Rep. Broun Says That The Stimulus And Health Care Laws ‘Are Gonna Kill’ Elderly And Disabled Americans
Rep. Broun Says That The Stimulus And Health Care Laws ‘Are Gonna Kill’ Elderly And Disabled Americans
During the height of hysteria among the far-right over the recently-passed health care law, former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin outlandishly claimed that the bill authorized the creation of “death panels” that would put disabled Americans to death.
During a recent podcast reported by the conservative Heartland Institute, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) resurrected this smear, tying in the stimulus bill. Broun claimed that the stimulus bill set up “comparative effectiveness research” that would determine the cost of spending health care dollars on people of different ages. Broun then hypothesized that “Obamacare” would deny care to people who are too old, or Americans who are disabled. He concluded that the combination of the two laws will “kill people by denying care“:
BROUN: We see so many unintended consequences, or intended consequences, that are gonna force people off medicare advantage. Obamacare if it stays in as the law of the land is going to hurt the elderly more than anyone else […] In the stimulus bill Nancy Pelosi set up a panel or something called comparativeness effectiveness research, what they’re doing there with that is they’re not comparing effectiveness as well as I and all the physicians will do, they’re comparing effectiveness of spending a dollar on one person versus another, which means the elderly are gonna be denied the care to keep them living and keep their health in good shape so they can have a useful, fruitful productive life. So see marked rationing of care for the elderly and those who have disabilites and those who have illnesses that will be terminal over a fairly short period of time, that may be who knows, ten years, those people are gonna be denied coverage of care of their health problems under Obamacare. […] It’s gonna kill people by denying care.
Listen to it:
Given that Broun is a medical doctor by trade, he should know better than to try to scare voters with falsehoods about the stimulus’s health care provisions and the recently passed health care law. The comparative effectiveness research included within the stimulus bill is designed to discover how to best spend health care dollars to provide the most care to people for the best price, not to deny people health care. There are, of course, no “death panels” or any other provisions within the health care law to put the elderly or disabled to death.
The only things resembling death panels that do exist are the rescission and denial practices followed by private health insurers that the bill is slowly outlawing. A congressional investigation recently found that “the nation’s four largest for-profit health insurers denied coverage to more than 651,000 people over a three-year period, citing pre-existing conditions” — one out of every seven Americans who applied for insurance was denied. If anyone supports health care being denied to Americans, it is Broun, who has a long history of fearmongering about efforts to reform the American health care system.
- Comments
- View Comments
Radical Anti-Choice Group In Colorado Runs Ad Calling Obama ‘The Angel Of Death’
Radical Anti-Choice Group In Colorado Runs Ad Calling Obama ‘The Angel Of Death’
Personhood Colorado is a radical right-wing anti-choice organization supporting Amendment 62 on the ballot this November, which if passed, would define a fertilized egg as a “person,” thus essentially outlawing abortion in the state. Personhood CO has put out some disturbing ads in support of the amendment, particularly one radio ad likening abortion to slavery.
But Right Wing Watch notes that the group has upped the ante a bit this week, releasing a new ad that calls President Obama “the Angel of Death” and those who presumably support him as lurking from the depths of hell:
Watch the ad here:
Politics Daily reports that “that Amendment 62 would ban all abortions, without exceptions for rape, incest or to save a mother’s life. It also would ban stem cell research and birth control other than ‘barrier methods.’” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said the amendment “reaches into birth control, it reaches into fertility treatments. The legal turmoil this could create is so immense. I think that’s just the purpose of this amendment…to go far beyond choice; it’s to take away women’s right to family planning.”
GOP Health Care Split: Gregg Dismisses Repeal While DeMint Says Not Doing So Is ‘Giving Up On Our Country’
GOP Health Care Split: Gregg Dismisses Repeal While DeMint Says Not Doing So Is ‘Giving Up On Our Country’
Republicans have made repealing the Affordable Care Act a central part of their governing agenda, including it in their “Pledge to America,” while Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has demanded “blood oath” that the law will be “ripped out completely, lock, stock and barrel – root and branch – no vestige left behind, not a DNA particle of Obamacare retained.”
In a new interview with Newsmax, far-right tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) — who vowed to make the defeat of health care reform President Obama’s “Waterloo” — echoed King, placing such importance on repealing the law that he said, “if we give up on repealing the health care bill, I think we’re giving up on our country”:
HOST: Do you think they’ll actually rescind the health care bill or stop the funding?
DEMINT: Well, I’ve to believe we can. If we give up on repealing the health care bill, I think we’re giving up on our country. I really believe this will destroy our health care system, I think it’ll bankrupt our country.
But despite claims of unity, not everyone in the GOP is on board. Outgoing Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) led the fight against the Affordable Care Act in the Senate, but during an appearance on Fox Business last night, Gregg — who has proposed a health bill that’s similar to what Democrats passed in March — said, “I don’t think starving or repeal is probably the best approach here.” He endorsed some Medicare cuts in the law and conceded that repealing it could allow insurers to continue increasing premiums:
CAVUTO: Would you repeal it or as John Boehner has indicated, starve it?
GREGG: I don’t think starving or repeal is probably the best approach here.
Watch DeMint’s and Gregg’s comments:
As The Hill notes, this statement is a shift for Gregg, who has previously supported the GOP’s repeal and replace strategy. “Our view is, you repeal and replace this bill,” Gregg said on CNN in March. “You replace it with better law and better approaches towards healthcare.” He also said on CNBC as recently as last month that using the budget reconciliation process to repeal major parts of healthcare reform would be an option, too.
But there seems to be a growing recognition among more moderate GOP lawmakers and candidates that repealing the entire law, especially popular parts that have already gone into effect, such as letting children stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26, is a bad idea politically and substantively. For example, during a debate Friday, Ohio GOP House candidate Steve Stivers said the Affordable Care Act does “some things right” and should not be repealed, but rather “fixed.” Even tea party-backed House candidate Allen West said there are parts that are “good and I agree with.” Meanwhile, as ThinkProgress has noted, 7 of the GOP’s health care ideas in their “Pledge to America” are actually already included in the Affordable Care Act.
Williams Defends O’Reilly’s ‘Muslims Killed Us On 9/11′ Remark: ‘I Get Worried’ With Them On Airplanes
Williams Defends O’Reilly’s ‘Muslims Killed Us On 9/11′ Remark: ‘I Get Worried’ With Them On Airplanes
Last week, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly said on ABC’s The View that “Muslims killed us on 9/11,” prompting The View co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set in disgust. “If anybody felt that I meant all Muslims, then I apologize,” he said later in the program.
But now, O’Reilly, with handy assistance from his colleagues at Fox News, is defending his original claim. “There’s no question there is a Muslim problem in the world,” he said last night on his show. “The Muslim threat to the world is not isolated. It’s huge!” he said, adding, “It involves nations and millions of people.” O’Reilly asked Fox News’ “liberal” Juan Williams if he’s wrong. Surprisingly, Williams joined with the other Fox Newsers in circling the wagons around O’Reilly, citing “political correctness” and seemingly because Muslims scare him:
WILLIAMS: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.
I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
Watch it:
Williams justified his defense, saying that the would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad “said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.” But this kind of thinking is exactly what digs the hole that is America’s fight against terrorism deeper by letting the enemy define the terms of the struggle, as the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has recognized:
[B]y simply granting the religious legitimacy of Al Qaeda’s call to terrorist violence…cede[s] the ideological battlefield to [Osama] bin Laden. Worse than that, by positing a “wider civilizational” war with Islamic extremism…affirms bin Laden’s propaganda about the nature and extent of this war, letting bin Laden define us and our aims in a way that helps bin Laden, rather than the other way around.
Indeed, a RAND study back in 2008 warned of the danger of playing into terrorists’ claims of being “at war” with the West, saying it “encourages others [extremists] abroad” and “elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors.” The RAND analysis also suggested that the “at war” approach “alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and provides a window of opportunity for terrorist-group recruitment.”
BREAKING: Univision Will Not Air GOP Group’s Ad Telling Latinos Not To Vote
BREAKING: Univision Will Not Air GOP Group’s Ad Telling Latinos Not To Vote
Earlier today, ThinkProgress reported that Latinos for Reform — a Republican 527 group — purchased an $80,000 buy on Univision to air ads urging Nevada Latino voters not to vote. We urged Univision not to air the ads. The network, which heads the non-partisan Latino civic participation campaign, Ya Es Hora, has decided to do the right thing and not broadcast the ads. A Univision spokesperson told ThinkProgress:
Univision will not be running any spots from Latinos for Reform related to voting. It is also important to clarify that while Mr. Robert de Posada has on occasion provided political commentary on Univision, representing one of various points of views, he is not in any way affiliated with Univision. Univision prides itself on promoting civic engagement and our extensive national campaigns encourage Hispanics to vote.
Univision’s decision likely has something to do with the fact that Robert de Posada wants to tell their viewers that the best way for Latinos to exercise their political power in support of immigration reform is to stay at home this November — a message that runs counter to its own GOTV efforts. ThinkProgress did some digging into de Posada’s group, and here’s what we found.
To begin with, the group’s 8872 form lists the same P.O. Box number as the one belonging to the Admiral Roy F. Hoffmann Foundation, an organization founded by the chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), Roy F. Hoffmann. For those who don’t recall, SBVT was another 527 group formed during the 2004 elections aimed at opposing Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) presidential bid by distorting and misrepresenting his war record.
De Posada told Talking Points Memo the address was a “mistake”: “In 2008, because the laws were so strange, we hired a political compliance company that handled our reporting and accounting.”
The connection doesn’t stop at a P.O. Box. Latinos for Reform, the Hoffmann Foundation, and SBVT have all employed the services of the same consulting firm, Political Compliance Services. Susan Arceneaux, a “long time aide of Dick Armey” heads the company. The firm markets itself as “an accounting services vendor specializing in FEC regulations. Our comprehensive approach to your individual accounting needs will deliver you from the headaches and legal ramifications of FEC non-compliance.” Latinos for Reform hasn’t filed anything with the IRS since April 2, 2009.
Latinos for Reform’s post-election 2008 report also lists an expenditure of $1,203 that went towards Paul Sullivan & Associates, a law firm recommended by the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).
Finally, John T. Finn, who donated a total of $70,000 to Latinos for Reform, is listed as a “Producer & publisher” on the group’s contribution form. However, the address attached to his name also belongs to Pro-Life America and Lovematters.com.
Buck Once Again Says That He Thinks The VA Would Better Off Outsourced To Private Companies
Buck Once Again Says That He Thinks The VA Would Better Off Outsourced To Private Companies
Last month, ThinkProgress released a video of Colorado Senate nominee Ken Buck (R) calling for privatizing Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals during a local Tea Party meeting in June. The Buck campaign at first stuck to its guns, choosing to reiterate the nominee’s belief that the market would do a better job running VA hospitals than the public sector. Soon after, several Buck campaign spokespersons claimed that the candidate never even hinted at privatizing VA hospitals.
During an appearance this Sunday on Face The Nation, the candidate once again said he was “in favor” of allowing the private sector to operate VA hospitals. When host Bob Schieffer asked Buck if he is in favor of privatizing the VA, the candidate first claimed, “You’re getting the Democrats’ talking points.” But when Schieffer gave Buck the chance to fully explain his position on VA hospitals, he explained that he thinks “the private sector runs operations like hospitals better than the government” and that he’d be “in favor of doing something like that”:
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about something else in the papers out there. At one point, you were over to turning hospitals in the VA over to the private sector, is that what you said?
BUCK: You’re getting the Democrats’ talking points —
SCHIEFFER: These come from newspapers, but I want to hear your side of it. Obviously that’s why I asked.
BUCK: Sure. What I said is what I was asked a question about the VA and I said if we could improve the quality and care for veterans by outsourcing some of the functions such as outsourcing a VA hospital I would be in favor of doing that. And I think that it’s important also as part of that answer, I think that we have to look at the costs. The costs can’t come out of the veterans pocket, the cost would come out of the government. But I think the private sector runs operations like hospitals better than the government, if we can reduce the deficit and increase the quality of care for veterans I’m in favor of doing something like that.
Watch it:
It should be noted that the VA hospital system — our one “true island of socialized medicine” — is world-renowned for its high quality of providing public, not-for-profit care for America’s veterans. A head-to-head comparison in 2003 between Medicare patients who were free to choose their own private doctors and veterans who were covered by the Veterans Health Administration, the New England Journal of Medicine found the latter “significantly better” on all 11 measures of quality. In addition, a 2006 survey found that veterans are significantly more satisfied with their care than civilians who received private care.
‘US’ Chamber Of Commerce Hosts Seminars With Chinese Gov Officials To Teach American Firms How To Outsource
‘US’ Chamber Of Commerce Hosts Seminars With Chinese Gov Officials To Teach American Firms How To Outsource
Among the many lies told by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently, chief Chamber lobbyist Bruce Josten said that his organization’s foreign affiliates, called AmChams, are only “comprised of American companies doing business abroad in those countries.” In fact, the Chinese AmCham is comprised of Chinese firms like Northern Light Venture Capital; the AmCham in Russia is comprised of Russian state-run companies like VTB Bank; and, the AmCham of Abu Dhabi is comprised of UAE state-run oil companies.
The ties between the AmChams and the U.S. Chamber are deep. In addition to sharing staff members, the Chinese AmCham has worked closely with the U.S. Chamber and the Chinese government to sponsor a series of seminars in America to teach American businesses how to outsource jobs to China (called the China Grassroots Program). Below is an invite to an event sponsored by the right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson, inviting local businesses in Florida to come to Jacksonville and learn about outsourcing from Chinese government officials like Li Haiyan, the Counselor for Economic Affairs for the People’s Republic of China, U.S. Chamber lobbyist Joseph Fawkner, and BChinaB, a firm that specializes in helping American firms outsource their manufacturing jobs to China. Click the screenshot below for the invitation:
Similar events like the one above continued into 2009 and beyond.
The Chamber’s CEO, Tom Donohue, frequently defends outsourcing: for example, in 2004, he said “there are legitimate values in outsourcing — not only jobs, but work.” Recently, the Chamber came out against a Senate bill that would have discouraged outsourcing. As Campaign Money Watch report found that more than 1.4 million jobs were outsourced since 1994 in the nine states in which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending significant money.
Separately from their relationship with the AmCham affiliates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce receives direct foreign donations to the same 501(c)(6) political account the Chamber is using to run an unprecedented $75 million attack ad campaign against progressives. In an exclusive investigation, ThinkProgress documented over 80 foreign firms donating at least $885,000 to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account. As ThinkProgress’ Brad Johnson noted, many of these foreign supporters of the Chamber financing its 501(c)(6) are also some of the world’s largest outsourcing companies.
Christine O’Donnell Not Sure If Separation Of Church And State Is In The Constitution
Christine O’Donnell Not Sure If Separation Of Church And State Is In The Constitution
Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell (R-DE) is sure about a lot of things: condoms spread AIDS, evolution is “merely a theory,” and, of course, she is not a witch. However, when it comes to American legal history, O’Donnell is a little hazy. Yesterday, in a debate with Democratic opponent Chris Coons at Widener University Law School in Delaware, O’Donnell accused Coons of “constitutional ignorance,” saying “perhaps they didn’t teach you Constitutional law at Yale Divinity School.” But when Coons defended his position against teaching creationism by citing the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishment of religion, O’Donnell inquired, “that’s in the First Amendment?“:
Coons said that creationism, which he considers “a religious doctrine,” should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution’s First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.
“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“That’s in the First Amendment…?” O’Donnell responded.
Later in the debate, O’Donnell stumbled when asked whether or not she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected. She asked the questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: “I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me.”
“You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,” said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that her responses “raised questions about O’Donnell’s grasp of the Constitution.” Indeed, as Coons points out, the First Amendment explicitly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But, as Keith Olbermann discovered, O’Donnell offered her own creative interpretation of the Constitution’s intent at a candidate’s forum last month: “I also want to clarify that it is not separation of church and state but separate from church and state.” Watch it:
But O’Donnell is not alone, nor an outlier, in her party’s understanding of the Constitution. As ThinkProgress’s Ian Millhiser notes, while Republicans love to wrap their actions in the Constitution, much of their agenda “is nothing less than a direct assault on America’s founding document.”
For more on O’Donnell’s record, check out our ThinkProgress report: The Old Adventures of New Christine.
Steele Claims No GOP Candidates Are Calling For A Government Shutdown
Steele Claims No GOP Candidates Are Calling For A Government Shutdown
In recent weeks, a growing number of Republican lawmakers and candidates have voiced support for the idea of shutting down the government if they win control of the House next year. Reps. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Steve King (R-IA), Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), and Alaska GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller have openly called for a shutdown, while Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has given a tacit endorsement. Meanwhile, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was the architect of the first shutdown in 1995, has already devised a scheme to repeat the failed tactic.
However, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is apparently oblivious to the words of his own party’s candidates, or intentionally trying to ignore them, as he said today on Fox News that he hadn’t heard of “any candidates” calling for a government shutdown. He then quickly pivoted away to irrelevant GOP talking points, without ever denying that he or his party support the idea of a shutdown:
HOST: What about this idea of shutting down the government? … Have you heard any candidates out there saying that that’s what they want to do? That that’s what they’re going to do once they get to Washington?
STEELE: I have not heard any candidates say that. But I know for a fact that, and I can tell you that again, I’ve been saying this for a year now, that the class of 2010 that comes to the Congress in January 2011 to elect a new speaker is going to be very different from anything we’ve seen or heard before.
Watch it:
Even if Steele is somehow unfamiliar with King, Miller, and the others, he should at least be acquainted with his own statements, as he plainly left the door open for a government shutdown less than three weeks ago. Asked about the “possibility of a government shutdown if Republicans get control of Congress,” Steele replied: “Well, anything can happen.” “We’ll see who the leadership is, how big the margins are, what the numbers in the new Congress look like.”
Gingrich’s shutdown — actually two back-to-back shutdowns — were an unmitigated disaster. The closure ended up costing taxpayers over $800 million in losses for salaries paid to furloughed employees, while it delayed enrollment for 400,000 newly eligible Medicare participants, and 112,000 Social Security applicants. Meanwhile, federal law enforcement were hampered by significant case backlogs (and the delayed hiring of new border guards), the Center for Disease Control’s disease tracking system shutdown, clean up work stopped at 609 toxic waste sites, tens of thousands of visa and passport applications were delayed, and 2 million visitors were turned away from National Parks. Perhaps most disturbingly, veterans were hit with a “[m]ajor curtailment in services,” including health services, a Congressional Research Service report found.
But just in case Steele forgot all this, he can just ask Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (NH), the ranking GOP member on the Senate Budget Committee, who said this morning on CNBC that the 1995 shutdown “was a serious mistake, tactically and substantively.” Gregg added that “government shutdowns don’t work”:
HOST: What was so bad about ’94? [...]
GREGG: The government shutdown was probably a serious mistake, tactically and substantively. … No, government shutdowns don’t work. You know, I mean, you can’t — I mean, we’d all like to do it in theory, but as a practical matter, there things this government has to do. It does them reasonably well, such as national defense. And you’ve got to do it. … You cannot, for example, if you put the government on automatic pilot by shutting it down, you do nothing about the welfare, and the healthcare, and the entitlement issues which are driving the deficit and the debt.
Watch it:
And even if Steele — who has repeatedly said “I don’t do policy” — is unconvinced by the substantive problems with a shutdown, he should be able to understand the political fallout. The 1995 shutdown was extremely unpopular among the public, especially after Gingrich suggested to a room full of reporters that the shutdown was aimed to punish President Clinton for “rudely” making Gingrich and then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole sit in the back of Air Force One. “The end result was that the public blamed the GOP for the impasse, and Clinton’s approval ratings went back up and he was re-elected easily,” TPM noted.
Univision Accepts $80,000 To Air GOP Group’s Ads That Tell Latinos Not To Vote
Univision Accepts $80,000 To Air GOP Group’s Ads That Tell Latinos Not To Vote
Yesterday, Latinos for Reform — a Republican 527 group — announced that it purchased an $80,000 buy on Univision to air ads urging Nevada Latino voters not to vote. Robert Deposada, a conservative political consultant and political analyst for Univision, has described the ad as an expression of the Latino community’s frustration with the lack of immigration reform. Apparently, telling Latino voters not to vote will somehow empower them. “It’s the only way for Hispanics to stand up and demand some attention,” Deposada claims. “I can’t ask people to support a Republican candidate who has taken a completely irresponsible and bordering on racist position on immigration,” he said about senatorial candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV). (As a side note, the ad doesn’t mention Angle or the fact that Republicans have been obstructing reform for the past year).
Watch the ad in English and in Spanish:
The big question is: Why is Univision even airing this ad? Obviously, Univision is a private company, not a public interest organization. It is free to air the ads of whomever it wants. However, it seems odd that the network would accept $80,000 to air a message that isn’t just fundamentally at odds with its own self-professed mantra, but also directly contradicts the goals of a campaign it has already invested significant resources in. Univision is a critical partner in the non-partisan Latino civic participation campaign, Ya Es Hora. According to the campaign’s website, Ya Es Hora “represents the largest and most comprehensive effort to incorporate Latinos as full participants in the American political process.” The Wonk Room also points out Univision Communications PAC has donated money to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and has more on the network’s voter outreach efforts.
In 2008, Latinos for Reform aired ads “alleging that Obama puts African Americans before Latinos and Africa before Latin America.”
Koch-Funded Americans for Prosperity Pushes Koch-Funded Prop. 23 At Official RNC Rally In California
Koch-Funded Americans for Prosperity Pushes Koch-Funded Prop. 23 At Official RNC Rally In California
On Saturday, the Republican National Committee (RNC) held a large “Victory Rally,” which ThinkProgress attended, just outside Disneyland in Anaheim, CA. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was the highlight of event, while RNC Chairman Michael Steele, several GOP congressmen, and right-wing media tycoon Andrew Breitbart also gave speeches to the excited, mostly-elderly crowd in a hotel ballroom. Notably absent were Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, California’s GOP Senate and governor nominees.
But curiously present was the conservative “grassroots” astroturfing outfit Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which held a “No Jobs Fair” to encourage people to vote yes on Proposition 23, a referendum on the ballot this year that would essentially scrap California’s landmark global warming law. Interestingly, AFP appeared to be the only group aside from the RNC and candidates’ campaigns with any major presence at the event, entirely occupying a large room across the hallway from the rally in the Anaheim Marriott. The only other room being employed, aside from those for the rally itself and AFP, was a small space adjacent where attendees could register to volunteer for GOP campaigns.
Because federal election law would prohibit groups like AFP from coordinating with the RNC, AFP California Communications Director Meridith Turney told ThinkProgress that the two groups did not coordinate. But, she added, AFP had to “ask for their permission to use the room” and paid the RNC for its use. Watch a compliation of AFP’s fair, and ThinkProgress’ interview with Turney and AFP California Chairman David Spady:
Turney couldn’t really explain why, of all the countless ballot initiatives across the country — California alone has 10 — her group had invested so heavily in Prop. 23. But AFP and the Yes on 23 campaign are a natural fit. The campaign pushing Prop. 23 portrays itself as a broad coalition of Californians concerned about jobs, but it is in fact funded almost exclusively by a small handful of out-of-state oil companies concerned about their bottom line if the state’s global warming law is allowed to be fully implemented. Texas-based Valero and Tesoro, along with Kansas-based Koch Industries alone have provided about 80 percent of the financial backing.
Koch, the country’s second largest privately held company, is owned and operated by brothers Charles and David Koch. Coincidentally, David Koch is the chairman of AFP. In corporate documents, Koch Industries has explicitly stated that California’s global warming law would hurt profits and “be very bad news for our industry.” With the AFP fair, and countless other events, the Kochs seem to be using the astroturfing arm they founded and fund to defend the profits of the corporation they own, all the while disguising their effort as an altruistic “jobs initiative” for average Californians.
This is typical of AFP, which has played a central role in incubating the tea party movement to drum up populist support as a smokescreen to push their self-serving interests. The Koch brothers have repeatedly tried to distance themselves from the tea party movement to protect its guise of independence, but even AFP’s own Meridith Turney has touted her organization’s and David Koch’s involvement in the movement. Last year at a national AFP meeting led by Koch, she proudly told him AFP California “helped organize huge tea parties all throughout the state,” including “one of the largest tea parties in the country.” Recently released video even shows David Koch touting his role in supporting AFP and the tea party movement. At the fair Saturday, AFP offered free cocktails to anyone who enlisted in the effort to push the dirty energy referendum that will preserve their profits.
What was unusual about AFP’s fair Saturday was the fact that it occurred during an official RNC event, underscoring the growing nexus between the Republican establishment, the tea party movement, and the secretive corporate backers that bankroll both.
Notably, when asked by ThinkProgress whether their organization would join increasing calls for electoral transparency by disclosing its donors, both Turney and Spady dismissed the idea, even if progressive groups like MoveOn.org were also required to disclose. In defending their secretive donors, Spady trotted out the familiar excuse employed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that their backers would be subject to “retribution” of some kind if their contributions were made public. He also said he supports unlimited donations to individual candidates.
ThinkFast: October 19, 2010
ThinkFast: October 19, 2010
Yesterday, Bank of America said it will “effectively lift its foreclosure freeze” next week when it will resubmit foreclosure documents to courts for 102,000 foreclosure actions in 23 states. U.S. regulators, including the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, along with all 50 states’ attorneys general will move ahead with their investigations of the banks’ “shoddy practices” that caused the foreclosures.
January through September of this year is tied for the warmest first nine months on record, according to the National Climate Data Center. This year’s temperatures are tied with those in 1998, though this was the warmest nine months ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere.
Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials are pushing for changes to make it easier for them to wiretap costumers of phone and broadband carriers. They say new legislation is needed “because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that create technical obstacles to surveillance.”
A California federal judge said yesterday that “she is inclined to deny the government’s request to allow the Pentagon to enforce its ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy” while her injunction against it is being appealed. The government asked for a stay of her ruling declaring the policy unconstitutional, and she “is expected” to issue a ruling denying that request today.
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether former attorney general John Ashcroft is “personally liable for misusing federal laws” to illegally detain and treat a U.S. citizen as a terrorist. The plaintiff’s attorneys say Ashcroft’s actions were a “gross abuse” of power and part of the Bush administration’s “aggressive” strategy in using the material witness statute to hold suspects without evidence to charge.
The Department of Justice filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that practicing Islam is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, defending the building of an expansion of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN. The city has “an obligation to treat mosques the same as churches, synagogue, or any other religious assemblies,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights.
President Obama’s “signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.” A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that only 10 percent knew the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans.
Alaska GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Joe Miller admitted yesterday that “he was disciplined for violating the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s ethics policy in 2008 when he was a part-time borough lawyer.” The statement comes a week after Miller vowed to not answer any more questions about his personal life or history.
And finally: The late Senator Ted Stevens brought a mountain of pork spending back to his home state of Alaska so it’s only fitting that he be remembered with a mountain of his own. Yesterday, President Obama signed the Mount Stevens and Ted Stevens Icefield Designation Act, a bill sponsored Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that will officially name the highest unnamed peak in Alaska, as well as an icefield, after Stevens.
GOP Legislator Who Crusaded Against College Sex Ed Classes Owns Company That Sells Kinky Sex Gadgets
GOP Legislator Who Crusaded Against College Sex Ed Classes Owns Company That Sells Kinky Sex Gadgets
In the winter of 2009, Georgia state legislator Rep. Calvin Hill (R-Canton) led a high-profile campaign against the teaching of public university courses that dealt with sexual health and related topics. Hill was joined by a small cadre of other conservatives who sought to end the teaching of courses dealing with topics such as male prostitution and gay history, and some of his acolytes even called for firing professors who taught these courses. Hill even appeared on CNN and boasted about an award he received for leading the battle to shut down courses dealing with sexuality. “Our public colleges are not the place for our young adults and future leaders to experiment and experience these types of sexually explicit behavior,” Hill said at the time.
Now, the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Jim Galloway reports that, while Hill may think that sex is too hot of a topic for the young adult students at public colleges in the state to handle, he’s perfectly fine making a buck off it. Galloway writes that Hill’s Democratic opponent, Stephanie Webb, has discovered that the company Hill serves as CFO of, Gila Distributing, sells numerous sex gadgets and gay pride paraphernalia through the company. These products include “stress relievers” in the shape of male sex organs and Gay Pride flag lapel pins:
Stephanie Webb is Hill’s Democratic opponent. One night, her husband/campaign manager was perusing the Gila Distributing web site and discovered more than antlers for sale:
– Foam “stress relievers” in the shape of a woman’s breast, or the male sex organ;
– “The Little Black Book of Sex Secrets,” allegedly by the author Dee Flower;
– A “safe sex” kit that includes a condom, anti-bacterial wipes, and two Lifesavers breath mints;
– And Gay Pride flag lapel pins.
Webb, a 50-year-old homemaker, has set up an Internet site displaying the products. “It wasn’t to be mean, but to show the hypocrisy,” she said.
The products being referenced can be found here, here, here, and here. “With 600,000 products, there is always a possibility that something slips through,” Hill told Galloway. “It’s certainly nothing we would sell knowingly.” The legislator also said he sees “no relationship whatsoever” between his anti-sex advocacy and the profit he makes partially by selling sex toys. “Yes, Rep. Calvin Hill talks a good game about patriotism, morals, and religion, but when money comes into the picture all those convictions go out the door,” writes the blog Georgia Politico.
‘Unethical’ Nixon Campaign Vet Fred Malek Still Dodging Campaign Finance Laws
‘Unethical’ Nixon Campaign Vet Fred Malek Still Dodging Campaign Finance Laws
Campaign expenditures by independent groups are skyrocketing in this election cycle: non-political party independent spending in Senate and House races totaled $147.5 million through mid-October, a 73 percent increase over such spending in mid-October 2008. One of the more active groups is the American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) that just began a $19 million ad campaign against House Democrats in 22 districts. The group has refused to say who funds their often-misleading ads.
As ThinkProgress noted when the group was formed, AAN is controlled by a number of very wealthy Wall Street Republicans, including a former Goldman Sachs CEO and the founder of Home Depot. The founder of the group is Fred Malek, a former Nixon aide who has become quite wealthy on Wall Street, earning a net worth of between $200 and $300 million through various corporate jobs and as founder partner of the private equity firm Thayer Capital Partners.
Malek is notorious as the “Jew counter” in President Richard Nixon’s administration: he made a list of Jewish employees in the Bureau of Labor Statistics at Nixon’s behest, and was involved in reassigning or demoting those workers. But as the New York Times pointed out this weekend, Malek has significant baggage from his campaign fundraising roles during the Nixon era:
The Committee for the Re-Election of the President was also illegally hauling in many millions of dollars from corporations, many of which felt pressured into making contributions. [...]
[S]ome players shaking the corporate money trees for nonprofit groups this year cut their teeth in the Nixon re-election campaign. There is Fred Malek, a founder of the American Action Network, whose members include many well-known Republicans, like former Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Mr. Malek was the White House personnel chief in 1972 and helped dispense patronage for major Nixon donors as well as serving as deputy director of Creep.
Back then, Mr. Malek was interviewed by Hamilton Fox III, another Watergate prosecutor, and acknowledged that some of the campaign’s activities might have “bordered on the unethical.”
In addition, the Washington Post previously detailed how Malek designed a “responsiveness program” in the Nixon federal government which was explicitly intended to “politicize the federal government in support of Nixon’s reelection.”
Malek has close ties to the conservative campaign fundraising structure. On the board at AAN is former RNC chairman Ed Gilliespie, who along with Karl Rove helps coordinate the mega-spending group American Crossroads. AAN and American Crossroads share an office, and of course Rove, too, is a former Nixon campaign vet.
As noted, in the Times piece, Malek was investigated for his role in Nixon’s campaign fundraising. In today’s post-Citizens United climate, he’s a celebrated mainstream player.
Surya Yalamanchili Paves Path For Progressives: Only Major Federal Candidate Rejecting PAC Donations
Surya Yalamanchili Paves Path For Progressives: Only Major Federal Candidate Rejecting PAC Donations
Few serious observers of American politics would claim that corporate interests are underrepresented in the halls of Congress. After all, over the past two years alone, corporate special interests have spent hundreds of millions of dollars weakening health care legislation, undermining financial reform, stalling a climate change bill, and eviscerating the expansion of workers’ rights. Many of these same corporate interests are continuing to spend millions during the run up to the election, often hiding their donations behind front groups with innocuous sounding names like Americans For Job Security.
One candidate for federal office is taking the battle against these big corporate interests into his own hands. Surya Yalamanchili — a former Apprentice contestant who, as ThinkProgress previously noted, faced attacks during his primary that someone with his name can’t win — is the Democratic nominee for Congress to take on Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) in Ohio’s 2nd district. Yalamanchili is running his campaign without taking a dime from Political Action Committees (PACs), which are “organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates,” and are often vehicles for corporate special interests. He is the only major candidate — defined here as anyone raising more than $100,000 — for federal office who is running without help from PACs, other than Connecticut’s GOP US Senate Linda McMahon, who is self-financing her election with tens of millions of dollars of her personal wealth. That means Yalamanchili is the only major candidate running for federal office who is both refusing to take PAC money and not financing his campaign out of his personal wealth.
Of course, standing on principle puts Yalamanchili at a significant financial disadvantage against his opponent Schmidt. Thanks to the deep pockets of special interests such as the American Bankers Association and Citigroup, Schmidt raised more funds from PAC money through September 30th than Yalamanchili has from individual donors. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets website illustrates the funding advantage that his opponent has:
Yet Yalamanchili does not regret standing up for the principle of clean elections. In an interview with ThinkProgress, the candidate told us, “Every politician running for office agrees on the need for reform in the financing of our elections. But nothing ever happens because these same politicians were elected through abusing that very process. I chose to turn away all special interest money because it’s the right thing to do on principle, it will allow me to work only for the people, and because I want to show future candidates a viable path to victory without selling out.”
GOP Rep. McClintock: Republicans ‘Don’t Deserve’ A ‘Second Chance,’ Whitman Lacks ‘Principles’
GOP Rep. McClintock: Republicans ‘Don’t Deserve’ A ‘Second Chance,’ Whitman Lacks ‘Principles’
ThinkProgress filed this report from Costa Mesa, CA.
Speaking at an event last week in Orange County, CA, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said he expected big gains for his party at this year’s election, but said he worried that Republicans would squander the victory, as they had in the past, by nominating a slew of “bad candidates” and having a lackluster commitment to conservative principles:
The American people are about to give Republicans a second chance that we know we don’t deserve, that we haven’t earned. … The American people have every right, and every reason, to blame a Republican president and a Republican Congress for the mess that confronted the Obama administration on January 20, 2009 — let us be honest be about this.
ThinkProgress attended the luncheon at the opulent Center Club in Costa Mesa, which was hosted by the Pacific Research Institute, an oil-funded right-wing think tank.
McClintock — a tea party favorite with a strong libertarian streak — had particularly harsh words for his party’s nominee for governor, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Asked about Whitman following his remarks, McClintock suggested she is not loyal to the “principles of the American Founders,” and said he agrees with her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown as much as he agrees with Whitman:
My loyalty is to the principles of the American Founders. My loyalty to the Republican party and to its candidates extends only so far as they are loyal to those principles. And I don’t see that in the current ticket. Two of the people on the Republican ticket were singularly responsible for biggest tax increase by any state in American history. These are Whitman’s handpicked running mates. [...]
I look at all of these things and I realize I agree with her maybe 20 percent of the time. I agree with Jerry Brown about 20 percent of the time. I agree with the libertarians about 80 percent of the time. So I’m not making an endorsement, particularly for that!
McClintock endorsed Whitman’s opponent during the GOP primary, and publicly criticized her during that time. “I’m afraid that if Whitman were the nominee, the Republican base would have no reason to turn out,” he said in April. His comments yesterday were unusually strong for fellow member of the same party so close to the general election.
And while McClintock expressed strong loyalty to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), he acknowledged that the Boehner’s “Pledge to America” governing agenda was somewhat lacking. During his speech, McClintock noted that conservatives were widely disappointed by the “Pledge,” and ThinkProgress asked him afterwards if there is any validity to their criticism. “There’s a lot of stuff I would have liked to see in it, and there are several things I didn’t like to see in it,” he said. And while saying the purpose of the pledge is to lay out “principles” and not necessarily specifics, McClintock admitted that one specific policy prescription — bringing federal spending back to 2008 levels — “doesn’t nearly anyway nearly far enough.”
Listen to a compilation of McClintock’s comments:
GOP House Candidate Goes Off GOP Script: Health Care Law Should Not Be Repealed
GOP House Candidate Goes Off GOP Script: Health Care Law Should Not Be Repealed
One of the GOP’s primary targets this campaign season is the health care reform law. Never short on hyperbole, Republicans have drummed up blood oaths, “death panel” revivals, and a “repeal and replace” pledge all to ensure their base that “Obamacare” will wither away under their watch.
But, in an electoral debate for Ohio’s 15th district House seat Friday, GOP nominee and former business lobbyist Steve Stivers surprised many by going off the GOP script. After agreeing with President Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan policy and admitting lenders and Wall Street “did bad things,” Stivers rebuffed “the strategy of Republican leaders” and said the health care law “needs to be fixed not repealed”:
On the topic of health care, Stivers again may have thrown Kilroy off stride when, instead of adopting the strategy of Republican leaders like John Boehner of Ohio who has vowed to repeal and replace the nation’s new health care affordability act, he said the bill needs to be fixed not repealed.
Stivers said that while new taxes and paperwork contained in the bill are unnecessary, improvements could be made through real torte reform and “encouraging real health behaviors” that would help people live more healthy life styles.
He said the bill does a good job on preventions and does “some things right like pre-existing conditions.” But he said it doesn’t focus on costs.
Stivers joins many Republicans who “want to let the new [already-enacted] benefits stay in place.” In fact, 7 of the GOP’s health care ideas in the “Pledge To America” are actually already included in the health care law. This is not surprising because the law is regaining support among Americans, with those “who think the law should have done more outnumbering those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.” As Stivers’ stance indicates, the GOP’s pledge might not go anywhere beyond campaign rhetoric.
Georgia Lawmaker Defends ‘Shoot To Kill’ Solution To Immigration: ‘They’re Invading Us’
Georgia Lawmaker Defends ‘Shoot To Kill’ Solution To Immigration: ‘They’re Invading Us’
At a candidate forum last week, Georgia state Rep. John Yates (R) was asked for his recommendations on what to do about illegal immigration in Florida. Yates replied that troops on the border should be given “shoot to kill” orders and that flyers should be dropped in Mexico warning of the new immigration policy. “They ought to be armed and if warned leaflets dropped all over Mexico says that we will shoot to kill if anybody crosses and be serious about this and if they do that then there won’t be anybody killed [sic],” reasoned Yates.
In an interview with Atlanta’s Fox5, Yates stood by his comments:
Some have questioned Yates’ comments. When asked if he could see why people would be upset with his comments Yates, “No, I don’t think they’d be upset with what I’d say.”
Rep. Yates, a WWII veteran in office more than 20 years, represents parts of Douglas, Fayette and Spalding Counties.
“If they come over here, on these raids killing ranchers and everything, you got to stop them some way,” said Yates.
Yates likened illegal immigrants to enemies of the country.
“Stopping Hitler was worth the price,” Yates said. “It’s our border, they’re invading us.”
Watch Fox5′s report:
However, people are very upset about Yates’ remarks, particularly the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). “We are seeing a frightening ratcheting up of hate speech about undocumented workers from Mexico, and John Yates has taken the rhetoric to a level of extremism that is shocking and deeply disturbing,” said Bill Nigut, the ADL’s southeast regional director. “Comparing Mexicans crossing the border illegally to Hitler’s army is grossly offensive to Jews and others who suffered the tragic consequences of the Nazi’s so-called ‘Final Solution.’” Jerry Gonzalez of Georgia’s Association of Latino Elected Officials’s agrees. The Wonk Room has more on reactions to Yates’ remarks and how the immigration issue is playing out in Georgia.
Raese Joins The Tenther Chorus Claiming Minimum Wage Is Unconstitutional
Raese Joins The Tenther Chorus Claiming Minimum Wage Is Unconstitutional
In an interview last week with the right-wing Washington Times, West Virginia GOP Senate candidate John Raese doubled-down on his previously expressed opposition to the minimum wage, falsely claiming that the law is unconstitutional:
Mr. Raese, chief executive officer of Morgantown-based Greer Industries, which runs interests as diverse as mining and broadcasting, has taken fire for saying he would abolish the minimum wage. But he has refused to back down, saying it’s not only bad policy, but it’s not constitutional.
“I don’t think it is. And the reason I don’t think it is, is the same reason the [National Recovery Administration] was not constitutional in 1936,” he said. “It was declared unconstitutional because it was government micromanaging an intervention into the private sector. Well, what are price controls, or what are wage controls? They’re the same thing.”
It’s difficult to count the errors in Raese’s reading of the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce…among the several states,” a power which even ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia agrees gives Congress broad authority to regulate “economic activity.” And the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the first federal minimum wage law in a 1941 decision called United States v. Darby.
Moreover, the decision striking down the National Recovery Administration (NRA), A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, did not ban laws that “micromanage” the private sector, as Raese suggests. The principal reason why the law authorizing the NRA was struck down is because it gave the President nearly limitless power to approve “codes of fair competition” governing businesses without first seeking congressional approval. A.L.A. Schechter stands for the very banal proposition that Congress cannot delegate its entire legislative power to one man.
Additionally, A.L.A. Schechter was also the last gasp of a narrow “tenther” view of congressional power that would not only eliminate the federal minmum wage, but which would also lead to child labor laws and the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters being declared unconstitutional. So when Raese claims that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, or when Rand Paul suggests that Congress lacks the authority to ban whites-only lunch counters, or when Joe “A Noun, A Verb and Unconstitutional” Miller claims that federal child labor laws violate the Constitution, they are all really calling for the same thing — a return to a discredited era where the most basic laws protecting workers, consumers and other ordinary Americans were completely forbidden.
Rather Than Investigating Foreclosure Fraud, House Republicans Vow To Investigate Loans To Poor People
Rather Than Investigating Foreclosure Fraud, House Republicans Vow To Investigate Loans To Poor People
Over the weekend, the Washington Post provided some more details about the ongoing foreclosure fraud scandal, noting that “virtually everyone involved – loan servicers, law firms, document processing companies and others – made more money as they evicted more borrowers from their homes, creating a system that was vulnerable to error and difficult for homeowners to challenge.” A bevy of Democratic lawmakers have called for examinations of the banks’ potentially fraudulent activities, while the Attorneys General of all fifty states have pledged a coordinated investigation.
Republicans, however, have been largely silent on the issue. And according to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is slated to take over the House Committee on Government and Oversight should the Republicans gain a majority, the GOP is not really interested in the banks’ malpractice. Instead, Issa wants to “launch aggressive inquiries” into whether the government helped poor people buy houses they couldn’t afford:
The conservative Republican from California, who would become chairman of the powerful House oversight and government reform committee, said hearings would focus on whether the federal government should be involved at all in sponsoring home loans for the poor.
Such hearings would evidently “centre on the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” which Republicans have blamed for the financial collapse of 2008, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As the Wonk Room explains, Issa’s pronouncement is part of an ongoing conservative effort to scapegoat homeowners and government for Wall Street’s malfeasance.
While the GOP likes to blame homeowners for the country’s economic woes, in the last decade, as the Center for American Progress has documented, banks were still systematically charging minorities higher costs for loans and pushing them into expensive subprime mortgages, making government policies to ensure fair access to credit a necessary step. It says a lot about the Republican mindset that banks evicting homeowners who aren’t in foreclosure doesn’t merit an investigation, but a low-income family receiving a mortgage in a traditionally under-served community does.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll