Despite Proposing $1.3 Trillion In Medicare Cuts Last Year, McCain Condemns Much Smaller Cuts In Senate Bill
Despite Proposing $1.3 Trillion In Medicare Cuts Last Year, McCain Condemns Much Smaller Cuts In Senate Bill
This afternoon, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the first Republican amendment to the Senate’s health care reform bill. The so-called ‘motion to commit’ would send the legislation back to the Senate Finance Committee and instruct that committee to remove the $491 billion in proposed reductions from Medicare and Medicaid programs:
Madame President, simply put, this motion to commit would be a requirement that we eliminate the half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that is envisioned by this bill. A half a trillion dollars in cuts that are unspecified as to how, and a half a trillion dollars in cuts that would directly impact the health care of citizens in this country. … All of these are cuts in the obligations that we have assumed and are the rightful benefits that people have earned. … I will eagerly look forward to hearing from the authors of this legislation as to how they can possibly achieve a half a trillion dollars in cuts without impacting existing Medicare programs negatively and eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country. That is what this motion is all about. This motion is to eliminate those unwarranted cuts.
Watch it:
McCain was for far more drastic Medicare cuts before he was against them. In October 2008, the McCain campaign announced that the Senator would pay for his health plan “with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid…in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.” Those cuts would have reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending by as much as 20% over 10 years and cut into benefits.
In 1997, McCain (along with many Democrats) voted for a series of Medicare cuts as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act decreased Medicare spending by 12.7% over 10 years and instituted the kind of payment updates that the Senate bill is now recommending. In 1995, moreover, Republicans sought to cut 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years and force millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. As Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich admitted, “We don’t want to get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart,” he said. “But we believe that it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.”
While Republicans wanted to strip funding from Medicare to ultimately kill the program, Democrats are finding cost savings to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and expand the number of seniors eligible for assistance with premiums and co-pays.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
- Comments
- 237
GOP Senate Candidate Rob Simmons Says Unemployed Workers Should Seek Government Health Insurance
GOP Senate Candidate Rob Simmons Says Unemployed Workers Should Seek Government Health Insurance
On Saturday, DoingItLocal.com’s David Smith interviewed former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT), a candidate for the Senate in 2010. Simmons, who is facing a crowded primary for the Republican nomination, has lurched to the far right to accommodate his party’s tea party base. He has renounced his support for progressive policies like cap-and-trade and the Employee Free Choice Act, and now proudly displays an actual tea bag tucked away in his copy of the Constitution.
Most recently, Simmons has tacked to the right on health reform as well. He attacked current legislation as a “government takeover” and denounced government interference in health care as placing “bureaucrats between patients and doctors.” But during his interview with Smith, Simmons went off his conservative script, stating that unemployed workers should seek the government-sponsored program of Medicaid:
SMITH: One of the aspects of the economy that is taking a very serious toll on families is of course healthcare. When people lose jobs, typically they lose they lose their health care. […] What do you suggest, what kind of answers do you have for people who are facing the all too real, daunting situation of not having health care?
SIMMONS: Well back in my part of the state and I know throughout the state you have community health centers or clinics that are available. Obviously if you lose your job and you fall within the income limits, you are eligible to sign up for Medicaid. There are other low cost options available but we really have to make sure is that people have the information they need so they can sign up for a plan that’s going to work for them. [...] I am sympathetic to those confronted with the loss of healthcare. I would urge people to get in contact with their member of Congress to learn about the options available.
Watch it:
Simmons appears to be advocating a government-provided backstop health care option for unemployed people. Will Simmons face censure now that he appears to be violating yet another provision of the Republican Party Purity Pledge? If you ask Simmons’ prospective GOP colleagues, like Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Medicaid is an abhorrent “medical ghetto.”
In reality, Medicaid is “cost-effective compared to private health insurance” and 74% of Americans, according to a 2005 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, consider it a very important program. The program protects low-income Americans from uncontrollable out-of-pocket costs charged by private insurers and also “covers services not usually covered in private health insurance.” Under the Senate health bill, “most nonelderly people with income below 133 percent of the [federal poverty line] would be made eligible for Medicaid” starting in 2014.
‘Official Chicago Tea Party’ distances itself from heckling by ‘splinter’ tea party group.
‘Official Chicago Tea Party’ distances itself from heckling by ‘splinter’ tea party group.
At a town hall event in Illinois earlier this month, tea party activists heckled a woman who recounted how her daughter-in-law and her unborn grandchild died because they didn’t have health insurance. These activists were encouraged to attend the event by the Chicago Tea Party Patriots, which sent around a flier railing against “socialized medicine.” After media outlets reported the heckling, the “Official Chicago Tea Party” was forced to distance itself and firmly denounce the heckling, which it says was carried out by a “splinter group.” The organization’s website is now down, replaced with this message:
The site of the Chicago Tea Party Patriots remains up and running.
Rep. Shuster Bashes The Stimulus As A Failure While Taking Credit For Its Success
Rep. Shuster Bashes The Stimulus As A Failure While Taking Credit For Its Success
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) is a vocal opponent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act who not only voted against the stimulus, but goes out of his way to mock it as “going nowhere” and doing “nothing to encourage growth.” Using the “failed” stimulus as his evidence, Shuster has been claiming that the government is incapable of reforming healthcare. But while Shuster tries to gain political points by bashing the stimulus, he has been quietly claiming credit for its benefits in his district, as well as advocating for an expanded role for Recovery Act money in his community:
– Last week, Shuster attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a sewage treatment plant for the Blairsville Municipal Authority. Republican State Senator Don White noted that the project was only possible because of the stimulus, which allowed the state Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) to provide a $10.4 million grant and a $3 million low interest loan for construction.
– On November 4, Shuster asked Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) to use some of the state’s stimulus money to reopen the Scotland School for Veterans’ Children. Shuster noted that using the Recovery Act money for the school would save 134 full-time jobs.
– In July, Shuster joined 14 Pennsylvania lawmakers — including fellow stimulus-opponents Reps. Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), and Todd Platts (R-PA) — in writing a letter asking that stimulus money be used towards public universities.
– In June, Shuster hailed the stimulus-funded initiative to build a high-speed rail line between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The Post-Gazette quoted Shuster praising the project: “I believe we are about to experience a new era in passenger rail in this country. I want Western Pennsylvania to participate in this new era and to enjoy the benefits of increased and expanded passenger rail service.”
Today, Roll Call reports that Republican lawmakers are planning this week to announce the GOP’s new “December Attack Plan,” which will focus on denigrating President Obama’s stimulus. Presumably, rank-in-file members like Shuster will participate in the attack, even though they have taken credit for the stimulus’ success. And to add to the irony, the attack is being led by Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who has now hosted multiple job fairs in his district filled with employers hiring directly because of the stimulus.
Washington Times Runs Anti-Obama Birther Ad Featuring Racial Undertones
Washington Times Runs Anti-Obama Birther Ad Featuring Racial Undertones
This latest national edition of the Washington Times features a full-page ad that claims that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. The ad was purchased by the anti-Obama website ProtectOurLiberty.org. While the group has placed several birther ads in the Washington Times in recent months, the version that ran this morning contains far more inflammatory imagery — three monkeys, apparently intended to represent the U.S. Congress, courts, and the media:
The hardly intelligible ad copy claims that under a 60-year-old British law, President Obama is a citizen of Britain and “is currently also a British protected person and/or a British citizen to this day.” The Center for American Progress’ Ian Millhiser points out that if this rule were actually applied to the presidency, every foreign nation would have the power to remove the President of the United States simply by granting the president citizenship.
The website promoted by the ad is run by Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., a plaintiff in a birther lawsuit filed against President Obama in New Jersey.
Pastor Rick Warren Refuses To Condemn Ugandan Law Making Homosexual Acts Punishable By Death
Pastor Rick Warren Refuses To Condemn Ugandan Law Making Homosexual Acts Punishable By Death
The Ugandan parliament is currently considering an “Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” under which any person “convicted of gay sex is liable to life imprisonment.” If that person is HIV positive or has sex with a minor or a person with a disability, he or she would be guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” and face the death penalty. The bill also proposes up to three years of imprisonment for anyone who “fails to report within 24 hours the identities of everyone they know who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, or who supports human rights for people who are.” The bill would even “apply to Ugandans who commit homosexual offences, but who live overseas.” There are approximately 500,000 gay men and women living in Uganda.
The author of the bill is Ugandan Parliamentarian David Bahati, who organizes the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been embraced by the far right in the United States. Journalist Jeff Sharlet, who has chronicled the secretive international fundamentalist Christian organization known as “The Family,” says that Bahati is “a core member” of the group, which has links to prominent U.S. politicians. In his book, Sharlet reveals the effects of some of The Family’s other work in Uganda (p. 328):
Uganda, which following the collapse of Siad Barre’s Somalia became the focus of the Family’s interests in the African Horn, has been the most tragic victim of their projection of American sexual anxieties. Following implementation of one of the continent’s only successful anti-AIDS program, President Yoweri Museveni, the Family’s key man in Africa, came under pressure from the United States to emphasize abstinence instead of condoms. … Meanwhile, Ugandan souls may be more “pure,” but their bodes are suffering; following the American intervention, the Ugandan AIDS rate, once dropping, nearly doubled.
Museveni has allowed Bahati’s bill parliamentary time and given homophobic speeches, warning Ugandan youths that “‘European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa,’ and saying gay relationships were against God’s will.”
Pastor Rick Warren — whom President Obama controversially chose to deliver the invocation at his inauguration — is now refusing to condemn Bahati’s bill, which has been endorsed by Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa. Ssempa has been welcomed by Warren’s family and made appearances at his church. Newsweek reports that although Warren has distanced himself from Ssempa’s views, he won’t come out against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill:
The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.
On Meet the Press yesterday, Warren reiterated, “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” He has, however, said that abortion is a “holocaust” and pushed for the passage of California’s Prop. 8.
Gonzales inspires students to ‘dream big’ and hope to meet ‘the next George W. Bush’ one day.
Gonzales inspires students to ‘dream big’ and hope to meet ‘the next George W. Bush’ one day.
After months without finding work, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales landed a teaching job at Texas Tech University earlier this year, where he is now leading a political science class on the Executive Branch. When Gonzales’ hiring was announced, Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance said that the former Bush appointee would “help Texas Tech and ASU prepare our students for success and to be future leaders in the State of Texas and beyond.” In an interview with the Daily Toreador, Gonzales gave an example of some of the inspirational wisdom he is providing to his students:
Gonzales said he wants to encourage Tech students to have high aspirations but to realize that success doesn’t come overnight.
“Dream big but be patient,” he said. “You never know when the next George W. Bush is going to come along and give you a once in a lifetime opportunity like he gave me, but you have to be patient.”
Israeli Likud Party Member: ‘The Obama Administration Is An Enemy Of The Jews’
Israeli Likud Party Member: ‘The Obama Administration Is An Enemy Of The Jews’
Part of the Obama administration’s plan to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to the negotiating table has been to call on the Israeli government to freeze all settlement building and expansion throughout the occupied West Bank.
Yet despite agreeing to freeze all settlement activity in the 2003 Road Map, the Israelis have continued expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. However, last week, Israeli government ministers approved a measure calling for a 10-month freeze on new building permits and construction of new residential buildings in the West Bank (but exempts East Jerusalem), a move top U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell said “falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before, and can help move toward agreement between the parties.”
This weekend, members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party attacked President Obama for the Israeli settlement decision:
[Member of the Knesset] Dani Danon organized the meeting after Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat (Likud) launched a verbal attack over the matter on U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, which she branded “terrible.” [...]
While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately distanced himself from her comments, the activists at Saturday’s conference leveled further criticism at Obama over the moratorium, which Israel undertook to carry out in the wake of tremendous U.S. pressure.
“The Obama administration is an enemy of the Jews and the worst regime there ever was for the State of Israel,” said Yossi Naim, the head of the Beit Aryeh regional council, at the Ra’ana meeting. “I announce to Obama: You won’t be able to stop us.”
Ron Nahman, mayor of the West Bank settlement of Ariel, applauded Livnat’s comments. “You had the public courage to say what most of the public feels ever since Obama came to power,” he said, repeatedly referring to the U.S. President as “Hussein Obama.”
The New York Times argued in a recent editorial that, despite the settlement dispute and mishaps, Obama should continue to move forward:
The president has no choice but to keep trying. At some point extremists will try to provoke another war…and the absence of a dialogue will only make things worse. Advancing his own final-status plan for a two-state solution is one high-risk way forward that we think is worth the gamble. Stalemate is unsustainable.
The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes that Netanyahu’s refusal to comply with a full settlement freeze “is a huge part of the problem here” and that the Obama administration may have to “stop pretending that Netanyahu is a partner for peace.”
Beck criticizes TP for not laughing at his sexist ‘joke’ about Palin.
Beck criticizes TP for not laughing at his sexist ‘joke’ about Palin.
Last week, ThinkProgress reported on Glenn Beck’s sexist explanation for ruling out a vice presidential run with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket. Beck said that he might consider a Beck-Palin ticket, but Palin-Beck would be out of the question because she’d always be “yapping away” as if she were “in the kitchen.” Today, Beck responded to our post on his website, saying his comments were a “joke” and that the media’s response was “predictable”:
The point, of course, was completely lost on liberal blogs who then immediately jumped to report on it, as if Glenn were just making a crass joke and hates women. It’s so satisfying when they take the bait.
Beck’s site says he was simply acting out “evil conservative stereotypes” and that he was obviously joking because he’s an “overweight former alcoholic talk show host” and Palin is an “accomplished governor.” But why is Beck so willing to condemn Newsweek as sexist for running a cover photo of Palin that she agreed to pose for, yet give himself a complete pass for an overtly sexist “joke” on air? It’s telling that Beck, who has a history of making sexist comments, even thinks his Palin joke is funny.
If he was white and raping children -- let him go! Let him go, of course. … By the way, I just want to make a prediction that blogs and everything else today will all be on fire that I seriously said that if this guy was raping children and white, let him go. Just like they did when I was making the point that evil conservatives -- of course you have to hate women. I would never serve as vice-president under Sarah Palin. She should be in the kitchen. And what did they do? They reported it just like that.Listen here:
Conservative Senators Embrace Putting Off Health Care For Americans In Favor Of Escalation In Afghanistan
Conservative Senators Embrace Putting Off Health Care For Americans In Favor Of Escalation In Afghanistan
The policy debate in Washington is currently focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care reform carry significant price tags — roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)
When it comes to these two debates, hawkish senators have laid out their priorities. They are more than willing to fund a risky troop surge that is increasingly opposed by both Americans and Afghans, yet remain stalwart opponents of health care reform that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they lack access to health care.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) demonstrated this preference for war over health care and other essential domestic priorities during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday. He heartily endorsed “a new surge of forces” in Afghanistan while dismissing a war surtax proposed by Rep. David Obey (D-WI). Graham suggested that we “trim up” the health care bill to pay for the war, prompting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to remark that Graham and other senate hawks have a “poor set of priorities”:
GRAHAM: We’ll be evaluated by some pretty tough characters in the world by how we handle Afghanistan. … We’re gonna have the troops in Afghanistan to win the conflict. [...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does [Obey] have a point [about the war surtax]? If we’re going to fight a war, shouldn’t the American people pay for it?
GRAHAM: Well, I’d like to have an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending…to pay for the war. … Can we trim up the health care bill and other big ticket items to pay for a war that we can’t afford to lose? [...]
SANDERS: What Senator Graham is now saying as I understand it is, hey we can cut back on education, so middle class families can’t afford to send their families to college. We don’t have to rebuild our infrastructure. We don’t have to invest in sustainable energy, so we stop importing $350 billion a year in foreign oil. Let’s just spend more money in Afghanistan while Europe and the people of China and the people of Russia watch us do that work. I think that is a very poor set of national priorities.
Watch it:
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) echoed similar sentiments during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” yesterday. He suggested to host John King that health care legislation should be delayed until next year to focus on Afghanistan, saying, “The war is terribly important. … So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change away and talk now about the essentials, war and money.”
Another Senate conservative, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), also denounced the idea of Obey’s war tax to pay for an escalation in Afghanistan. While telling a Fox News host that “there’s no bigger deficit hawk in Congress” than him, he suggested “cutting spending in other parts of the budget” rather than raising taxes, signaling that he, too, sees war as a greater priority than domestic counter-cyclical spending in this recessed economy.
As the number of Americans on food stamps rises to an all-time high, the unemployment rate hits double-digits, and Americans continue to perish due to lack of health coverage, how can these senators justify draining funding from crucial domestic programs to pay for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan?
Just one person in Washington Post poll says Cheney best reflects conservative principles.
Just one person in Washington Post poll says Cheney best reflects conservative principles.
Two new polls report that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh are the most powerful conservatives in the country. According to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair survey, 26 percent of Americans rate Limbaugh as the most influential conservative voice, followed by Fox News host Glenn Beck at 11 percent. In a Washington Post poll, a plurality of Republicans say Palin best reflects their “party’s core values,” and they would vote for her “if the presidential nomination battle were held today.” Two people who don’t fare as well in the Post poll are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney:
Just 1 percent pick George W. Bush as the best reflection of the party’s principles, and only a single person in the poll cites former vice president Richard B. Cheney. About seven in 10 say Bush bears at least “some” of the blame for the party’s problems.
The Post surveyed 804 “Republicans and Republican-leaning nonpartisans” for its sample. Palin is particularly popular amongst the “loyal followers of Limbaugh and Beck.” “Overall, 18 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents cited her as the person most representative of the party’s core values. … Among those who regularly listen to Limbaugh, however, Palin was cited by 48 percent, and among Beck’s viewers, it was 35 percent, far surpassing others.”
ThinkFast: November 30, 2009
ThinkFast: November 30, 2009
President Obama plans to lay out a time frame for drawing down the American involvement in the war in Afghanistan when he announces his decision this week to send more forces. A senior administration official said, “He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down.”
In a speech today, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) will call on President Barack Obama to bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan. “I can take pot shots at ACORN all day long, and I’m good at it,” Chaffetz told Politico. “But even though I am probably going against where the party is on this traditionally, I just think we need to stand up and support the notion that it is time to bring our soldiers home.”
Business leaders are pressing the Obama administration to enact tax cuts as a way of spurring job growth. The National Federation of Independent Business is pushing for a payroll tax holiday, and the Chamber of Commerce wants “reduction of the corporate capital-gains tax and a permanent elimination of the estate tax.”
Food stamp use has risen to a record high as one in eight Americans and one in four children now take advantage of the federal food assistance program. More than 36 million Americans in total are on food stamps, with an additional 20,000 joining the program every month.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said Sunday that it’s “less likely than more likely” that he’ll run for president in 2012. “Huckabee said he’s enjoying his current gig as a Fox News host” and wants to see what happens in the 2010 elections. Recent polls show he is the “most popular candidate among Iowa Republicans.”
UK Iraq War Inquiry: Blair Was Told Iraq War Was Illegal, Decided On War In 2002
UK Iraq War Inquiry: Blair Was Told Iraq War Was Illegal, Decided On War In 2002
Last Tuesday, the United Kingdom began “the most thorough investigation yet into the decisions that led up to the war and governed Britain’s involvement” through a series of Iraq war hearings in which numerous high-level British officials — including key war supporter and Bush ally ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair — are expected to testify about their role in bringing their country to war.
The hearings, chaired by privy council member John Chilcot, have brought to light a number of explosive facts which unveil the level of chicanery practiced by the Blair government in taking the country to war over the opposition of the vast majority of British citizens:
– Blair was told prior to the war by his intelligence services that Iraq did not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Sir William Ehrman, the director-general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office at the time, told the inquiry that British intelligence services had concluded ten days prior to the beginning of the war that Saddam Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction and that he also likely lacked warheads capable of delivering such weapons. The Blair government ignored the advice of their intelligence services and supported the war anyway. [11/25/09]
– The Blair government had decided to support the US-led war up to a year before the invasion. Sir Christopher Meyer, the ambassador to Washington at the time, told the inquiry that the Blair government had decided that it was “a complete waste of time” to resist Bush’s efforts to go to war and had instead opted to offer advice about how to invade. Meyer also told the inquiry that former US national security adviser Condoleeza Rice had called the Meyer on the day of the 9/11 attacks and told him, “We are just looking to see whether there could possibly be a connection with Saddam Hussein.” Meyer also reiterated that both the American and British government were constantly looking for a “smoking gun” to justify the upcoming war. [11/26/09, 11/26/09]
– Blair was told the Iraq War would be illegal under international law by his attorney general. In a July 2002 letter, former British attorney general Lord Goldsmith warned Blair that the UN charter only permits military intervention “on the basis of self-defence” or for “humanitarian intervention” and that neither case applied to Iraq. Blair responded by banning Goldsmith from future cabinet meetings and ignoring his verdict on the legality of the war. [11/29/09]
The Iraq war Inquiry will continue through 2010 and is expected to release its conclusions in a formal report at the end of that year. Although few expect there to ever be prosecutions as a result of the deception or illegality of the invasion of Iraq — despite the fact, as one of the last surviving judges of the Nuremburg Tribunal has said, the leaders who launched the invasion should be held accountable — there are other important reasons to investigate the drive to war. As Chilcot said at the opening of the hearings Tuesday, the inquiry was set up not only to “identify the lessons that should be learned from the UK’s involvement in Iraq,” but also to “help future governments who may face future situations.”
Inhofe Trashes Military Generals Who Advocate For Clean Energy Legislation: They Crave ‘The Limelight’
Inhofe Trashes Military Generals Who Advocate For Clean Energy Legislation: They Crave ‘The Limelight’
In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn articulated a national security argument for passing clean energy legislation. “Continued over reliance on fossil fuels, or small, incremental steps, simply will not create the kind of future security and prosperity that the American people and our great Nation deserve,” McGinn warned.
In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate environment committee, argued that McGinn and other generals who are advocating for clean energy reform (like Wesley Clark, Stephen Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, etc) are simply doing so because they crave “the limelight”:
NYT: Senator Boxer is chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,on which you are the ranking Republican. She and her fellow Democrats have lately suggested that global warming could be a threat to national security by destabilizing developing countries.
INHOFE: That’s the most ludicrous thing. They looked around and they found, I think, five generals to testify before the committee. Well, that’s 5 generals out of 4,000 retired generals that say that. There are a lot of generals who don’t like to be out of the limelight. They’d like to get back in.
Despite Inhofe’s desire to trash the motivations of military generals who have a different view than he does about the impending climate crisis, the national security implications of climate change cannot be so easily dismissed. For at least the past two years, “military and intelligence experts have been issuing studies warning that climate change could put American military personnel and national security at risk. Increasingly violent storms, pandemics, drought and large-scale refugee problems, they say, will destabilize regions and encourage terrorism. And American dependence on foreign energy sources will only exacerbate the threats and increase the likelihood of military action.”
It’s not just military generals who are making this argument. Inhofe’s former colleague, John Warner (who Inhofe acknowledged has had “a long and distinguished career in the military”), also understands the security implications of global warming:
WARNER: Leading military, intelligence, and security experts have publically spoken out that if left unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in already fragile regions of the world. If we ignore these facts, we do so at the peril of our national security and increase the risk to those in uniform who serve our nation. It is for this reason that I firmly believe the U.S. must take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course, Inhofe probably believes Warner is craving the limelight too. Apparently, everyone needs to take lessons from Inhofe about how to unassumingly fly below the radar.
Palin quits before finishing the 5K Turkey Trot race.
Palin quits before finishing the 5K Turkey Trot race.
On Wednesday, Sarah Palin excitedly announced on Twitter that she was going to be running a 5K Turkey Trot charity race in Washington state on Thanksgiving day. Large crowds of people turned out to catch Palin at the race, hoping to get the chance to meet the former Alaska governor. Palin, however, quit the race early to avoid many of her fans:
Palin had announced on Twitter that she would be running the 5k race organized by the Benton-Franklin Chapter of the Red Cross.
She didn’t finish the race, opting to leave the course early to avoid more crowds at the end. About 40 minutes into the run, word started trickling out to people gathered at the finish line that she was gone.
Wonkette also points out that Palin said she wasn’t going to be making a turkey dinner for Thanksgiving because it was “too much work.”
Rove Does His Best Cheney Impression As He Eagerly Dismisses ‘Draft Cheney’ Rumors
Rove Does His Best Cheney Impression As He Eagerly Dismisses ‘Draft Cheney’ Rumors
Ever since Liz Cheney floated her father as a possible presidential contender in 2012, rumors have swirled that the former VP may be thinking about such a run. Now, a group of right-wing activists is unveiling a new organization — “Draft Dick Cheney 2012.”
This morning on Fox News, former Bush political adviser Karl Rove summarily dismissed the “draft Cheney” rumors, and did so by mocking Cheney’s characteristically curmudgeon voice:
FOX: Karl, would Dick Cheney have any chance in running for the Oval Office in 2012? His favorability ratings were on the rise at last check, but still very low.
ROVE: Well, look, that’s a question we don’t even need to ask. Cheney’s been asked this question himself this past week, and I will quote Vice President Cheney when he was asked would you run for President in 2012. He said, [Rove doing Cheney impression] “Not a chance.”
I mean, look, he’s not running. He’s not running. [Rove doing Cheney impression] “Not a chance.”
Interestingly, in his eagerness to dismiss even the slightest hint that Cheney might run, Rove never offered a positive word during the segment about Cheney’s service as Vice President. “There are limits as to what Dick Cheney could be called upon to do for the country,” Rove said. Watch it:
Many right-wing activists had urged Cheney to make a run for president in 2008. In a piece titled “Cheney’s Chance,” The New York Sun wrote in 2007, “For those of us who are concerned with extending Mr. Bush’s campaign for freedom around the world and cutting taxes at home, a Cheney campaign is attractive.”
In this week’s Newsweek, Jon Meacham argues in favor of a Cheney presidential run, writing that it would offer the American public an opportunity to render a clear verdict on the Bush record.
“Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people,” Meacham writes, adding, “A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way.”
Bachmann and Palin to unite for Tea Party convention.
Bachmann and Palin to unite for Tea Party convention.
Sarah Palin will star as the keynote speaker at next February’s First National Tea Party Convention, which will take place in Nashville, TN. Also attending: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). The right-wing Minnesota congresswoman has previously asserted that Democrats are trying to “sabotage” both her and Palin “to make sure that we don’t have a prominent national voice.” The Washington Independent reports that tickets to see the Bachmann/Palin show “are available for the bargain price of $549.”
New Report: Triggered Public Option Is Better Than The Existing Public Option Provisions
New Report: Triggered Public Option Is Better Than The Existing Public Option Provisions
A new report from the Urban Institute argues that a “strong” public option — one that is triggered in the event that overall growth in national health spending exceeds a pre-determined target — may do more to control health care spending than the public option proposals offered in existing legislation:
In the absence of enough political support to pass a strong public option at this time, a “trigger” for a strong public option should be considered for inclusion in health reform legislation whether or not a weak public option is included as a political compromise. Even the threat of such a plan being triggered offers the potential to affect market dynamics between insurers and providers.
The report says that the Senate and House’s public option provisions (which require the public plan to independently negotiate rates with providers) hold little hope of lowering costs in areas of the country with high provider concentration. In areas where hospitals have “too strong a market presence to be excluded from insurer networks,” hospitals could dictate prices, stripping the public plan of its ability to negotiate cheaper rates, the report warns. According to a 2006 study, 86% “of large metropolitan areas were considered to have highly concentrated hospital markets.”
Policymakers can overcome the political challenges of enacting a strong public option — one which compels Medicare providers to participate and establishes Medicare-like reimbursement rates — by placing the plan behind a trigger mechanism which “would allow private insurers the opportunity to show that they can provide affordable coverage under the new health reform rules.”
The report recognizes that “many proponents of a strong public option oppose a compromise relying on triggers because they believe that triggers would never be pulled” and suggests that structuring the trigger around overall growth in national health spending — rather than affordability — would make it more likely that a public plan would be established in the absence of meaningful cost containment.
“Opponents of a public option could argue to override the trigger by claiming that factors other than health plans’ inability to manage spending caused the lack of affordability,” the report warns. A “triggering event tied to affordability” could subject the public option “to the same controversy as now, with opponents arguing that other policies should be adopted instead of a public option and increasing the likelihood of congressional pre-emption of the trigger.”
To avoid these pitfalls, policymakers should consider basing the trigger on “overall growth in national health spending.” “An advantage of using growth in national health expenditures (NHE) is that the data are regularly and consistently reported and are directly related to the purpose of a public option — to create competition with private insurers to reduce health spending growth,” the report notes.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Strip club owner’s dog shelter named for Gingrich opens.
Strip club owner’s dog shelter named for Gingrich opens.
Last September, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich retracted an “Entrepreneur of the Year” award he accidentally presented to Dallas strip club owner Dawn Rizos and refunded the $5,000 donation Rizos made to Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future. At the time, Rizos said she would take the money to build a shelter for unwanted pit bulls. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that “Newt’s Nook: A Home For Pit Bulls” is now open:
A North Texas shelter for pit bulls has opened this week, thanks to a Dallas topless club owner’s contribution after Newt Gingrich’s conservative group snubbed her donation. [...]
Rizos says she decided to “make something positive out of his bad manners.”
She redirected the money to Animal Guardians of America’s sanctuary for rescued dogs in Celina, about 35 miles north of Dallas.
Gingrich didn’t attend the opening of “Newt’s Nook — A Home for Pit Bulls.”
Beck’s Sexist Reason For Ruling Out Palin-Beck Ticket: She’d Always Be ‘Yapping’ Like We’re ‘In The Kitchen’
Beck’s Sexist Reason For Ruling Out Palin-Beck Ticket: She’d Always Be ‘Yapping’ Like We’re ‘In The Kitchen’
In recent days, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has indicated that she may be open to a conservative presidential dream ticket in 2012: Palin-Beck (or Beck-Palin). “I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I’m not there yet,” Palin told Newsmax. “But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He’s a hoot.” Fox and Friends plugged the idea yesterday morning and asked Palin whether she would run with Beck. She kept the door open, saying, “I don’t know. We’ll see, we’ll see.”
But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was “absolutely” ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be “yapping” like they were in “the kitchen”:
BECK: I don’t think things are hoots. I don’t. I don’t think it’s a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word “hoot.” [...]
No, no I’m just saying — Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck — can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”
Listen here:
A woman’s appropriate place on a presidential ticket, according to Beck, is in the number two spot. Otherwise, she should just “yap” away in a kitchen somewhere. Apparently, being a vice presidential running mate behind a woman is a serious challenge to Beck’s manhood.
When Newsweek ran a picture of Palin in a running outfit on its cover this month, Palin and many others criticized the magazine for being sexist. Beck joined the outrage, saying the “attack” on Palin was “dizzying” and “devastating.” He said Newsweek had reached “the highest of the lows” and added that the magazine now “sucks.”
Transcript: More »
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll