Think Progress

Unemployment Insurance Kept 3.3 Million Americans Out Of Poverty In 2009

Newly-released data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows “that the fraction of Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008—the highest since 1994.” With 43.6 million Americans in poverty, it’s important for progressives to look to policies that can alleviate the country’s poverty problem.

Looking to the Census data, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’s (CBPP) Arloc Sherman discovers one of these policies. Sherman finds that unemployment insurance kept 3.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2009:

An exclusive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of the new survey data shows that unemployment insurance benefits — which expanded substantially last year in response to the increased need — kept 3.3 million people out of poverty in 2009.

In other words, there were 43.6 million Americans whose families were below the poverty line in 2009, according to the official poverty statistics, which count jobless benefits as part of families’ income. But if you don’t count jobless benefits, 46.9 million Americans were poor.

CBPP illustrates this number through a chart it created:

As ThinkProgress has documented, conservatives have done everything they can to delay extensions of unemployment benefits. Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly locked arms to block extending the benefits for unemployed Americans, putting the wellbeing of jobless people in peril. And as the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo notes, a major chunk of 2009’s unemployment benefits were funded by the stimulus bill, which “House Republicans unanimously opposed.”

Conservatives have also demonized Americans — who, in the midst of recession are unable to find decent work — who receive unemployment insurance. NV GOP Senate candidate called the recipients of jobless benefits “spoiled,” former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich complained that “welfare” was keeping Americans from wanting to seek work, and conservative TV personality and Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein said the unemployed in need of benefits are “unpleasant people…who do not know how to do a day’s work.”

Lady Gaga Slams Filibusters As ‘A Tactic To Hijack Our Debate’

After calling out Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) plan to filibuster the annual defense authorization bill in order to prevent openly gay Americans from serving their country in uniform, Lady Gaga slammed the filibuster on Twitter:

Gaga’s attack on the filibuster is part of her broader campaign in support of gay servicemembers. Earlier this week, she brought a group of gay veterans to the Video Music Awards as her dates. She also called upon her followers to call Majority Leader Harry Reid in support of a Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell repeal, leading Reid to respond on Twitter that “[a]nyone qualified to serve this country should be allowed to do so.” Earlier today, she released a video calling on senators to repeal DADT and “pledge that no American’s life is more valuable than another”:

Her Gaganess is also right to be upset about the right’s unprecedented abuse of the filibuster. Since President Obama took office, conservative senators have wielded the filibuster and similar obstructionist tactics to bring the Senate to its knees. In addition to their unconscionable effort to prevent gay men and lesbians from proudly serving their country, right-wing senators have ground judicial confirmations to a near standstill and bottled up 372 different bills that already passed the House.

In a subsequent tweet, Gaga calls for “all hands on deck” to round up the 60 votes necessary to pass the defense authorization and repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. But of course, 60 votes shouldn’t be necessary. It is truly shameful that U.S. senators would even consider placing procedural roadblocks in the way of Americans who risk their lives for their country.

McConnell Proposes Paying For Massive $4 Trillion Tax Cut With $300 Billion Spending Freeze

This week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been trying to make it abundantly clear that he has no interest in extending the Bush tax cuts for only the middle- and lower-class. In fact, McConnell has drawn up the Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2010 to show how serious about this he really is.

Not only would the bill permanently extend the entire package of Bush income tax cuts, but it adopts a cut in the estate tax that would gift $91 billion to the richest 0.25 percent of households (which also has the support of some Democrats, including Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)). McConnell has yet to receive a cost estimate for his package, but the Congressional Budget Office has already scored a similar package, which was astronomically expensive:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That’s more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama’s health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined.

When asked about this huge hole he blows in the budget, McConnell’s aides say he has a plan to cover the cost:

Asked how McConnell would cover the cost of his proposal, the Tax Hike Prevention Act, aides noted that he has backed a bipartisan plan to freeze spending that would save an estimated $300 billion over the next decade – a drop in the bucket compared with his $4 trillion-plus plan.

As Ezra Klein pointed out, “there is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party’s $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama’s plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit.” As The Wonk Room explains, any pronouncement that McConnell makes regarding his fiscal responsibility should be stacked up against this irresponsible tax cut plan.

Sen. Johanns: Small Businesses Need Loans ‘Like They Need A Kick In The Pants’

The Senate invoked cloture today on a bill that provides tax credits to small businesses and creates a $30 billion lending fund for those same businesses to access loans. Considering that Republicans claim to be staunch defenders of small businesses (and their frequent use pf small businesses as cover to justify their desire to cut taxes for the richest two percent of Americans), this should have been a fairly non-controversial piece of legislation.

However, all but two Senate Republicans opposed it. In fact, today on C-Span, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) said that small businesses “need another loan like they need a kick in the pants.” Watch it:

This chart, then, from the National Federation of Independent Business small business survey, would indicate that a kick in the pants is sorely needed:

According to a new report from the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, “the number of loans made to small businesses, which peaked at 27.2 million in the second quarter of 2008, has fallen by more than 4.8 million since then, a drop of 17.8 percent. The total value of those loans fell by $60 billion.” But as The Wonk Room explained, Johanns isn’t the only Republican having some trouble comprehending that banks may be hesitant to lend to small businesses in the aftermath of a financial crisis.

Progressive Rep. Bob Filner Risks Arrest To Save Cancer Victim’s Home From Foreclosure

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative version, believes in the on-your-own society, and sides with powerful corporations and other privileged sectors of America. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

This progressive vision was on full display yesterday during a vigil led by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) that halted, for now, the foreclosure of a cancer victim’s home. For months, Bonita, California resident Luz Maria Villanueva had been facing impending foreclosure on her home by Union Bank. Villanueva’s situation was especially dire due to the fact that her son has a kidney disease as well as cancer. As medical bills began to pile up, Villanueva had to choose between the life of her son and her home, and she chose her son.

As Union Bank began to close in on Villanueva’s home, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), who represents the woman and her son in Congress, took note of her situation. Comparing the struggle of families trying to keep their homes to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s which landed him in a Mississippi jail for two months, Filner announced that he’d be holding a community vigil on the steps of Villanueva’s house on the day a local sheriff was scheduled to come foreclose on her. He warned that doing so “may result” in his arrest, but that was willing to risk it to help her save her home. Thanks to the publicity Filner and the surrounding community brought to the case, Union Bank decided to call off the foreclosure, for now:

“Thank you, thank you!” Luz Maria Villanueva’s voice was choked with emotion at a rally on her front lawn organized by Congressman Bob Filner (D-San Diego). Nearly 100 people turned out at 5:30 a.m. for a candlelight vigil to protest Union Bank’s announced plan to have the Sheriff’s department take Villanueva’s Bonita home. She has pleaded for a reprieve at least until her young son, who has cancer, completes chemotherapy treatments.

“We’re going to stand together to change America,” said Rep. Filner. “We have a president who talked about hope. We have to give him strength. The banks have taken over both parties.” He called for changes in the law to protect those victimized by predatory lending practices. The rally drew widespread media attention; at least three major TV stations as well as print and online media reporters were on hand to cover the event. Although Villanueva attained a temporary stay when Union Bank called off the Sheriff today, the order could be reissued, Filner warned those present. “We got them to back down, but we need you to be on call.”

Local news station San Diego 6 covered the event. Filner told the station that he gets “hundreds of calls” every day from other constituents facing foreclosure on their homes. He also reiterated his commitment to passing cramdown legislation — which was defeated in Congress last year — to help people stay in their homes. Watch San Diego 6’s report:

The fate of Villanueva’s home is still up in the air, as Union Bank has promised to continue negotiations with her and Filner. For his part, the congressman hopes that other communities and their legislators fight to help their neighbors keep their homes. “I hope this spreads across America,” he said at the vigil yesterday.

Senate Ends Uncontroversial Judicial Nominee’s 400 Day Wait

More than 400 days ago, President Obama nominated Nashville Attorney Jane Stranch to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. No senator articulated a plausible reason to oppose Stranch’s nomination, although Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) did take to the Senate floor yesterday to make the absurd claim that he must oppose Stranch because she says that she will emulate the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning foreign law. Stranch is not a particularly contentious nominee — indeed, both of her state’s Republican senators endorsed her nomination, and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) even unsuccessfully pushed to have her confirmed nearly two months ago. Nevertheless, Stranch has waited more than a year for the Senate to simply vote on her nomination.

Last night, the Senate finally ended the pointless obstruction of Stranch’s nomination:

It seems odd that a nominee who received such a lopsided 71-21 vote would be the victim of obstructionism, but these kinds of mindless objections to Obama’s nominees have become commonplace. Conservatives filibustered Judge Barbara Milano Keenan’s nomination to the Fourth Circuit for months. She was then confirmed 99-0. Judge Denny Chin was filibustered for months, only to be confirmed 98-0. And dozens of nominations continue to languish, despite no serious opposition.

The right’s weapon against judicial confirmations is a Senate rule which allows them to force up to 30 hours of floor debate on each nominee even after a filibuster is broken. Although 30 hours may not seem like a lot, when you multiply it across the hundreds of judges, ambassadors and other officials that require Senate confirmation, there is literally not enough time to confirm more than a fraction of these nominees. Moreover, while allowing the minority to delay a vote even after a filibuster has been broken can be waived, doing so requires unanimous consent of all 100 senators.

There’s only one possible explanation for this kind of rampant obstructionism. Someday, a conservative will occupy the White House again, and every seat that the right allows President Obama to fill is a seat that they cannot fill with a right-wing ideologue. Sadly, their delay and obstruct strategy is working, as Obama’s judges have been confirmed at only slightly more than half the rate of President George W. Bush’s. Indeed, Obama has the lowest judicial confirmation rate of any recent president.

Rubio Flips: ‘I’m Not’ Open To Social Security Privatization, ‘I Don’t Think That’s The Solution’

In recent months, a number of Republican leaders have endorsed various schemes to once again attempt what President Bush failed to do — privatize all or part of Social Security. Former House Speaker and likely presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently endorsed Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to privatize Social Security and Medicare; Reps. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have all touted personal accounts; and, Alaska GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller has suggested that the social safety net programs are unconstitutional.

But in an interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto today, Florida GOP Senate nominee Marco Rubio made a stark break with those in his party who want privatize the social safety net, saying explicitly that he is not even “open” to the idea, before explaining why privatization wouldn’t work:

RUBIO: Anyone telling you that we shouldn’t touch [Social Security], they are going to play tricky political games, they’re going to go around saying that I’m in favor of privatizing it, or raising the retirement age on current beneficiaries —

CAVUTO: But you are open to privatizing it, sir?

RUBIO: No, I think for that — no I’m not. That time has come and gone.

CAVUTO: What about for young guys like you who could take some of the money and put it in the market?

RUBIO: The problem is that it takes money — it makes it more difficult to balance the system in the long term.

CAVUTO: Do you’d be against it?

RUBIO: Yeah, I don’t think that’s the solution.

Watch it:

Rubio’s stance is surprising, not just because it conflicts with many of his like-minded conservative peers, but also because it conflicts with his own stated position on Social Security reform. In May, Rubio said he supported Ryan’s “Roadmap,” which would “allow workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payments into a personal retirement account,” something very similar to what Bush proposed. “I’m proud of [Rubio] for doing something bold,” Ryan said in response to news of Rubio’s endorsement. On his website, Rubio also says his position is similar to one “that numerous responsible Republicans have taken including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).”

Of course, the Rubio of today is correct in saying that privatizing Social Security would put the system in grave danger, and his new stance reflects the view of nearly half of Americans who are “very uncomfortable” with replacing Social Security with private accounts.

Extremists Hold Weekend Of Anti-Islam Hate; Mainstream Americans Push Back With Rallies And Interfaith Events »

For months, extremist pastor Terry Jones’s Dove World Outreach Center planned to hold “International Burn a Qur’an Day,” where Jones’s congregation would publicly burn copies of the Islamic holy text. While Jones back down in the face of public rebuke from officials like Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his hate campaign spawned a number of copycat extremists across the country who enacted their own plans to burn the Islamic holy book, held anti-Muslim rallies, and vandalized Muslim places of worship:

– A burned Qur’an, its “pages covered in feces,” was found outside a mosque in East Lansing, Michigan. The FBI is currently investigating the incident. [9/11/10]

– “Stop Islamization of America” held a 1,500 person-strong rally against the Park 51 Islamic community center in New York City, with the headline speaker being Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has called Islam “the ideology of a retarded culture.” [9/11/10]

– In Springfield, Tennessee, two pastors burned copies of the Qur’an, “answering what they say was a message from God.” The burning “took place in front of just a handful of people, most of them from the media.” [9/12/10]

– A burned and shot Qur’an was left outside the Annoor Mosque in Knoxville, Tennessee. [9/12/10]

Yet as extremists continued their anti-Islam crusade, a broad majority of mainstream Americans pushed back against hate over the weekend. They held rallies, hosted interfaith events, and even utilized skateboards to fight back against the rising tide of Islamophobia among the far right:

– Leaders of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths in Atlanta, including the “dean of the Civil Rights Movement,” Rev. Joseph Lowery, held a press conference and rally “on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary” to denounce religious bigotry. [9/10/10]

– More than a thousand people attended an interfaith event in Gainesville, Florida, where Jones originally planned to burn the Qur’an. Members of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu faiths attended the event. [9/10/10]

– 75 people, including “Christians, Jews, Quakers, members of the Baha’i” faith, gathered in Santa Cruz, California, for an interfaith rally at the Town Clock. [9/11/10]

– As ThinkProgress previously reported, a 23 year-old skateboarder named Jacob Isom stopped the burning of a Qur’an by a radical right-wing pastor. Isom grabbed the book before the pastor was able to light it on fire, telling him, “Dude, you have no Qur’an,” before taking off. [9/11/10]

In Rochester, New York, scores of people attended a rally and heard speeches from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim leaders about the need to be tolerant of other faiths. Former Rochester mayor Bill Johnson keynoted the event. Watch local news station WAHM 13’s report about the rally: More »« Less

Texas Skateboarder Stops Christian Extremist From Burning The Qur’an

As news that Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove Outreach Center planned to publicly burn a Qur’an — an operation which appears to have been called off, for now — raced around the world, many in the Muslim world reacted with angry protests, feeling that Jones’ actions were indicative of an America that was indifferent to the sensitivities of the Islamic faith.

Yet on Saturday, the day that Jones had dubbed “International Burn a Qur’an Day,” one American stepped forward to fight back against the rising tide of Islamophobia among the far-right.

In Amarillo, Texas, David Grisham, director of Repent Amarillo, “which aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship practices through confrontation and prayer,” planned to burn the Islamic holy text at a public gathering. But before he could set the book ablaze, a 23 year-old skateboarder named Jacob Isom swooped in and grabbed it:

A planned Quran burning Saturday in Amarillo was thwarted by a 23-year-old carrying a skateboard and wearing a T-shirt with “I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke” scrawled by hand on the back.

Jacob Isom, 23, grabbed David Grisham’s Quran when he became distracted while arguing with several residents at Sam Houston Park about the merits of burning the Islamic holy book. “You’re just trying to start Holy Wars,” Isom said of Grisham after he gave the book to a religious leader from the Islamic Center of Amarillo.

Local news station News Channel 10 covered the event and interviewed Isom. Isom told News Channel 10 that “he heard something about burning the Qur’an. Then I snuck up behind [Grisham] and told him, ‘Dude, you have no Qur’an,’ and took off.” Watch it:

As Amarillo Citizens Against Repent Amarillo’s Facebook page shows, Isom made sure the book made it into the safe hands of a smiling local Muslim leader.

Gingrich Endorses Social Security Privatization Part of Ryan’s Roadmap

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), ranking member of the Budget Committee and incoming chairman if Republicans capture the House in November, has a budget plan called “America’s Roadmap,” which slashes Medicare and Social Security in an ostensible effort to end the budget deficit. While right-wing pundits have been quick to applaud the plan, elected Republicans and those hoping to be elected are much more hesitant to endorse deep cuts to popular social programs. Many have shied away from endorsing the plan.

One such politician was former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R), who dubbed Rep. Ryan “extraordinarily formidable” but had not explicitly endorsed his plan. But yesterday at an event in Iowa that was widely seen as laying the groundwork for a 2012 presidential run, Gingrich explicitly endorsed Ryan’s plans for Social Security, while voicing disapproval for the taxes contained in the roadmap:

Taking questions after his talk, Gingrich told The Tribune that Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan is “one of the smartest conservative thinkers in Congress,” but that he opposes a value-added tax proposed by Ryan as part of a plan to end the U.S. deficit.

Gingrich also said he believes that Ryan’s plan to partly privatize Social Security would “triple the earnings” of future retirees.

Gingrich may “believe” that Social Security privatization would triple retirees’ benefits, but it is not a belief based in fact. The Center for Economic and Policy Research studied President George W. Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security — a plan that the Ryan roadmap closely resembles — and found that a 15-year-old entering the system would see a benefit cut of 45 percent by the time they were of retirement age, which would mean a loss of about $200,000 in retirement benefits. Private accounts would only replace about $9,000 of the lost benefits, according to CEPR — and that’s assuming the individual doesn’t retire in an economic slump.

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 that year’s market turmoil. Gingrich’s support for privatization is notable because it belies the claim made by many conservative pundits that no Republican wants to privatize Social Security.

Also, Gingrich’s specific disapproval of the value-added tax plan undermines his stated goal to balance the budget — something the Ryan plan already fails to do. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says that the Ryan budget would not balance the budget nor seriously reduce the national debt, and that’s taking into account the revenues raised by value-added taxes. Gingrich’s specific disapproval of those taxes would move the Ryan “roadmap” even further away from accomplishing that goal.

‘America Speaking Out’ Against Republican Proposals On Republican Website

House Republicans have proudly touted their America Speaking Out website — which allows visitors to suggest and vote on various policy prescriptions — as a new and innovative way to involve the American people in the democratic process and the creation of federal policy. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) said the site is “revolutionizing the way we govern by engaging the American people and seeking your ideas for making things better.” Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said that America Speaking Out proves “the Democrat [sic] majority isn’t listening, but House Republicans will.”

But Republicans might want to look at what’s garnering interest on their own site, as the proposal receiving the most “interest” (and the second highest number of overall votes) in the job creation section is to “stop the outsourcing of jobs from America to other countries that do not pay taxes into the U.S. and stop the tax breaks that are given to these companies that are outsourcing.” Here’s a screenshot (from 5:27 p.m. yesterday):

As The Wonk Room explains, Democrats have proposed multiple pieces of legislation closing corporation tax loopholes that encourage the offshoring of jobs, and Republicans have opposed each one. So if America is speaking out so loud and clear, why aren’t Republicans listening?

Daisy Khan Tells TP She And Her Husband Would Prefer Not To Meet Terry Jones On 9/11

Earlier today, Imam Muhammad al-Masri, the head of a central Florida mosque, brokered an agreement with hate pastor Terry Jones whereby Jones would back off his pledge to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. Jones asserted that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had “agreed to move” his Islamic center project near Ground Zero.

In a telephone conversation with ThinkProgress tonight, Daisy Khan — the wife of Imam Rauf — said there was no such deal made. She said Imam Masri had called her earlier today to ask whether Imam Rauf would be open to negotiating a relocation with Jones, and she said no.

Jones asserted earlier today that he and Masri are “flying up” to New York on Saturday to meet with Rauf. Khan told ThinkProgress that, while she and her husband are prepared to meet with Jones and Masri, she had not agreed to a meeting this Saturday. She said she told Masri that such a meeting should take place sometime in the future “when cooler heads have prevailed.” She explained that she would prefer not to meet with Jones on Saturday:

We do not want to take away from the solemn day of 9/11. Our Center is not about 9/11, the Quran is not about 9/11, we wish to commorate 9/11 with prayers for the families of the victims.

Khan also told us, “We reject any comparison to what we are prepared to build in NY and what Pastor was ready to destroy in Florida.” So what were the motivating factors for Masri and Jones to announce tonight’s deal?

For Masri, he likely felt pressure to make things happen quickly. Tomorrow, Muslims in America will be congregating in mosques to celebrate Eid ul-Fitr, a religious holiday to mark the end of a month of fasting. Masri likely wanted an announcement this evening so that the Eid celebration is not used to engender more animosity and division.

For Jones, as I told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann tonight, he probably felt like he needed a scapegoat in backing down. Jones had not previously linked the Quran burning effort to the Islamic Center project. Jones was trapped in a box because he received the call from Secretary Robert Gates that he had been requesting, asking that the pastor not proceed with his plans. In backing down, Jones — who had taken the world hostage with his hate-filled campaign — tried to shift the controversy back unto Rauf. Watch it:

Pro-Choice GOP U.S. Senate Candidate Says Republican Party Has ‘Morphed Into’ Something ‘I Don’t Recognize’

Viewing the GOP as “the party of ideas,” Republican Senate candidate Bill Binnie entered the New Hampshire senate race to “add my voice to economic challenges” as a self-described fiscal conservative who believes in a woman’s right to choose. According to Binnie, his pro-choice stance invited “over 1,000 pieces of mail” and threatening phone calls to his home. “We don’t answer our phone anymore,” he said.

In defending his pro-choice stance, he said, “I believe that the individual has the final say, not the government, in terms of how we live our lives.” He added, “There is a fight in my party for individual rights and what it means to be a Republican.” But as the GOP shifts towards a more radical stance, he says “it is a challenge” to “stand in a Republican primary” when the party “has morphed into parts that I don’t recognize”:

“My view of the Republican Party is the party of ideas. It morphed into parts that I don’t recognize. I think it’s one of the debates of my candidacy.” [...]

“I started out in this race to add my voice to economic challenges and my background,” he said. “I didn’t realize, you’re talking about the polarization, I am a centric New Hampshire citizen. I’m fiscally conservative, I’m socially moderate. I’m not an extremist in any way. And yet, as I stand up in a Republican primary, it is a challenge. That’s what I’ve learned from this process in the last few months.

“I went to a debate in Portsmouth and I was the only one when asked are you a social conservative, I said no,” Binnie said. “I couldn’t believe that. Everyone is a fiscal conservative and we all have to be social conservatives? I don’t think we all have to stand on the same square to be a Republican. That’s what this fight in my view has turned into. You could put a piece of paper between the substance of most of our decisions. By any measure I’m a conservative. Just ask my kids.”

Binnie is not the only Republican falling victim to the “hostile takeover” and radicalization of the GOP. The so-called “reasonable Republican” Rep. Bob Inglis criticized Republican leaders for the “lowest form of political leadership” and Tea Party-driven “demagoguery” that is “dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni.” Though he received “a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union,” he lost in his primary run-off.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), who fell victim to a Tea Party backlash, slammed the GOP for letting tea parties and Fox News lead it by the nose. Echoing Binnie’s sentiments, Bennett noted, “I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas.”

Lawmakers From States With Deteriorating Infrastructure Oppose Obama’s Infrastructure Investment

Several Republican lawmakers are trying to claim that Obama’s $50 billion plan to invest in infrastructure is too expensive, at the same time that they’re pushing for an $830 billion tax cut for the richest two percent of Americans. If these lawmakers succeed in blocking the investment, they’ll definitively prove their deficit peacockery, while also perpetuating an ongoing neglect of the country’s infrastructure, which is rapidly deteriorating.

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, it would take a $2.2 trillion investment to get America’s infrastructure into good condition, including $930 billion for roads and bridges and another $160 billion for schools. Here is the situation in some of the states where lawmakers have been resistant to Obama’s plan:

KENTUCKY: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) opposes the funding, even though one-third of his state’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and the state has 178 high hazard dams (which is a dam where failure “would cause a loss of life and significant property damage”).

PENNSYLVANIA: Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey opposes the funding, even though 50 percent of his state’s bridges are deficient, 44 percent of its roads are in poor condition, and it has $7 billion in wastewater infrastructure needs.

WASHINGTON:Republican Senate nominee Dino Rossi opposes the funding, even though one-third of his state’s roads are in poor condition and 29 percent of its bridges are deficient or obsolete.

OHIO: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) opposes the funding, even though his state has 375 high hazard dams and is the country’s fifth largest hazardous waste producer. 25 percent of Ohio’s roads are in poor condition.

FLORIDA: Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposes the funding, even though 18 percent of his state’s bridges are structurally deficient, the state has 72 high hazard dams, and needs a $15 billion investment in drinking water infrastructure.

COLORADO: Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO) opposes the funding, even though one-third of his state’s roads are in poor condition, 18 percent of its bridges are deficient, and it has 352 high hazard dams.

VIRGINA: Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) opposes the funding, while almost one-quarter of Virginia’s roads and bridges are in poor condition and there are 143 high hazard dams.

Allowing infrastructure to deteriorate is dangerous, and cleaning up the mess after an infrastructure failure triggers a disaster is costlier than simply dealing with problems before they arise. But at the moment, it’s easier to score political points off of anything that has to do with additional government spending.

Hate Group-Funded Campaign To Remove Iowa Justices Falsely Claims Justice O’Connor’s Support

Yesterday, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke out against an anti-gay campaign to remove three members of the Iowa Supreme Court in retaliation against the court’s unanimous marriage equality decision:

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Wednesday defended Iowa’s method of selecting judges and urged voters to reject an effort to remove three state Supreme Court justices who joined in a unanimous decision striking down a ban on gay marriage.

Speaking in Des Moines as part of a panel organized by the Iowa State Bar Association, O’Connor said voters shouldn’t punish judges when they disagree with their decisions.

“We have to address the pressures that are being applied to that safe place, the courtroom,” O’Connor said. “The judges should not be subject to retaliation.“

Yet Iowa For Freedom (IFF), the organization spearheading the anti-gay campaign, responded almost immediately with a press release claiming that O’Connor actually said the exact opposite of what she really said.  IFF’s release “Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor supporting its cause” and “thank[s] former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Wednesday for supporting Iowa For Freedom’s efforts.”

IFF’s blatant misrepresentation of O’Connor’s opposition to their campaign is the least of their questionable decisions.  IFF’s anti-gay campaign received considerable support from the American Family Association, a Mississippi-based hate group which claims that Adolf Hitler and “virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals” and that marriage equality causes crop failure.

Indeed, the AFA may be the single most important force behind Iowa’s anti-gay campaign. They recently announced that they “put a couple of hundred thousand dollars into this campaign,” IFF’s false press release indicates that it is “Paid for by AFA Action,” the AFA’s political arm, and the IFF’s website used to indicate that it was funded by AFA Action — although this indication appears to have been removed.

So Iowa’s anti-gay campaign isn’t just willing to falsely claim the support of one of its most prominent opponents, it also shamelessly accepts support from one of the most repulsive fabricators of anti-gay hate speech.

GOP Claims $50 Billion For Infrastructure Is Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For The Rich

This week, President Obama rolled out a plan to invest $50 billion in infrastructure as a way of boosting job creation, which will be (at least partially) paid for by cutting subsidies to oil and gas companies. Republicans immediately criticized the proposal, with even Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who typically jumps at the chance to approve infrastructure spending, saying he wouldn’t vote for it.

But many Republicans, at the same time that they are claiming that a $50 billion investment in America’s infrastructure is a budget-buster, are pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. At $830 billion, the price tag for extending that sliver of the Bush cuts is more than 16 times the cost of Obama’s infrastructure proposal:

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI): Miller “said the Obama administration’s proposal amounts to a second, costly stimulus plan…Instead, she said, the president should quickly support an extension of the George W. Bush tax cuts for all income groups.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): We don’t need more government ’stimulus’ spending. We need to end Washington Democrats’ out-of-control spending spree, [and] stop their tax hikes.

GOP Senate nominee Pat Toomey (PA): “Pat opposes more deficit spending and will fight for fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit in the Senate,” said Toomey spokesperson Nachama Soloveichik.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): After the administration pledged that a trillion dollars in borrowed stimulus money would create 4 million jobs and keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent, their latest plan for another stimulus should be met with justifiable skepticism…The administration wants to do it again — this time with higher taxes for even more new spending.

These Republicans all support extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans as a means of boosting the economy. But as The Wonk Room explains, investing in infrastructure provides far more bang for the buck in terms of job creation than extending the Bush tax cuts. Plus, if $50 billion for infrastructure (that will be at least partially paid for) is too expensive, then extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is definitely unaffordable as well.

GOP House Candidate On Civil Rights: ‘We Need To Get Our Federal Government Out Of The Way’

OH-16 GOP nominee Jim Renacci

During the event, an African-American constituent named Robert Thompson asked Renacci what he would do on the issue of civil rights. Renacci’s response: local control. He called civil rights “local issues” and said the solution is “to get our federal government out of the way” because “it’s not the federal government’s job”:

ROBERT THOMPSON: What is your position in regards to addressing those concerns. And again, I’m concerned about the civil rights and the diversity of your campaign in terms of why anybody of color should be in support of you as a congressman.

RENACCI: [...] A lot of the problems you’re talking about are local issues. And I’m also a firm believer that the federal government and our Constitution was based on freedom, and was based on the freedoms that our number one goal of our military is freedom. We need to get our federal government out of the way and we need to allow our local governments to become more involved in many of the issues you’re talking about. I don’t believe these are federal issues to come down. I believe the federal government’s number one goal is to protect our freedoms. So the answer to your question is I believe a lot of things need to come back to the local level, and I believe things like you’re talking about do need to go back to the local level. And they need to be looked at in the cities. I was a mayor of my community. I think those are important ways of looking at all that. It’s not the federal government’s job.

Watch here:

Thompson astutely responded by pointing out that, “but for the federal government, we wouldn’t have had civil rights. … It took the federal government to come in and say ‘you can’t discriminate for housing, you can’t discriminate for jobs, you can’t discriminate for education.’” Local governments, Thompson concluded, “are the ones that were holding us back.”

Indeed, while “local control” may be appropriate for some matters, Renacci’s response indicates a dangerous ignorance of both past and present civil rights issues. One need look no further than the passing of Jefferson Thomas this week. Thomas was a member of the Little Rock Nine who, under the protection of the U.S. Army, endured the taunts and violence of racist mobs in order to integrate Arkansas’s Central High School following the Brown v. Board Supreme Court decision. Federal intervention was absolutely necessary as Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus had “ordered the state’s National Guard to keep black students out” of the school.

Moreover, Renacci has a strange notion of the word “freedom.” When President Lyndon Johnson called upon Congress to protect the voting rights of all Americans, he promised the new law would “vindicate the freedom of all Americans.” But in Renacci’s world, “freedom” apparently means the right to be free from such measures.

ThinkProgress caught up with Thompson after the town hall to get his thoughts about Renacci’s answer:

Last week, Colorado GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck condemned the federal government’s role in schools since the 1950s — a period when many shamefully and violently resisted integration. Buck’s comments followed those from Rand Paul, the Kentucky GOP Senate nominee, who was critical of parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Though their comments were roundly criticized, Buck and Paul now have a new partner eager to denigrate the federal government’s role in protecting civil rights.

Nearly Half The Public Is ‘Very Uncomfortable’ With Phasing Out Social Security For Private Accounts

A recently-released Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll surveyed Americans on a variety of issues, including their views on the country’s direction, their approval of the president’s handling of the economy, and what they think of Congress’ performance.

One section of the poll asked respondents how they would feel about a candidate who ran based on several different policy platforms. Respondents then replied whether they were enthusiastic about the platform, comfortable with it, had reservations about it, were very uncomfortable with the position, if it made no difference, or they weren’t sure. The results were listed numerically responding to each category from left to right.

The two issues that netted the highest “uncomfortable” rating from poll respondents were Bush’s economic policies and Social Security privatization. 39 percent of those polled responded that they’d be uncomfortable with voting for a candidate who supported the economic polices of former president George W. Bush. But the position that provoked the highest level of opposition was supporting “phasing out Social Security and instead [supporting] allowing workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market,” with 49 percent of respondents saying the position made them “very uncomfortable“:

While the poll shows that only 21 percent of the public is “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with slowly privatizing Social Security, there are a number of leading Republican officeholders who have endorsed the concept of doing so. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the “ranking member on the House Budget Committee,” has put together a road map for privatizing the program that is similar to President Bush’s failed 2005 plan. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has also indicated that he’d like to revive the Bush effort. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has talked about the need to “wean” Americans off the program.

Meanwhile, a number of leading Republicans running for office have also endorsed radical plans to privatize the program. Both Pennsylvania Republican senate candidate Pat Toomey and Rand Paul have endorsed at least partially privatizing Social Security. Nevada Republican senate candidate Sharon Angle has called for the program to be “phased out,” and Alaska Republican senate candidate Joe Miller has gone even further, declaring that the program is simply unconstitutional.

Montana Tea Party Leader Fired For Advocating Violence Against Gays — But Is Backed By State GOP Candidate

Up until Sunday, Tim Ravndal was the president of the The Big Sky Tea Party Association, a prominent Montana Tea Party group. He was removed from that position, however, after apparently endorsing violence against gays and citing the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard on his Facebook page.

On July 23, Ravndal declared his opposition to gay marriage in a Facebook status update. Another user replied: “I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions.” Ravndal then responded: “Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?”

The post was deleted, but here is a screenshot of their exchange:

In 1998, University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was beaten and tied to a fence post. Police said Shepard was attacked because he was gay. The almost inescapable conclusion is that Ravndal and the other user were referencing that murder, especially when the other user replies to Ravndal that he should be able to find Wyoming’s “manual” in newspaper archives “a bit over ten years” ago.

Ravndal now says he “never made the connection” between the Wyoming reference and Shepard’s murder. Nevertheless, the Big Sky Tea Party Association’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to remove him. However, the organization’s secretary, Kristi Allen-Gailushas — who is also a Republican candidate for Montana’s state senate — continues to back Ravndal, and defended his comments. On Sept. 3, she posted this to his Facebook page:

No matter what you guys say, Tim is a great American and Patriot. He does have a right to say what he wants. I know that he didn’t mean it, but in the heat of his anger with the ACLU might not have realized what he was saying. The people who are in the TEA party movement are called names all of the time. Racist, extreimest….you name it. Tolerance needs to be done on both sides especially the homosexual side. There isn’t any tolerance for people who have a different opinion than yours. If we say yes to gay marriage where does it stop? The people who want to have more than one spouse will be next and that is against the law. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, are we now going to change the definition?

Allen-Gailushas subsequently wrote on Facebook, “The Gay community wants a war….they’ve got one!!” Clarifying later, she added, “I didn’t mean a literal gun war, but a war of the truth and the hypocrisy they espouse.”

GOP Control Of Federal Trial Courts Has Increased Since Obama Took Office

The AP’s Mark Sherman reports that GOP obstruction in the Senate has allowed Republicans to further entrench their control over the federal bench, even though a Democratic president is now naming judges:

A determined Republican stall campaign in the Senate has sidetracked so many of the men and women nominated by President Barack Obama for judgeships that he has put fewer people on the bench than any president since Richard Nixon at a similar point in his first term 40 years ago.

The delaying tactics have proved so successful, despite the Democrats’ substantial Senate majority, that fewer than half of Obama’s nominees have been confirmed and 102 out of 854 judgeships are vacant. [...]

When Bush left office, Republicans had appointed just under 60 percent of all federal judges. Twenty months later, the number has dipped only slightly to a shade under 59 percent, according to statistics compiled by the liberal Alliance for Justice. Because of retirements, the percentage of Republican-nominated district judges actually has gone up.

The data comparing Obama’s confirmation rates to those of recent past presidents is truly grim. In late July, a Center for American Progress issue brief analyzed the percent of each president’s nominees confirmed since Carter. For Obama to see the same percentage of his nominees confirmed as past presidents have seen, the Senate would need to more or less double its pace of confirmations:

Yet, since July, the Senate confirmed only four additional judges, bringing Obama’s confirmation rate up to a lackluster 47%. President George W. Bush, by comparison, had twice as many judges confirmed during the second August of his presidency.

There is still time, however, to reverse this trend.  In the final months of 2002, the Senate confirmed 29 of Bush’s judges — 20 of whom were confirmed during lame duck. And these judges were confirmed at such a speedy rate despite the fact that the Senate was controlled by Democrats and Bush is a Republican.

Now it’s time for Obama’s judges to be confirmed at a similarly rapid rate. Allowing the GOP to increase its stranglehold on many federal courts even when a Democrat is in the White House doesn’t just thwart democracy, it has terrible consequences for the American people.

Thanks to a Republican district judge’s decision to kill federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, for example, millions of dollars of potentially lifesaving research could be irretrievably lost, even if that judge’s decision is eventually reversed on appeal. Likewise, if the GOP succeeds in holding judgeships open, only to fill those seats with “tenther” judges the next time a Republican is in the White House, they could stack the courts with judges who think that everything from the Affordable Care Act to Social Security and Medicare is unconstitutional.