IA State Candidate Deletes Offensive Facebook Posts, But Unsure If AIDS Is Punishment For Gays
Yesterday, the Iowa Independent broke the story that Jeremy Walters — a Republican candidate for the Iowa State house — posted Facebook messages in which he quoted biblical verses saying that gay people should be “put to death” and suggested that AIDS is a punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Walters’ statements were immediately condemned by One Iowa, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) advocacy organization, and the Iowa Republican party, leading the candidate to remove the posts.
But then Walters contacted me (in response to an earlier request for comment), and in the 15 minute conversation that followed, explained that his outburst was motivated by the recent Prop 8 decision and that he was still uncertain if God was trying to kill gay people:
WALTERS: I just felt people should know what’s in the Bible, you know, scripture…I’m sorry that I even posted that because now I’m getting all of this attention and it’s bad attention, it’s not good attention. What inspired me posting that is because I had a few friends who were both homosexuals and passed away form AIDS.
VOLSKY: I understand that you regret posting it…But do you still believe that AIDS is the result of the sin of homosexuality?
WALTERS: Well, I don’t want to say that I don’t. I just, like I said, had an experience of friends dying….But back to the posting, that post when I posted, I do feel sorry and denounce what I said.
VOLSKY: Ok, so just to be clear, you are denouncing what you said? So you no longer believe that AIDS is God’s way of getting back at the sin of homosexuality?
WALTERS: Well, you know, I want to say that I’ve been seeing a lot of people that are in that lifestyle become with HIV and AIDS, but like I said, you can also get it through dirty needles and things so…. I would have to say that I removed it because it was not right to post it on there and I shouldn’t be picking on their lives, because they’re not picking on my life. I should be an understanding person and not a hater.
Asked what message he has for gay voters, Walters said, “I ask them for forgiveness, I don’t know what else I can do. I feel really bad. Now I don’t think I’ll be able to sleep at night for having this up.” He also assured me that if elected he would take the opinions of people who support gay rights into consideration. “If it came down to the majority of the people in my House district were for gay rights, then I’d take that to that state house and say we need gay rights,” he said.
I am not against people having a gay lifestyle, and the statements made on Facebook have been taken the wrong way. The statement regarding gay homosexuality was not meant to be offensive and I deeply appologize. As far as the quote from Bible; I was replying to someone elses post. It should have been posted as a comment on their page, not my Facebook wall. I appologize for the mistake and if this statement offened anyone. Both postings have been removed and these comments do not pertain to my campaign or the Republican Party of Iowa. My passion is to listen and learn from the people so I can represent them at the statehouse. Everyone makes mistakes, please forgive me.
The WonkLine: August 18, 2010
The WonkLine: August 18, 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.
Immigration
The Justice Department has “issued a rare threat to sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he does not cooperate with their investigation of whether he discriminates against Hispanics.”
Arizona lawmakers have set aside suggestions that lawmakers consider “tweaking” parts of the state’s controversial immigration law, calling such an action “hasty.”
Leaders of the nation’s largest Latino evangelical organization warned leaders of the Republican Party “that their increasingly strident rhetoric on immigration puts the party at risk of losing an entire generation of Latino voters.”
Economy
“New data show that fewer than 25% of 2010 graduates who took the ACT college-entrance exam possessed the academic skills necessary to pass entry-level courses,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, one of the frontrunners to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “met quietly last week with some of her sharpest critics: big bank lobbyists.”
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack defended the administration’s estate tax proposal yesterday, accurately pointing out that it won’t affect the vast majority of family farms.
Health Care
“The National Association of Insurance Commissioners approved Tuesday morning a preliminary outline of what insurers will be able to count as medical costs, a document necessitated by the health reform bill’s requirement that insurers spend at least 85 percent of subscriber premiums on medical costs in the large group market and 80 percent for small group and individual plans.”
“Federal regulators received a slew of requests for changes to their proposed “grandfathering” rules before the comment period ended at midnight on Monday.”
Who in Massachusetts doesn’t have health insurance?
Climate Change
“The oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster is still in the Gulf of Mexico and is causing ecological damage, according to new findings from the University of South Florida.”
The European Commission has raised its humanitarian aid for Pakistan flood victims to $90 million, as “Islamist militants attacked police posts in Pakistan’s northwest” and “a fifth of the country is submerged under water.”
Global boiling’s war on sports: Iowa State’s nationally ranked volleyball team “will play its 2010 home schedule at Ames High School after flood waters in Ames damaged Hilton Coliseum last week.”
National Security
“Hundreds of villagers blocked a highway in eastern Afghanistan to protest a night raid by NATO and Afghan soldiers that left two people dead. A statement from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said two “Taliban insurgents” were killed in the raid in a district near Jalalabad. But villagers said the men were civilians.”
“Lebanon passed a law on Tuesday granting Palestinian refugees here the same rights to work as other foreigners, a step in ending years of discrimination that had restricted them to the most menial of jobs.”
“Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Asghar Soltanieh called on the organization to oppose sanctions on Wednesday…’The IAEA should counter incorrect and unfriendly attitudes including sanctions and resolutions by the UN Security Council which undermine cooperation,’ Soltanieh reportedly said.”
Gaming The Exchanges And Mini Health Insurance Plans
Gaming The Exchanges And Mini Health Insurance Plans
Yesterday, Aaron Carroll noted how private HMOs participating in Medicare successfully pushed sicker individuals off their rolls and suggested that insurers’ knack for manipulating the system holds important lessons for health reform implementers. Indeed, many are already raising alarms about a little noticed provision in the health care law that would allow insurance companies to lure younger and healthier Americans out of the exchanges and into so-called mini health plans, which have low annual limits and very modest benefits.
As Ken Terry explains, if an insurer can prove that “switching to comprehensive coverage would lead to significant premium increases or force employers to drop insurance benefits,” they can continue to offer low-cost, low-benefit plans:
This lack of universality could cause the same kind of “death spirals” that occurred in the small-business health insurance purchasing alliances of the 1990s. If healthy people tend to buy low-cost insurance outside of the exchanges, the increasing proportion of sick people in the exchanges could force rates up and induce carriers to withdraw from them. [...]
This is where the HHS determination on waivers comes in. A restrictive approach would mean that most plans offered outside of the state exchanges would have to be similar to those inside of them. This offers the best chance for the exchanges to survive: Because people would receive federal subsidies only for insurance purchased through an exchange, healthy people would be less likely to leave the state-sponsored market to buy a policy that was nearly identical to one offered through the exchange. But if HHS takes a looser stance, and mini-plans endure, many healthy people and firms with healthy employees will buy their insurance outside the exchanges, even without subsidies. If so, the exchanges will become unprofitable for insurance companies to participate in.
HHS certainly has its hands full — allowing insurers to offer mini plans outside of the exchanges could undermine the entire foundation of the law; cutting them off would force some businesses to drop coverage all together and push some beneficiaries into more comprehensive and more expensive coverage. But health experts and consumer advocates I spoke to believe that in some ways the problem is overstated. They claim that beginning in 2014, demand for the mini plans will naturally diminish since these policies won’t offer the standard benefit packages or meet the actuarial value of creditable coverage — the insurance that complies with the individual mandate requirements. The problem is in the interim. As younger and healthier individuals continue to buy these subprime policies, they will fall victim to the fine print and annual limits and abdicate their eligibility in more comprehensive programs like Medicaid.
In 2014, the more pronounced opportunity for cherry picking is in the structure of the Bronze plan. Under the law, insurers that participate in the exchange are required to market the Silver and Gold tier plans in the exchanges but are exempt from marketing the Bronze plans to exchange beneficiaries. Insurers could therefore sell the lower-cost/high deductible Bronze plan outside of the exchange or stay out of the exchanges altogether and attract healthier people into the non-exchange nongroup market. Some states like California are trying to avoid this outcome by requiring insurers “to provide the same types of policies inside and outside of the exchanges.” But as expected, they’re receiving a lot of opposition from the insurance industry.
Chamber Of Commerce Reprises 1993 And 1983 By Fearmongering About Tax Increases
Chamber Of Commerce Reprises 1993 And 1983 By Fearmongering About Tax Increases
Ever since the Obama administration came into office, the Chamber of Commerce has been fearmongering about its plans to close certain corporate tax loopholes. And now the Chamber is also wading into the debate over the administration’s plans to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire on schedule, with the its chief economist, Martin Regalia, saying that bringing tax rates back to where they were under President Clinton “is a corporate bullet in the head”:
“That’s what you’re suggesting, is a corporate bullet in the head. That is going to be a bullet in the head for an awful lot of people that are going to be laid off and an awful lot of people who are hoping to get their jobs back.”
Regalia also said that allowing the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of the population to expire — saving $830 billion over the next ten years — is a “fool’s error” and “accused the Obama administration of acting ‘as if the upper class aren’t part of the economy’.”
The “Voice of Business” is explicitly going to bat for the rich here, as the personal income tax has little to do with the corporations that the Chamber represents. But this outlandish rhetoric is just part and parcel of the usual response from the Chamber of Commerce to a tax increase.
In 1993, when President Clinton proposed his tax increase, the Chamber said “the considerable goodwill that the President had, despite the skepticism that business normally shows toward a Democrat, is largely gone.” The Chamber also criticized President Reagan’s tax increase of 1983, saying, “no doubt that it will curb the economic recovery everyone wants.”
The reality, of course, has been much different. Under President Clinton, the country experienced the longest period of sustained economic growth in its history. And as far as the business community is concerned, Clinton’s economic policies resulted in more business investment as a percentage of GDP than President Bush’s. Michael Ettlinger and John Irons ran the numbers:
[Business investment] was 2.8 percent in the seven-year period beginning in 1981 and 2.7 percent in the period beginning in 2001. In the period with higher taxes beginning in 1993, the growth rate was 10.2 percent. In the parallel portions of the business cycles following the tax changes of 1981, 1993, and 2001, investment grew faster under the 1993 tax regime than under either supply-side regime. The average rate of growth was 10.5 percent post-1993, 1.4 percent post-1981, and 6.1 percent post-2001.
With its fearmongering about tax increases, the Chamber of Commerce is much like the Republican party, which also excoriated Clinton’s plan. But that actually makes sense, considering that the Chamber’s board “is overwhelmingly Republican, having contributed six to one to conservative over liberal politicians.”
GOP Candidate For Iowa State House Suggests AIDS Is Punishment For Homosexuality
GOP Candidate For Iowa State House Suggests AIDS Is Punishment For Homosexuality
The Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock catches Jeremy Walters, a Republican candidate running for the State House in Iowa, quoting biblical verses saying that gay people should be “put to death; their blood shall be upon them” and suggesting that AIDS is a punishment for their sins:
As the Independent notes, Walters has run for office “three times in three different legislative districts” and does not mention social issues on his campaign website. Ironically, he does pledge to protect Iowans’ “rights and freedom”: “The State Government should not have the right to tell us where or when we can or can’t do something like. For example enforcing the National Identification Card and telling us how to raise our children,” he writes.
Walters’ Facebook page also reveals that he is a Birther, a devotee of radio host Alex Jones, and a Ron Paul supporter. ” Once removed, all acts performed by Obama can be declared “null and void ‘ab initio’” and then we can declare RON PAUL the only lawfully elected president and all of Obama’s cabinet can be declare in one fell swoop improvidently appointed! Get rid of this autocratic and corrupt regime now!!,” he wrote in a posting from June 10th.
One Iowa, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) advocacy organization, is calling on the Republican Party of Iowa to disavow Walters’ comments. “Jeremy Walters’ comments are offensive and they have no place in this year’s election,” Carolyn Jenison, the group’s executive director, said. “We call on the Republican Party of Iowa to denounce Walters’ comments immediately. HIV/AIDS is an epidemic that does not discriminate. It’s a matter of life and death for many Iowans.”
Looking Beyond ‘La Promesa De Obama’
Looking Beyond ‘La Promesa De Obama’
For the past several months, almost every time Univision’s Al Punto anchor Jorge Ramos appears on air, he reminds his viewers of “la promesa de Obama,” or, “Obama’s promise.” What Ramos is referring to is the promise the candidate Barack Obama made to Latino voters back in 2008 that the nation would have a comprehensive immigration reform bill that he would back within his first year in office. The truth is, thus far, Obama over-promised and under-delivered. Rather than fixing the broken immigration system and overseeing the legalization of 11.5 million undocumented immigrants, the Obama administration has been responsible for a record-setting number of deportations, more 287(g) partnerships, and beefed up border enforcement. The Latino community is rightfully furious that their families continue to be ripped apart and they are understandably frustrated with Obama’s failure to provide the change and relief he once promised. However, Ramos has turned “la promesa de Obama” into a rallying cry that distracts attention from the real villians of this year’s immigration debate.
While “la promesa de Obama” certainly speaks to many of the mistakes the President has made on immigration — an initial lack of presidential leadership during the first year of his presidency coupled with stepped-up enforcement measures — it also fails to capture the political limitations in which the Obama administration has been working. In his January 2010 piece entitled, “La promesa de Obama,” Ramos mentions Republicans once. Politico reports that, overall, Spanish-language media “say they never expected much from the GOP.” Maybe they should expect more.
Perhaps the confusion begins with a fundamental misunderstanding of the President’s responsibilities. When Ramos was asked by Politico what he would do if he were President, Ramos responded “immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for 11 million people” in the form of an executive decision. However, though a President can take a strong leadership role in crafting and pushing legislation, it’s ultimately Congress’ job to introduce and pass any bill — and, regardless of what you “expect” from them, that involves Republican cooperation. Obama could pursue administrative relief by legalizing 11.5 undocumented immigrants on his own, however, besides being a political disaster, it’s an interim solution that could be easily undone and isn’t really what Obama promised in the first place.
Obama always made clear that immigration reform stood in a line with health care reform, energy legislation, and financial regulatory changes. Republicans, meanwhile, have pursued a strategy of dragging out almost every single piece of legislation that Democrats put before them. And the harder the White House has pushed its legislative agenda, the more united the right has pushed back. To add insult to injury, following the passage of health care reform, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — the only Republican planning on co-sponsoring an immigration bill — pulled out, saying the “well has been poisoned.” Since then, Republicans in Congress have shifted their focus to things like border security and overturning the 14th amendment to deny the American-born children of undocumented immigrants citizenship. Meanwhile, the country didn’t get financial regulatory reform until July and it’s still waiting on climate change legislation in addition to immigration reform. In a nutshell, Obama could’ve kept his promise and helped Democrats draft and introduce immigration reform in Congress — though it wouldn’t have gone very far. In the absence of Republican support, it basically would’ve boiled down to cheap political symbolism that wouldn’t have brought Latinos much closer to the solutions they demand and need.
During this critical pre-election season, “la promesa de Obama” has turned into a political slogan that has troubling implications for the Latino vote. You don’t need an expert to tell you that Republicans won’t be picking up too many new Latino voters this November. However, those experts are also saying that “President Barack Obama will have a hard time getting out the Hispanic vote he badly needs in November to keep his party’s control of Congress.” While it’s certainly important to keep the pressure on Democrats, Spanish language media may want to dedicate at least as much energy to reminding its audience of what a Republican-controlled Congress means for “la promesa de Obama.” For that matter, so should Democrats. In 2010, it’s hard for Latinos to find a political champion in either party. If they don’t vote, it’ll be even harder to find one in 2011. It’s time for the “Walter Cronkite of Spanish-language media” to look towards the future as much as he reminds Obama of the past.
Rossi Uses Small Businesses As Props To Push A Tax Cut For Multi-Millionaires
Rossi Uses Small Businesses As Props To Push A Tax Cut For Multi-Millionaires
Last week, California’s Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina used farmers as props in her quest to cut the estate tax, falsely claiming that if the currently expired tax is reinstated, farms such as the ones she visited would be clobbered. And it appears that her northern counterpart Dino Rossi, one of Washington state’s Republican senate candidates, is taking a page out of Fiorina’s book.
Rossi yesterday toured Seattle’s GM Nameplate, which is a company that “makes face-plates and touch screens for appliances.” Rossi claimed that the company would be hammered by the estate tax, saying, “just to pay that 55 percent tax you’d have to sell to some group from out of state or out of the country, instead of passing it on to the next generation.”
Rossi referenced a 55 percent rate, which only takes effect if no legislation is passed this year. President Obama and many congressional Democrats have proposed permanently reinstating the estate tax at the 2009 level of 45 percent with a $3.5 million exemption, a move which made the GOP balk. Rossi, meanwhile, wants to completely eliminate the tax, out of supposed concern for small businesses and family farms:
“Small, family-owned businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing 64 percent of jobs in the last fifteen years, and, if Patty Murray doesn’t extend this critical tax relief, many could be swallowed up by faceless corporations so that families can pay Uncle Sam,” said Rossi. “Family farms and businesses are part of what make Washington State unique, and eliminating the death tax will keep this tradition alive for generations to come.”
Actually, reinstating the estate tax at the 2009 level will have almost no effect on the small businesses Rossi claims to care so deeply about. According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, about 110 small businesses or family farms in the entire country would be affected by the estate tax at that level, and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities “all but a handful” would have sufficient funds on hand to pay the tax.
The exceedingly few that don’t “would have other options — such as spreading their payments over a 14-year period — that would allow them to pay the tax without selling off any of the business or farm assets.” People having to sell their farms or businesses to satisfy the tax man is a convenient conservative story that isn’t based in reality.
So Rossi is essentially hiding behind small businesses and farmers to push a cut that would almost exclusively benefit multi-millionaires. Nearly two-thirds of estate tax revenue comes from estates worth more than $20 million. Repealing the estate tax would cost $784 billion over ten years, with less than one quarter of one percent of the benefits going to actual small businesses.
And, incidentally, if it’s really small businesses that Rossi is concerned about, he chose an odd venue at which to make his anti-estate tax stand. GM Nameplate is an 800 employee manufacturing firm with divisions in Singapore and Dongguan City, China, and it brags about its “seamless transfer of US-manufactured prototypes to a company-owned offshore production facility.” Even by the federal government’s overly inclusive definition of small business, this doesn’t fit.
Asked If Iraq Is A ‘Success,’ Petraeus Answers ‘Umm…’
Asked If Iraq Is A ‘Success,’ Petraeus Answers ‘Umm…’
The war in Afghanistan was the main focus of David Gregory’s Meet the Press interview with Gen. David Petraeus on Sunday, they had a couple brief exchanges on Iraq that were particularly revealing about what the U.S. has — and has not — achieved there. Gregory first asked Petraeus, “If the outcome [in Afghanistan] is like Iraq, is that achieving the mission?”
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, the outcome in Iraq is still to be written, but if you could reduce the level of violence by some 90 to 95 percent, as was the case in Iraq, to below a threshold which allows commerce and business and outside investment to take place, where there is an election that’s certainly at least elected representatives, and now you have to see if they can come together and form a government that is still representative of and responsive to the people, as was the previous one. If that can all be achieved there, that would be a reasonable solution here as well.
Later, Gregory came back to Iraq, asking whether Petraeus considered it “a durable success.” Petraeus again demurred:
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, again, I think the final chapter for Iraq is certainly still to be written. And of course, there’s an immediate, pressing issue there, which is the formation of the government. I think they can come together. I think that what will end up happening is it won’t be a question of just who will be the president, prime minister, and speaker of the council of representatives; rather, there will be some power sharing agreements that will be officially or unofficially made that will enable the selection of the key leaders. I think that is what is holding the process up. Very important, of course, to get that government in place and, and, and hopefully to ensure that it is like the previous government. For all its challenges, it was representative of the Iraqi people, and it was broadly responsive to it. They knew there were elections coming up, and they actually took actions because of that.
Even for someone as famously circumspect as Petraeus, this is pretty remarkable. His reputation was secured as the hero of the Iraq surge, and yet, asked if we have achieved success there as a result, even he is not willing to simply answer “yes.”
It’s not difficult to understand why. Even though the violence remains at its lowest since the 2003 invasion, insurgent groups still retain the ability to carry out spectacular acts of violence, and Iraq’s bickering leaders are no closer to forming a government almost six months after elections. The Washington Post reports today that negotiations between Iraq’s two most powerful political blocs broke down yesterday, “dashing hopes that a solution to a more than five-month impasse after national elections was on the horizon.” Earlier today, in the latest in a string of terrorist attacks, “more than 50 people were killed and another 100 were wounded when an Iraq suicide bomber struck an Army recruiting center in Baghdad.”
As my colleagues Brian Katulis and Peter Juul and I wrote in our May 2010 report, The Iraq War Ledger, even if one grants the best-case scenarios currently on offer, when weighing possible benefits against the costs of the Iraq intervention as whole, there is simply no conceivable calculus by which it can be judged to have been a successful or worthwhile policy. It speaks well of Petraeus that, even as many of those policymakers and pundits most responsible for the Iraq debacle have simply declared victory and moved on, he’s not quite willing to play along.
API Chief Economist Admits Taxes On Oil Industry Can Create Millions Of Jobs
API Chief Economist Admits Taxes On Oil Industry Can Create Millions Of Jobs
John Felmy
The American Petroleum Institute (API) — the lobbying giant of the oil and gas industry that also writes its own rules — is continuing its work to keep oil industry profits high as the American worker suffers. API demonizes any efforts to cut the industry’s billion-dollar subsidies as “energy taxes” that “destroy jobs.” In fact, API chief economist John Felmy has claimed a report commissioned by the Center for American Progress finds that “$1 billion increase in oil and natural gas industry taxes destroys 5,000 jobs,” quoted in an API blog post:
Citing a study conducted by the Center for American Progress (CAP), API Chief Economist Dr. John Felmy said every $1 billion increase in oil and natural gas industry taxes destroys 5,000 jobs. The administration’s 2011 proposed budget includes tax hikes of $80 billion on the industry, which translates into a loss of 400,000 jobs throughout the U.S. economy.
Noting this unusual claim, the Wonk Room reached Dr. Felmy for a telephone interview. Contrary to API’s portrayal, “Green Recovery,” the 2008 report prepared by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, did not actually model taxes, but compared levels of investment into the oil and gas industry versus clean industry (renewables and efficiency). The analysis found that a ten-year $100 billion shift in capital from polluting energy to clean energy would create two million new jobs with a loss of only 500,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector. Using Felmy’s logic, the Center for American Progress report found that a $1 billion increase in oil and natural gas taxes creates 15,000 jobs. The administration’s 2011 proposed budget includes tax hikes of $80 billion on the industry, which translates into an increase of 1,200,000 jobs throughout the U.S. economy.
In his interview with the Wonk Room, Felmy recognized that the report concluded that you would get four times as many clean energy jobs as oil jobs from the same investment, because “green technology is more labor-intensive and less capital-intensive.” He admitted that if you invest money in clean energy instead of oil and gas:
“I have no doubts you can get a lot more jobs.”
In other words, tax hikes improve the economy.
Felmy dismissed this potential engine of massive economic recovery by arguing that the green jobs that would be created are “low-paying, low-wage jobs,” citing the report’s finding the green jobs would have a 20% lower average wage. However, Felmy evidently failed to read the report’s very next sentence: “But this number is deceptive because a green investment program will create roughly triple the number of good jobs — paying at least $16 dollars an hour — as the same level of spending within the oil industry.” Clean energy investment can revitalize every sector of the economy, from entry-level positions to advanced manufacturing.
When the Wonk Room attempted to raise the question of global warming pollution, he said emphatically and repeatedly that it is API policy to not discuss the science of global warming:
“We do not talk about the science.”
“It’s almost impossible,” he said, to reduce global warming emissions. “Focus on coal and support us,” he argued. When the Wonk Room noted that the Department of Energy found that the Waxman-Markey legislation would have had a marginal effect on petroleum prices in the short term because investors would focus on high-polluting coal first, he responded:
“That’s just silly.”
Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry’s deliberate, decades-long campaign to distort climate science and make society pay for its pollution-based profits is not “silly” at all. Even as its public documents elliptically recognize that “the potential climate impacts of energy use” are “an important environmental challenge,” the American Petroleum Institute has funded global warming denial for decades, with the goal of “victory” by making “uncertainties in climate science” into “conventional wisdom.”
Ironically, American oil companies would likely benefit dramatically from President Obama’s clean energy agenda. They have the capital, the manufacturing capacity, and the engineering wherewithal to dominate the clean energy economy, especially in areas like deep geothermal power, offshore wind and tidal power, and carbon sequestration. They even have the bridge fuel of comparatively low-carbon natural gas to bridge the transition from traditional coal-fired electricity to fully renewable energy. But mastering the green economy of the future would require new business models for a stagnant industry frightened of change. Instead the American Petroleum Institute continues to demonize the path to green economic recovery as job-killing taxes, as the United States falls into disrepair and the world burns.
‘Sorry Works’ Really Works
‘Sorry Works’ Really Works
Since President Obama supported alternative malpractice reforms as a Senator, I expected health care reform to include something more robust than demonstration projects dedicated to exploring different initiatives for improving patient safety and reducing costs. After all, Obama co-sponsored Sorry Works legislation — an initiative built on the assumption that “disclosure and apology” encourages providers to “deal with medical mistakes: [r]ather than stonewalling patients and relatives.” The approach pushes hospitals and institutions to address their mistakes and has found some success in lowering costs.
Just yesterday, a new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine of the period in which such a program was implemented at the University of Michigan Health System found that “legal costs went down, as did the number of new claims for compensation, the number of claims compensated and the time it took to resolve a claim.”
But whether costs and the number of claims declined as a result of the new policy isn’t clear, since there was no control group — and claims in the state were generally on the decline. (The university system did have fewer claims than were predicted by historical trends and its own models, the study says.)
It’s also unclear whether the same results would apply to physicians in private practice or who purchase their own liability insurance; UMHS docs were covered by their institution. The authors say the results suggest that such a disclose-with-offer program can be implemented without exacerbating legal costs and that it can address some of the problems of the medical liability system, including long waits for compensation.
The accompanying editorial calls the study “promising” but notes a couple of other limitations, including the fact that “the authors could not distinguish disclosures initiated by the health system from those offered in response to a patient complaint.” (In other words, it’s hard to know how many of the voluntary disclosures were voluntary.)
Sorry Works may not be a silver bullet, but it’s at least part of the answer to controlling malpractice costs. And its success in this study only suggests that doctors and hospitals can implement solutions that are independent of Congressional action, with government funding. In June, HHS announced that it would be distributing $20 million in development grants and planning grants “to states and health care system” to develop and test successful models for reducing malpractice costs. The funding provides systems with an opportunity to test run some of these alternative models.
Boehner Criticizes ‘Professional Left’ For Supporting Individual Health Insurance Mandate
Boehner Criticizes ‘Professional Left’ For Supporting Individual Health Insurance Mandate
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has some fun with Robert Gibb’s “professional left” comments in this morning’s USA Today. Noting Missouri’s recent ballot initiative repudiating the individual health insurance mandate, Boehner lampoons the Democrats for passing reform over the objections of the voters. “This is the first time in American history that Congress has passed a law mandating that you buy something simply because you’re breathing,” he writes:
Yet the Professional Left running our government isn’t listening to Missourians or anyone else. The Obama administration is fighting to stay in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and taxing you if you don’t. The law itself cites the power to regulate “commerce.” Democrats compare it with how nearly all states require car owners to purchase auto insurance. You don’t need to purchase a car. You do need to breathe.
But breathing is precisely the point! While you have no need for auto insurance if you don’t have a car, everyone’s body needs to breathe and will eventually stop breathing or have trouble breathing. Mandatory health insurance will protect individuals from this eventuality by requiring those who can afford insurance to take responsibility for their own health and purchase it. As Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) explained in June of 2009, “when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance. Because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren’t insured, there’s no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it.” “So I think individual mandates are more apt to be accepted by a vast majority of people in Congress than an employer mandate,” he added. “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.”
The mandate also isn’t as “unprecedented” as Boehner suggests. Republicans — like Grassley — supported the requirement in the 1990s, but the government has been compelling individuals to purchase certain goods since the old days of the Republic. As Ian Millhiser explains, “the Second Militia Act of 1792, required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase a long list of military equipment.” This Act became law only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, in President George Washington’s first term. Many of the Members of Congress who voted for the Act also were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution.
Republican Talking Heads Claim No Republican Wants To Privatize Social Security
Republican Talking Heads Claim No Republican Wants To Privatize Social Security
In his most recent weekly radio address, President Obama noted that “some Republican leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They’re pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.” The Democratic National Committee also released an ad pointing to the GOP’s desire to privatize the 75 year old program.
A few Republican talking heads have taken exception to this portrayal, and have claimed that no Republicans actually want to privatize the system in the way Democrats describe:
DANA PERINO: I don’t know of a single Republican who actually wants to do what the Democratic ad just said. It’s sad for the Democrats…they still can only run on fear of something that somebody is not suggesting.
ED ROLLINS: The President’s out there saying ‘Republicans are going to take away your Social Security.’ There’s no Republican, basically, standing up and saying that, and we haven’t for a very long time.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: How stupid does he think Americans are? Not only will Barack Obama not allow Social Security to be privatized, Republicans will not allow Social Security to be privatized.
Watch a compilation:
Contrary to their assertions, Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) much ballyhooed Roadmap for America’s Future calls for the creation of private Social Security accounts, akin to those proposed by President Bush in 2005. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has explicitly advocated “reviving President George W. Bush’s failed plan to partially privatize Social Security.”
Reps. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have all touted personal accounts, while Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has expressed a desire to “wean everybody off” Social Security entirely. Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) even questioned the constitutionality of the program.
Kentucky’s Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, meanwhile, has said “let young working people opt out, the sooner the better, let ‘em opt out and get a better investment.” Indiana’s GOP Senate candidate Dan Coats has endorsed a Social Security plan “along the lines of what Paul Ryan has proposed.”
As a Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis found, under a Bush-style privatization plan, an October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge of that year, and if the U.S. stock market had behaved like the Japanese market during the duration of that retiree’s work life, “a private account would have experienced sharp negative returns, losing $70,000 — an effective -3.3 percent net annual rate of return.” But despite the market turmoil that America just went through, Republicans are most certainly pushing a privatization agenda, under the guise of a manufactured Social Security “crisis.”
Register
RSSLogin
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
