‘De-Radicalizing’ — Or Just Cutting Deals With Terrorists?
‘De-Radicalizing’ — Or Just Cutting Deals With Terrorists?
I’m back in Washington and pretty much recovered from traveling to and from Libya for a conference on that country’s terrorist rehabilitation program. I should note that the trip would have been impossible until 2006, when the United States restored diplomatic relations with Libya after a 27-year break and following a two-and-a-half year diplomatic process. While the trip itself felt like an extended advertisement for Libya’s heir apparent, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, it’s worth noting that the terrorists who have gone through Libya’s rehabilitation program don’t seem to have de-radicalized so much as they have simply made a deal with the Libyan government not to fight against Tripoli anymore. There was no categorical renunciation of violence, rather one limited to a renunciation of violence against the Qaddafi regime and the Libyan state.
For one, the religious scholar who oversees the rehabilitation program, Sheikh Ali Salabi, evaded questions from the assembled group of foreign scholars and think-tankers about the new religious views he had promoted among militants on the permissibility of fighting against the United States or any other “occupier” in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere.
Second, for the most part, the militants we were able to talk to did, in fact, have conditions that would lead them to take up violence against the Libyan state again. Combined with Salabi’s evasions on the question of fighting elsewhere and their own familiar criticisms of U.S. policy in the Middle East, I got the impression that these militants haven’t so much as made some sort of intellectual conversion into renouncing violence as a method of political change as they have constructed an intellectual edifice justifying a deal with the Libyan government.
This perception seemed to be confirmed by the rambling lecture given us by the head of Libya’s internal security organization, where he claimed that the militants had recognized the error of their interpretation of Islam and the truth of Qaddafi’s own interpretation. Also included in the security chief’s remarks were several gratuitous attacks on secularism, as well as bizarre claims that there were no “infidels” in Libya and that Libya had ideal religious freedom since it is governed by Qaddafi’s correct interpretation of Islam.
There’s a certain irony to the way the Libyans presented their claims to fronting a successful terrorist rehabilitation program – they were employing the very means the terrorists used to justify violence against the regime. That is, the presenters claimed that the group had an incorrect and false interpretation of Islam – which is exactly what the militant group claimed of the Libyan government to justify rebelling against it. So the program remains stuck in a narrow and futile debate of what is or is not “true Islam.”
This view was confirmed, to me at least, by the press conference marking the release of some 200-plus prisoners from Libyan prisons we were trucked off to following the security chief’s presentation. Both Saif al-Islam Qaddafi’s opening remarks and the militants’ were conducted in the same narrow space of religion, and the militants included some remarks on the Danish Mohammad cartoon controversy that could only be interpreted as blackmail – i.e., don’t offend us or we’ll start blowing things up again.
Combined, these remarks signaled to me a narrowing of the ideological distance between the regime and the militants. It’d be wrong to say the regime is “giving in” in some sense to the religious ideology of the militants since Qaddafi has always incorporated religion into his eccentric and idiosyncratic ideology, but I did get the sense both the government and militants were determined to keep acceptable political discourse in the narrow confines of religion.
Finally, the next day we went to the Libyan prison where a large number of these prisoners were being held to witness their release. Of the 200-plus prisoners released, an official told us, some 85 had been detained either in Iraq or in transit to fight there. Combined with the previous day’s experiences and evasiveness we received on the question of Libyans fighting abroad, I came to the conclusion that these prisoners haven’t been de-radicalized at all; rather, they have simply been induced by means unknown to give up (at least for now) violence in Libya and against the Qaddafi regime. (As Human Rights Watch noted, a number of the prisoners released had been held arbitrarily by the Libyan regime even after formal acquittal by the court system.) They still hold radical political views but have decided, temporarily at least, not to implement those views by violence domestically.
Labeling this rehabilitation program a “deradicalization” program is a misnomer that plays upon the faulty and quite frankly bigoted division of people of Muslim religious background into “radicals” (people who blow stuff up) and “moderates” (people who don’t blow stuff up). Either way, if you’re born into a Muslim religious background, this view implies, we view you as intrinsically and essentially conservative and concerned above all else with your presumed religion.
This view is reactionary, and cedes the political playing field to religious conservatives and regional dictators. Neither the United States nor progressives should make such a concession to the agendas of these players.
- Comments
- View Comments
Army Chief Of Staff Claims Forces Oppose Repealing DADT, Overstates Complications Of Repeal
Army Chief Of Staff Claims Forces Oppose Repealing DADT, Overstates Complications Of Repeal
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey
Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates — after 1,260 days in office in which more than 2,000 people have been discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) — belatedly issued more lenient guidelines for enforcing the policy that prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. The new rules represent the first significant step by the administration in addressing the policy, but they’re not necessarily an indication of how committed the military is to repealing DADT. In fact, some military leaders, including Gates, continue to insist that Congress should not change the policy or impose a moratorium on discharges before the Pentagon completes its year-long review. Others, like Marine Commandant James Conway and General Benjamin Mixon are publicly opposing repeal.
On Tuesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey — who testified last month that a moratorium would complicate the Pentagon’s study — said that “any resistance must be understood and addressed in order for a potential repeal to be effectively implemented,” suggesting that the military would slow-walk the process. “You get a sense that, at least within the Army, a little better than half the force is probably opposed to the repeal right now, given what they know,” Casey told CQ in an interview:
In his most extensive comments yet on the issue of gays in the military, the Army chief said the opposition to allowing gays to serve openly runs deep and needs to be approached carefully. He said he fears a repeal could even result in some midcareer personnel — the service’s backbone — retiring prematurely. But he also allowed that education and leadership can help allay fear and uncertainty about a possible change.
“What I worry about is you’ve got a force that’s already been stretched and been at war for eight-and-a-half years,” he said. “The young company commanders and midlevel non-commissioned officers — the ones who would have to implement this policy — when I talk to them, they’re kind of in the mode of, ‘My God, what else do you want us to do right now?’ Those are the folks that are frankly the ones that are most at risk. If the midlevel and non-commissioned officers start walking, they’re the ones that take a decade to grow. I don’t want to overdo that, but that’s a possibility.”
But Casey’s concerns of mass resignations are unsubstantiated. “Studies done by and for the Pentagon for the past 50 years and the experiences of our closest allies, like the British, Canadians, and the Israelis, demonstrate that allowing openly gay people to serve will not undermine unit cohesion or military readiness” or lead to mass resignations. Moreover, the personal opinions of military members — who already serve alongside gay and lesbian soldiers — should not determine the policy. As Rep. Susan Davis’ (D-CA) explained, we have previously desegregated the armed forces despite the military’s opposition to integration and allowed women in without regard to military or public opinion. “It’s not usual for us to go to the military and to have necessarily them believe that their personal feelings are going to determine the policy that moves forward,” she said. They should be surveyed, but they should not be determinative.
If anything almost all of the polls show that a growing number of servicemembers have no problem serving with openly gay or lesbian troops:
- 73% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” [The Vet Voice Foundation, 3/2010]
- 51% of active-duty troops oppose allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military, down from nearly two-thirds 65% in 2004. [Military Times, 2/2010]
- 73% of military members are comfortable with lesbians and gays. [Zogby Poll, 12/2006]
As CAP’s Larry Korb argues in the Huffington Post, Gates “must speed up the work of the high-level group that is examining the administrative and legal changes that must be made when DADT is repealed and drop his opposition to Congress replacing DADT until the Pentagon completes its year-long review. There is no plausible reason that it needs to take a year to make the changes necessary to implement DADT or why it is necessary to complete the review before repealing the law.” “Gates and Mullen must push back not only on statements like those made by Mixon and Conway, but those of commanders like General David Petraeus, who said he was withholding judgment on whether to drop the ban until he sees the impact on recruitment and retention. That day is past,” Korb writes.
Fortunately, some military officials seem to have already adopted this line of thinking. Army Secretary John McHugh said today that he’s interpreting Gates’ new guidelines as a de facto moratorium on third-party discharges and promised not to take action against members who have have told him they are gay.
WellPoint Reclassifies Costs As ‘Medical Care’ To Meet Reform’s Medical Loss Ratio Requirement
WellPoint Reclassifies Costs As ‘Medical Care’ To Meet Reform’s Medical Loss Ratio Requirement
Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly
But many health care policy wonks have warned lawmakers that that law does not go far enough in actually enforcing these rules and they argue that insurers will likely game the system. Already, Aetna and Cigna have announced that they plan to jack up rates in the short term and now, Consumer Reports is calling for an investigation into WellPoint in light of an electronic message the company sent “to investors describing how it would simply re-label administrative costs as ‘medical care’ in response to the new health reform law.”
In the March 17th message, WellPoint — the nation’s largest insurance company — announced that it has reclassified some of its administrative costs as medical spending in order to increase its medical loss ratio (MLR, a techinical terms which measures how much insurers spend on administrative spending v claims). The ratio is closely monitored by Wall Street investors and the new health reform law “requires that insurers spend at least 80% of customers’ premiums on medical care in the individual insurance market, and 85% in the employer/group market.” Here is how WellPoint put it:
“WellPoint’s (WLP) medical cost ratio should rise and its overhead-expense ratio decline this year as the insurer reclassifies various types of costs. Disease management, medical management and a nurse hotline, for example, ‘are being reclassified because they represent additional benefits provided to our members,’ representative says. They’ll now be part of the medical cost ratio, the percentage of premium revenue used to pay members’ health-care costs. These are claims-related costs incurred to improve member health and medical outcomes, WLP says. Accounting rules allow the changes, which better align MCR with anticipated health reform guidelines, Stifel Nicolaus says.”
Wellpoint is heavily invested in the individual health insurance market and has been among the most aggressive in opposing reform and skirting state regulations. In fact, the company has paid millions in fines for canceling individual health policies of pregnant women and chronically ill patients, illegally rescinding policies, denying prescription drugs to the elderly, and committing “serious violations that completely undermine the public trust in our healthcare delivery system.” In the fourth quarter of this year, net profits jumped to $2.74 billion from $331.4 million — mostly because the company sold a subsidiary — and CEO Angela Barly admitted that the company dramatically increased rates in the California individual health insurance market to ensure adequate profits. Meanwhile, the percentage of revenue spent on providing medical care, or medical loss ratio, “dropped to 82.6% from last year’s 83.6%.”
So while, WellPoint’s desire to skirt regulations may not come as a surprise, the story highlights just how vulnerable the MLR metric is to manipulation. As I noted here, establishing a medical-loss ratio still allows insurers to shift a disproportionate amount of premium dollars into profits. If anything, plans could pay more for certain services (to meet the benchmark), exclude certain benefits from coverage (benefits which would attract a sicker risk pool), or in the case of WellPoint, reclassify some administrative services as medical care and still meet the mark without necessarily providing more care.
As James C. Robinson points out in this Health Affairs article, “High ratios can be achieved either through a large numerator (high medical expenditures) or through a small denominator (low insurance premiums).” In 2007, for instance, 6 of the 7 largest publicly-traded health insurers reported that their profits increased by 10%, while their medical loss ratios also went up.
All of this suggests that regulators are going to have to be careful in how they define medical expenses and will need to “review the math on insurer medical loss ratios and premium calculations.”
Steele Pledges To Enlist Another Republican In Support Of Immigration Reform
Steele Pledges To Enlist Another Republican In Support Of Immigration Reform
The Center for Community Change’s Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) released a statement this afternoon announcing that leaders from their group met with Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to discuss the future of comprehensive immigration reform in the Republican Party. According to FIRM, advocates left the meeting with a “commitment from Steele to work with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and the party’s leadership to enlist another Republican senator’s support for comprehensive and bipartisan immigration reform.” The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) was one of the groups represented at the meeting and issued a separate release:
Chairman Steele understands the short- and long-term importance of the immigrant vote to the Republican Party. He expressed support for bipartisan, holistic immigration reform, and understood the need for the party to tone down the anti-immigrant rhetoric in the debate. He agreed to speak today with U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to see how he could help move immigration reform forward…We are grateful for the time Chairman Steele spent with us today—but we will judge the value of this meeting based on what the Republican Party actually does on immigration reform.
Marissa Graciosa, FIRM’s director, was more blunt. “Basically, the leaders outed the Republican strategy of trying to obstruct comprehensive immigration reform by blaming Obama,” Graciosa told Wonk Room. “They made it clear that we’re not going to let a Party who doesn’t lift a finger off the hook,” said Graciosa. Graciosa also indicated that the groups expect the RNC to issue a statement to its members in support of immigration reform.
The fact that Steele even expressed interest in pursuing immigration reform represents a welcomed turnaround. In 2007, Steele absurdly opposed giving driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants on the basis that they might register to vote. He also referred to the 2007 immigration bill as “amnesty” and affirmed in 2008 that there would be no change in the Republican Party’s enforcement-only immigration approach.
Steele’s cooperation could also signal a possible change in the RNC’s official policy. The 2008 RNC platform offered enforcement-only solutions and stated that the RNC opposed “en masse legalizations.” Since an earned path to legalization for the majority of the nation’s undocumented population is a central tenet of comprehensive immigration reform, getting an RNC chairman on-board is a critical step forward on the issue as a whole.
However, as ICIRR pointed out in its press release, actions speak louder than words. Currently, Graham has left immigration reform at the feet of the Obama administration and indicated that it’s up to the White House to do the “heavy-lifting.” However, in the end, it’s up to Congress to deliver the votes. Immigration reform has always demanded bipartisanship and that means Graham, Steele, and other GOP leaders are going to have to do some heavy lifting themselves if they are truly committed to the issue. Also, given the fact that Steele’s relationship with Republican leaders in Congress is reportedly “not good at all,” it’s mostly up to Graham to stop finger-pointing and start getting members of his own Party to come around.
Bank Regulator Flips, Now Supports An Independent Consumer Protection Agency
Bank Regulator Flips, Now Supports An Independent Consumer Protection Agency
Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan
Up to this point, the OCC has been parroting the banking industry’s line that an independent CFPA would undermine bank “safety and soundness.” Dugan has been particularly vocal with his opposition, saying that the current consumer protection system “works fine.” He even reacted to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) regulatory reform legislation by saying “in every case consumer protection has the edge and will trump safety and soundness and I think that is backwards.”
But today, as Shahien Nasiripour reported, the OCC has abruptly changed positions and now supports creating an independent agency:
The OCC’s position on the proposal has “evolved over time” from one of minimal support with several caveats to one in which they now are “very much in favor of,” deputy comptroller for public affairs Robert M. Garsson told the Huffington Post on Tuesday…“It’s unlikely there will be any meaningful conflicts between safety and soundness and consumer protection,” Garsson said. “The potential for conflicts is very rare.”
With this “evolution,” the OCC is joining the growing consensus among current and former regulators that having a separate consumer protection agency will not undermine bank safety and soundness. “I cannot recall a meeting I sat in where we worried about consumer protection and looked at safety and soundness and said the two are in conflict so how do we solve this,” said Kevin Jacques, a former OCC official. “I would love to see one regulator provide a concrete example where safety and soundness and consumer protection are in conflict and it caused some difficulty. I can’t think of one.”
“In my experience I do not recall seeing a case where a consumer protection regulation was found to pose a threat to safe and sound operations of the banks,” added Brad Sabel, a former New York Federal Reserve Bank official. Of course, even the banks themselves don’t really buy that a CFPA would undermine their soundness. As Elizabeth Warren pointed out yesterday, back in 2006 the banks were arguing that it would be too confusing to combine consumer protection and bank regulation, and that the problem was “best addressed by separating them.”
So why did the OCC flip? Is it the scathing New York Times piece that was published this week? Or was it pressure from the Obama administration, since the OCC is technically a division of Treasury, yet was going around and bashing an administration priority?
Whatever the case, I’m still skeptical that the OCC is really on board with a consumer protection entity that will have enough independence to be effective; it may just be positioning itself to water-down the agency’s power somewhere down the road. But at least the OCC is willing to be one more voice acknowledging that the banks’ main argument against creating the agency is bunk.
Drilling Is Not The Solution To Create Jobs And Reduce Reliance On Foreign Oil
Drilling Is Not The Solution To Create Jobs And Reduce Reliance On Foreign Oil
President Barack Obama has made comprehensive energy reform a key issue of his presidency, with massive investments in clean energy, initial efforts to confront climate change, and a commitment to “ending our addiction to foreign oil.” Today, Obama announced a sweeping new offshore drilling policy, opening “vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling” for the first time. This plan would also restore the ban on drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the West Coast. White House officials “pitched the changes as ways to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and create jobs,” the Associated Press reports. For years, however, Obama has correctly explained that new offshore drilling would do nothing to “reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil”:
“The days of running a 21st century economy on a 20th century fossil fuel are numbered – and we need to realize that before it’s too late.”
“The truth is, an oil future is not a secure future for America.”
“We could open up every square inch of America to drilling and we still wouldn’t even make a dent in our oil dependency.” 9/15/05
“It would be nice if we could produce our way out of this problem, but it’s just not possible.” 2/28/06
“Instead of making tough political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil, this bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that we can drill our way out of our energy problems. ” 8/1/06
“Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.” 8/28/08
This expansion in offshore drilling leases, the Energy Information Administration has found, will have no effect on gas prices or dependence on foreign oil. Nor will it increase jobs, as oil companies aren’t really interested in new drilling — they are already sitting on existing leases instead of drilling them, in order to inflate their bottom lines by claiming the value of leased oil reserves as an asset. Furthermore, a Center for American Progress study has found that money that goes into the oil sector instead of the clean energy economy means a net loss of 14 jobs per million dollars.
In the beginning of August 2008, as Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF) “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign overlapped the presidential campaign, and oil and gas prices were skyrocketing to record levels, Obama dropped his “blanket opposition to expanded offshore drilling,” saying that he would be willing “to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage” in order to get Republican votes for comprehensive climate and energy reform.
In 2005 and 2006, Obama talked about the “tough decisions” of “how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil” and “investing in more hybrids and renewable energy sources, raising CAFE standards and helping our auto industry transition to a fuel-efficient future,” instead of drilling. In his first year in office, Obama made tremendous down payments on the clean-energy transition, the cash-for-clunkers program, and ninety billion dollars of Recovery Act funds for hybrid cars, efficiency, and renewable energy technologies, and momentous new CAFE standards that will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil demand. That accomplished, Obama took a step back, saying in his 2010 State of the Union speech that “clean energy jobs” means “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” America’s oil addiction can only be broken with comprehensive climate legislation that puts a real cap on carbon pollution.
Conservatives are treating the announcement with disdain — Gingrich’s ASWF said the president’s plan “is likely to be an attempt by Obama to seduce the public (into) believing that he will do something in the future on offshore drilling,” but amounts to little more than window-dressing. Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity vice president Phil Kerpen commented that “the idea that this is a big concession in exchange for which Congress should jumpstart climate legislation is ridiculous.”
Kyl Vs. Kyl On START Treaty
Kyl Vs. Kyl On START Treaty
In a speech on the Senate floor in November, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) alarmingly accused the Obama administration of failing to plan for the expiration of the original START treaty, which was due to expire on Dec. 5.
I urge my colleagues to consider what will happen on December 6, the day after the expiration of that agreement. For the first time in 15 years, an extensive set of verification, notification, elimination and other confidence building measures will expire. The U.S. will lose a significant source of information that has allowed it to have confidence in its ability to understand Russian strategic nuclear forces… The paramount object of this treaty should have been to extend the verification measure of the 1991 Agreement. But, it appears that the administration’s object was to lock in significant nuclear weapons cuts.
Kyl’s accusations were ultimately proven to be entirely off-base, as the Administration reached an agreement with the Russians to extend most of the verification and monitoring measures of Ronald Reagan’s original START treaty until a new treaty could be ratified.
But Kyl’s alarmism at the prospect of the loss of verification measures deserves to be highlighted. Should he and his Republican colleagues in the Senate work kill the treaty during the ratification process, all of Kyl’s warnings about the implications of the loss of the START verification system would in fact become a reality. The failure to ratify the new START treaty would significantly upset nuclear stability by eroding trust between the two countries — potentially spawning a new nuclear arms race, as Kyl himself argued. This would, as a result, upset the non-proliferation regime and severely upset nuclear stability around the globe. In short, if the US doesn’t ratify a treaty that largely maintains the nuclear status quo between the US and Russia, the whole nuclear non-proliferation regime, as well as US-Russian relations, could unravel.
The Kyl of November 2009 was right about the possibly dangerous and disastrous implications of START not existing. But the Kyl of 2010 seems to have forgotten the warnings made by Kyl of 2009.
While Kyl has not said that he would oppose the treaty, he and has staff have now grasped onto a petty and inconsequential issue — one that the administration has no control over and has no practical impact — as grounds for opposing the treaty. The issue is over whether Russia will unilaterally issue a statement following the START agreement that says that they will withdraw from the treaty should they feel that missile defense upsets “strategic stability.” Kyl, as well as the Wall Street Journal, are desperately trying to claim that this declaration will enable Russia will to hold us hostage by threatening missile defense. But this is a farcical argument. All treaties contain provisions that give countries the right to withdraw from a treaty for whatever reason they see fit. Therefore, it simply doesn’t matter if the Russians write anything down, since written or not they could still always withdraw from the treaty if they feel missile defense has undercut them. As former Ambassador to the Ukraine and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution Steven Pifer noted:
Who cares? … There is a supreme interest withdrawal clause that goes back to the original START treaty and can be invoked for any reason by either side so long as they provide six months’ notice.
Michael Krepon at Arms Control Wonk goes further, noting that if successful, Kyl will be giving Russians a victory on missile defense:
Throwing mud against the wall and seeing what sticks is a time-honored approach to messing up treaty ratification… If the mud sticks in this instance, Senators will be sending a very unfortunate message abroad – that the United States of America can be spooked by unilateral statements that have no legal or practical effect. They will also be giving unintended credence to the canard that Moscow has veto rights over U.S. ballistic missile defense programs.
Kyl’s claims that such a statement is reason enough to kill the treaty, is either willfully ignorant of how treaties work or he is simply looking for an excuse to oppose it. The Kyl of 2010 needs to be reminded of the arguments made by Kyl of 2009.
The Retiree Drug Subsidy, Still A Form Of Corporate Welfare
The Retiree Drug Subsidy, Still A Form Of Corporate Welfare
Over at the National Review, Stephen Spruiell takes issue with my claim that providing employers with a subsidy for offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees and allowing them to deduct the credit, amounts to one of the more egregious examples of corporate welfare. He rightly points to this study from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, which finds that “it is cheaper for the government to subsidize a private plan than to pay for a retiree’s prescription drugs through Medicare Part D — even with the tax deduction factored in”:
At least some corporations are now likely to drop their retiree drug benefits and dump their retirees into the public system. So, when someone such as Igor Volsky asks why fiscal conservatives are not outraged by this bit of corporate welfare, the simplest answer is that this bit of corporate welfare actually saves taxpayers’ money.
If you click on that report you’ll see that EBRI does find that “for each retiree who loses drug coverage through an employer and gains it through Medicare Part D, the additional cost to the government would amount to $544.” But the report does not argue that eliminating the deductibility will force employers to drop their coverage.
Remember, the health care law only prohibits employers from deducting the subsidy; they’ll still receive the 28% credit. Companies will be encouraged to continue their prescription drug coverage but they won’t be able to profit from it. And despite all the dramatic pronouncements, it’s unlikely that eliminating the deductibility alone would push employers to dump their retirees into Medicare Part D in significant numbers.
In fact, I suspect that since the Congressional Budget Office scored this as a savings, their models suggest that the subsidy will provide enough incentive for businesses to retain their retiree coverage. Government will be able to avoid the financial burden of covering more seniors in Medicare Part D without allowing businesses to deduct taxpayer dollars.
The Leadership Campaign: It’s Up To Us
The Leadership Campaign: It’s Up To Us
Our guest blogger is Katie Chin, a student enrolled at the business school of Boston College, and a member of Students for a Just and Stable Future.
I slept in the Cambridge Common Sunday night. Cold, drenched, and hungry, I took the long bus ride Monday morning back to my college dorm carrying two sleeping bags, a tent, and my book bag weighed down from the rain the night before. Exhausted after a twenty-hour day of rallies, campaign planning, tweeting, and lobbying, I returned back to my classes, school job, and normal college life before returning to write about my experience.
Why do I do this? I have no choice. We have no choice. The world is burning.
As part of The Leadership Campaign, I am fighting alongside community partners to create legislation in Massachusetts for 100% clean electricity by 2020. Currently we are pushing the legislature to release An Act to Create a Repower Massachusetts Emergency Task Force so that we can see real change in our energy consumption necessary for fighting climate change. The science is clear: we must act now. This bill will be the first step in preventing the devastations of climate change in Massachusetts while opening up the opportunity for the state to lead the country in the clean electricity sector, inviting investment in the booming green technology field, and boosting our economy at a critical time.
To display the necessity of our legislature’s action, The Leadership Campaign has pioneered the ‘sleep-out’, demonstrating our moral qualms with sleeping in homes powered by dirty electricity by sleeping out across the state, joining together in public spaces in sleeping bags and tents under the stars. Throughout the past six months, hundreds of individuals have been participating in these sleep-outs. The most recent sleep-out took place Sunday on the Cambridge Common, before a day of lobbying on Monday. At the rally before the sleep-out, Martha Pskowski, a freshman at Hampshire College in Western Massachusetts, stated our current situation accurately:
I have good news and bad news. The good news is: It’s up to us. We have the drive, the energy, the imagination, the ingenuity and the determination not to quit that makes history. Combining our forces and forming coalitions we will shape the state of the world in thirty years. The bad news is: It’s going to be extremely hard, it’s going to take everything we’ve got, and powerful interests will be fighting us every step of the way. It’s not going to end with this bill. It’s not going to end with the next one. It’s not going to end until the world is a safe, stable, and just place for all our brothers and sisters.
Martha joined a superstar line-up of speakers, including former Seattle Major Greg Nickels, who founded the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, leading over 1,000 mayors to adopt Kyoto regulations in their respective cities, and Whit Jones, Deputy Field Director of the Energy Action Coalition, a youth climate action leader. Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis, Representative Will Brownsberger, Cambridge City Council members Leland Cheung, Craig Kelly, Sam Seidel, and Denise Simmons, community organization leaders, and student speakers also spoke at the rally. Monday morning, Dan Proctor, Massachusetts Chapter Chair of the Sierra Club, spoke and lobbied with members of The Leadership Campaign.
Our most important sleep-out of The Leadership Campaign will take place on the Boston Common on April 21st, the eve of Earth Day. As John Beatty, a junior at Harvard University and Boston Campaign Coordinator, said, “We are the cavalry. We need to go out there and be the fire to get this thing done!”
For a list of community partners, policy platform, and how to further participate with The Leadership Campaign, visit our website.
Catholic League Blames Gays For Catholic Church’s Child Abuse Scandal
Catholic League Blames Gays For Catholic Church’s Child Abuse Scandal
Recently, the Catholic Church — and even the Pope himself — have been coming under increasing criticism for failing to appropriately discipline church officials who had sexually abused thousands of children. On March 24th, the New York Times characterized “Pope Benedict XVI’s latest apology for the emerging global scandal of child abuse by predatory priests,” as inadequate, noting that Benedict “
The Catholic League responded the op-ed by running an ad in the New York Times criticizing the paper for its editorial and blaming the scandal on homosexuality:
The argument itself is confusing and contradictory. If “homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior” then why is is the “pedophilia crisis” a “homosexual crisis”? Most of the molesters were also over the age 30 but the Catholic League does not rename the “pedophilia crisis” an “older man crisis” or an “white older man” crisis or anything of the sort. But all this misses the point. What the Catholic League is trying to do is imply that there is a connection between homosexuality and molestation, just like segregationists once accused African Americans of raping white women, and Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies.
In reality, pedophilia has little to do with the gender of the child or the orientation of the molester; pedophiles are attracted to youth and control. “Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses,” psychotherapist Joe Kort writes. “This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children.”
Last night on Larry King Live, Catholic League President Bill Donahue tried to dismiss this argument by claiming that “it’s not a pedophilia” because “most of the victims were post pubescent,” as old as 12 or 13 years of age. Anything older than that is the fault of gays.
Corker Pleads With Democrats: Don’t ‘Dare’ Republicans To Vote Against Strong Financial Reform
Corker Pleads With Democrats: Don’t ‘Dare’ Republicans To Vote Against Strong Financial Reform
In an interview published today with the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) — who took the lead on financial regulatory reform negotiations for the Republican side for a few weeks — said that he “absolutely cannot support” the reform bill passed by the Senate Banking Committee last week. “I have no plans to support the current legislation. I hope we’ll get back to the negotiating table,” Corker said.
But interestingly, Corker doesn’t want to actually put his money where his mouth is and take a vote against the bill on the Senate floor:
Democrats have said privately they think it will be hard for some Republicans to vote against new banking rules during an election year. Mr. Corker said he hoped “the administration will not put pressure on the schedule and dare the Senate to vote on the bill.”
Of course, Corker is already on record having voted against this particular bill, since it passed out of committee with zero Republican support. But his plea to keep the bill off the floor until it is sufficiently watered down to garner some GOP support seems to confirm the view of many (including Paul Krugman) that producing a strong bill and forcing Republicans to either support it or show their true colors is precisely what needs to happen.
The GOP — and Corker in particular — have consistently said that they support financial reform and that they expect a bill to be signed into law by the end of the year. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has even said that his party agrees with 85-90 percent of what Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) is trying to do.
However, at the same time, they are actively courting the banking industry and its campaign contributions. In fact, Shelby himself told a crowd of bankers that a good way to prevent an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) from coming into being is to “elect more Republicans to the U.S. Senate.” “That would help immensely,” Shelby said, while asking the bankers to start with $10,000 contributions to Rep. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) senate campaign.
The Senate reform bill crafted by Dodd already includes concessions to the GOP, including placing a new consumer protection bureau inside of the Federal Reserve (instead of creating a standalone agency) and more reliance on bankruptcy courts for unwinding failed financial firms (provisions which were crafted by Corker and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)). By continually saying that they want to move the bill “back in the middle of the road,” Republicans mean water it down and cut key restrictions needed to rein in the banks.
In the end, the path to getting a good bill may be in doing exactly what Corker is warning against: putting a good product on the floor and daring Republicans to choose between the banks and a secure financial system.
Washington Times Sexes Up CIA Report On Iran
Washington Times Sexes Up CIA Report On Iran
Not that anyone is surprised by irresponsible pro-war journalism from the Washington Times, but yesterday’s Bill Gertz story — run under a headline screaming “CIA: IRAN CAPABLE OF PRODUCING NUKES” — was a particularly vivid shade of yellow. Gertz wrote that “Iran is poised to begin producing nuclear weapons after its uranium program expansion in 2009, even though it has had problems with thousands of its centrifuges, according to a newly released CIA report.”
“Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so,” the annual report to Congress states.
A U.S. official involved in countering weapons proliferation said the Iranians are “keeping the door open to the possibility of building a nuclear weapon.”
Is this new or newsworthy? No, and not particularly. Gertz’s attempt to sex up the CIA’s report (pdf) through the clever deployment of the phrase “poised to begin…” notwithstanding, the report’s conclusions are precisely the same as that contained in the intelligence community’s annual threat assessment (pdf), delivered by DNI Dennis Blair to Congress in February:
We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
Indeed, a few grafs down Gertz himself acknowledges that the report “reflects the published conclusion of a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that stated Iran had halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003.” How could the report reflect those conclusions while at the same time assert that Iran is both “capable” of producing nuclear weapons, and “poised” to do so? Simple: It couldn’t.
While the upcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is expected to revise some of conclusions of the 2007 NIE, today’s news that the U.S. has had custody since last June of a key Iranian nuclear scientist suggests that those revisions might be less than the 180 degree reversal that some conservatives are hoping for. ABC reports that the scientist, Shahram Amiri “has been extensively debriefed since his defection by the CIA, according to the people briefed on the situation. They say Amiri helped to confirm U.S. intelligence assessments about the Iranian nuclear program.”
Koch Industries Thinks Calling People ‘Hitler Youth’ Is An ‘Honest Debate’
Koch Industries Thinks Calling People ‘Hitler Youth’ Is An ‘Honest Debate’
After Greenpeace released a report yesterday detailing the efforts of the Koch Industries billionaires David and Charles Koch to pollute energy policy and deny the threat of global warming, Koch Industries communications director Melissa Cohlmia attempted to greenwash their record:
Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases.
Americans for Prosperity — founded, funded, and overseen by Koch Industries billionaire David Koch — claims to be trying to build that “free society” by “educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process.” So far, they’re not doing a very good job of engaging in an “intellectually honest debate” without “demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree”:
‘Hitler Youth.’ At an Americans for Prosperity event in December 2009, guest speaker Christopher Monckton called youth climate activists “Hitler Youth.” He told a Jewish youth climate activist whose grandparents escaped the Nazis that he was “Hitler Youth,” and that “you people don’t care” that “millions are dying in third world countries.” Americans for Prosperity again featured Christopher Monckton at a regional summit in March 2010. [The Times, 12/11/09]
‘Radical Global Warming Agenda.’ “President Obama is at again,” the Americans for Prosperity Regulation Reality Tour warns, with a “radical global warming agenda” by “unelected bureaucrats regulating our life,” “ignoring the entire democratic process all together.” Supposed threats of “EPA’s power grab” include “Grass Mileage Standards,” “Government Control of your Thermostat,” “Churches would need EPA Permits,” and The tour features “EPA Carbon Cops” who want to punish you if you “opened your refrigerator” or “drove a car.” [RegulationReality.com]
‘Al Gore’s Global Warming Alarmism.’ The Americans for Prosperity Hot Air Tour told people to “rally against Al Gore’s global warming alarmism” and “propaganda advanced by global warming alarmists,” claiming “global warming alarmism” means “fewer jobs,” “less freedom,” and a “government that controls your home thermostat remotely.” The Hot Air Tour flew a balloon over Al Gore’s “energy-guzzling mansion” in Tennessee with the message “Global Warming Alarmism.” [HotAirTour.org]
‘We Might As Well Forget Freedom.’ The Americans for Prosperity Hot Air Tour says that “far left environmentalists” are “radicals” with a “radical Global Warming ideology that claims people are the problem” who “want GOVERNMENT to force us to drive less and live in smaller homes while killing jobs that help grow our economy” and “want GOVERNMENT dictating our lives.” [HotAirTour.org]
Cohlmia told the Wonk Room that “AFP is an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” This is a remarkable claim, as Koch Industries executive vice presidents and directors Charles Koch and Richard Fink are also directors of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Republicans Seize On Retiree Subsidy Provision To Push For Repeal Of Health Reform
Republicans Seize On Retiree Subsidy Provision To Push For Repeal Of Health Reform
A growing number of corporations are complaining about a provision in the new health care law that preserves the subsidy employers receive for providing retirees with prescription drug coverage, but prevents companies from deducting it from their taxes. And now, Republicans are taking up their cause.
Framing the news as a harbinger of future tax increases and higher health care costs, Republicans will argue that if corporations aren’t allowed to write off the money they receive from taxpayers, thousands of Americans will lose their jobs. As the Daily Caller’s Jon Ward reports, the GOP is seizing on business opposition to the provision to move its health care message “away from trying to repealing the bill and toward focusing on the law’s impact on businesses and jobs.”
“House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairmen Henry Waxman, California Democrat, has expressed skepticism about the corporations announcements, summoning them to testify April 21 about their complaints. But Republicans have begun to pounce on the announcements, using them with increasing frequency to build a case that the health bill is bad for the economy“:
“The president’s new health care law is already hurting our economy,” read a release from the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican.
The release cited “a long list of employers including AT&T, AK Steel, 3M, Caterpillar, Deere and Valero Energy that have felt an immediate squeeze because of ObamaCare’s job-killing tax increases and health-care cost hikes.”
Shocked by the passage of health reform, the party is now throwing its repeal rhetoric at anything that sticks. This provision is the worst kind of waste of taxpayer dollars and the most egregious form of corporate welfare, yet Republicans are seizing on it as an opportunity to paint health care reform as failure. “I think you’ll see Republicans probably get Democratic support to try to repeal this unless they remain immune to the idea that taxing companies into the tune of billions of additional dollars isn’t a job killer,” Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) predicted this morning on Fox News.
But this sounds unlikely. After all, lawmakers had ample opportunity to tweak the measure in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor. They chose not to. Moreover, is disingenuous for companies to suddenly complain about the charges, considering the change was a part of the draft bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last year and several buisiness groups complained about it in September. Finance Committee aides “were in close talks with employer groups” and it ultimately won approval from many, with the chairman of Business Roundtable saying “it’s very closely aligned to [our] principles.” “They would come to us with a construct and explain how the constraints drove the policy, and we would try to suggest better ways to approach it,” said Neil Trautwein, vice president with the National Retail Federation.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that this provision is just a small example of responsible governance. Democrats chose to finance parts of health care reform by reducing wasteful government spending and eliminating the deductibility of the retiree drug subsidy presented an easy target. Now, the party of fiscal responsibility is outraged.
The WonkLine: March 31, 2010
The WonkLine: March 31, 2010
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 10 a.m. roundup of the latest news about health care, the economy, national security, immigration and climate policy. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below. You can also follow The Wonk Room on Twitter.
Climate Change
President Barack Obama will announce today his plan to open “vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling” for the first time, but New Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future says it is just an “attempt by Obama to seduce the public” with window dressing.
President Obama yesterday declared a state of emergency as record levels of rainfall cause “100-year floods” in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Long Island.
U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said Tuesday that he does not believe a climate change bill will see the light of day in 2010. “You can’t do things too quickly, particularly something that is as big as climate change.”
Health Care
“Following an initially fractured response to the passage of President Obama’s health bill, the GOP is moving its message away from trying to repealing the bill and toward focusing on the law’s impact on businesses and jobs.”
“In 14 states across the country, attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the recent federal health care overhaul. But here in Georgia, the Democratic attorney general has rejected such lawsuits as ‘frivolous’ and ‘a waste of taxpayer money.’”
“In a major push against the health overhaul, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce plans to spend $50 million this summer and fall to sway election outcomes around the issue. It also plans to devote a team of staff members to shaping thousands of pages of new health regulations.”
Immigration
Yesterday, the White House rejected Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) assertion that the President has done little to advance immigration reform and suggested that GOP lawmakers must also take up the cause.
The murder of an Arizona rancher has prompted Gov. Jan Brewer (D-AZ) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to call on on the Department of Homeland Security to deploy the National Guard to the Arizona border.
A coalition of immigrant rights groups are demanding the ouster of top immigration official, John Morton, and accused the agency of “systematically deceiving the president and the American public” following a leaked memo citing deportation quotas.
Economy
Yesterday, President Obama pledged to work with French President Nicolas Sarkozy — who was visiting D.C. — to coordinate financial regulatory reform. Sarkozy called talked of tighter U.S. financial regulations “great news for the world to hear.”
The Obama administration said yesterday “that it expects financial regulatory reform to pass through the Senate — maybe even through Congress — by late May.” “I don’t think that is an unrealistic timetable at all,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
TaxVox’s Howard Gleckman looks at the other individual mandate: paying for tax preparation.
National Security
“The Serbian Parliament has officially condemned the 1995 massacre of thousands of Muslim men and boys in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica. The resolution was approved by a narrow majority, with 127 out of 250 lawmakers voting in favor of issuing an apology to victims.”
“U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he wanted tougher U.N. sanctions in weeks against Iran over its nuclear program, and the world’s leading industrial nations expressed optimism that China will agree on possible next steps.” “My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring,” Obama said. “I’m interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks.”
“Terrorists will not be allowed to destabilize the situation in Russia, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday following two double bombings in Dagestan and Moscow.” “The terrorists’ goal is to destabilize the situation in the country, destroy civil society and spark fear and panic among the population,” Medvedev said. “We will not allow this.”
Why Antagonizing Insurers Could Backfire
Why Antagonizing Insurers Could Backfire
The health insurance industry announced yesterday that it would accept new HHS regulations clarifying that “children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year.” Insurers had previously said that the new law “does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the ‘availability of coverage’ for all until 2014,” when the majority of law’s provisions come into effect. But a a harshly-worded letter from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius seems to have pushed the industry to publicly accept the change.
This morning, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced the industry’s stance in a tweet:
@PressSec: Kids 1, insurance 0 as companies agree to comply with new regs so kids with pre-existing conditions can get health ins http://bit.ly/dBkN48
Now clearly Gibbs didn’t want it to come off this way, but a glib, sarcastic tweet directed at the insurance companies isn’t the best course of action right now. Insurers never opposed the new regulations as long as lawmakers understood that covering children with pre-existing conditions would increase premiums and at least two large insurers — Aetna and Cigna — have already acknowledged that they will raise rates in anticipation of the new reform. The law’s rate review provisions may prevent the most egregious increases, but they won’t make premiums any more affordable.
The reality is, the administration will have to rely on insurers (and state insurance commissioners) to implement reform’s many provisions, including the all-important consumer protections. And while I’m not suggesting that a more conciliatory tone would override the insurers’ profit incentives, purposely antagonizing the industry certainly does not increase the chances that it will work effectively to increase access to coverage and adopt cost containment policies.
As I argued here, the administration was right to criticize insurers in an effort build political momentum for passing health care reform. But now that reform is reality, lawmakers will have to turn to work with the industry to enact the measure. The bill Obama signed isn’t strong enough to allow the administration or anyone else to just blow off the industry; it relies on insurers to make the whole thing work.
AGs Say Constitutional Challenges To Reform Have ‘No Legal Merit,’ ‘Waste Of Scarce Taxpayer Dollars’
AGs Say Constitutional Challenges To Reform Have ‘No Legal Merit,’ ‘Waste Of Scarce Taxpayer Dollars’
If Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) home state of Nevada sued the federal government over the health care bill he helped write and pass, it would make a difficult re-election campaign even more challenging. But thankfully, Nevada’s Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has informed Governor Jim Gibbons that the current Florida-led effort to invalidate the health care law clashes sharply with Supreme Court precedent.
I’ve criticized the Florida lawsuit for failing to demonstrate that the Supreme Court actually agrees with their interpretation of the constitution, but Masto doesn’t pull any punches. This, in other words, is probably what an actual discussion of the state of law looks like:
One theory to consider is that Congress lacks authority under the Constitution’s Commerce and Spending Clauses. However, the authority give to Congress is extensive and appears strong enough to support the Act. Health care costs affect our nation’s economy, and the Act is Congress’ answer to alleviating those costs. The United States Supreme Court long ago determined that insurance is commerce and is therefore subject to federal regulation. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944). Since the 1930s and the “long-rejected Louchner-era precedents,” MeadWestvaco Corp. ex rel. Mead Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 553 U.S. 16, 128 S.Ct. 1948, 1510 (2008) (Thomas, J. concuring), Congress’ broad authority has been acknowledge to, among other things, uphold mandatory contributions to the Social Security Act system, Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), and legislate many other federal programs.
The letter also notes that the lawsuit “would not come without a cost” — as Florida has hired a pricey Washington DC firm to handle the case — and argues that “it would be disingenuous for our state to make the argument that Congress does not have the authority to regulate health care under the Act” after the state “used the legal tools that Congress gave us under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the McCarran-Ferguson Act” to challenge a proposed acquisition of Sierra Health Services by UnitedHealth Group.
Other attorneys general have also refused to join the frivolous Florida lawsuit. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway told the Hotline last week that he will not “waste taxpayer dollars on a political stunt” and Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has said that the suit has “no legal merit” and would needlessly tie up the resources of his office. Similarly, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard issued a statement arguing that the “lawsuits have little merit and that participating in them would be a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars.”
Report: Koch Industries Outspends Exxon Mobil On Climate Denial
Report: Koch Industries Outspends Exxon Mobil On Climate Denial
The Wonk Room has long detailed the role of the billionaire brothers of Koch Industries, Charles and David Koch, in destroying American prosperity. Their pollution-based fortunes have fueled a network of right-wing ideologues, from McCain mouthpiece Nancy Pfotenhauer to loony conspiracy theorist Christopher Monckton. In public, the Kochs like to burnish their reputations by buying museum and opera halls. In private, however, they’ve outspent Exxon Mobil to fund organizations of the climate denial machine, as Greenpeace details in a new report:
Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming. Koch Industries has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. This private, out-of-sight corporation is now a partner to Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and other donors that support organizations and front-groups opposing progressive clean energy and climate policy. In fact, Koch has out-spent Exxon Mobil in funding these groups in recent years. From 2005 to 2008, Exxon Mobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the climate denial machine.
This report, “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine” documents roughly 40 climate denial and opposition organizations receiving Koch foundation grants in recent years, including:
– More than $5 million to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) for its nationwide “Hot Air Tour” and “Regulation Reality Tour” campaigns to spread misinformation about climate science and oppose clean energy and climate legislation.
– More than $1 million to the Heritage Foundation, a mainstay of misinformation on climate and environmental policy issues.
– Over $1 million to the Cato Institute, which disputes the scientific evidence behind global warming, questions the rationale for taking climate action, and has been heavily involved in spinning the recent ClimateGate smear campaign.
– $800,000 to the Manhattan Institute, which has hosted Bjorn Lomborg twice in the last two years. Lomborg is a prominent media spokesperson who challenges and attacks policy measures to address climate change.
– $365,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) which advocates against taking action on climate change because warming is “inevitable” and expensive to address.
– $360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which supported and funded “An Inconvenient Truth…or Convenient Fiction,” a film attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary. PRIPP also threatened to sue the US Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.
– $325,000 to the Tax Foundation, which issued a misleading study on the costs of proposed climate legislation.
The blockbuster report covers the role of Koch’s dirty network in promoting the ClimateGate smear campaign, pushing junk science about polar bears, fueling supposedly independent Spanish and Danish studies that attacked green jobs, and selling a pack of lies about the costs of climate legislation.
In a consistent, principled effort for more than 50 years – long before climate change was a key policy issue – Koch companies and Koch foundations have worked to advance economic freedom and market-based policy solutions to challenges faced by society. These efforts are about creating more opportunity and prosperity for all, as it’s a historical fact that economic freedom best fosters innovation, environmental protection and improved quality of life in a society.The Greenpeace report mischaracterizes these efforts and distorts the environmental record of our companies. Koch companies have long supported science-based inquiry and dialogue about climate change and proposed responses to it. Koch companies have put tremendous energy into achieving sound environmental stewardship and consistently implemented innovative and cost-effective ways to reduce waste and emissions, including greenhouse gases, associated with our manufacturing and products.
We believe the political response to climate issues should be based on sound science. Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases. We have tried to help bring out the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed to deal with climate, as it’s crucial to understand whether proposed initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases will achieve desired environmental goals and what effects they would likely have on the global economy.
DOJ Cites Powell’s Past Support For DADT To Defend The Policy In Court
DOJ Cites Powell’s Past Support For DADT To Defend The Policy In Court
The New York Times reported in January that President Obama, who deeply believes banning gay men and women from serving openly in the military is “just wrong,” was finally spurred to push for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by the realization that “if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.”
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the Justice Department is doing, defending the constitutionality of DADT against a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans in 2004. This brief, submitted yesterday, notes that Congress is considering repealing the policy, but quotes “from retired Gen. Colin Powell’s statements nearly two decades ago in favor of the gays-in-the-military ban without noting that Powell has since reversed himself on the issue.” The brief also regurgitates numerous conservative talking points:
- General Colin Powell similarly testified that, “[t]o win wars, we create cohesive teams of warriors who will bond so tightly that they are prepared to go into battle and give their lives if necessary for the accomplishment of the mission and for the cohesion of the group and for their individual buddies.” Id. Congress found that unit cohesion is improved by reducing or eliminating the potential for sexual tension to distract the members of the unit, and by protecting the personal privacy of service members.
- General Powell testified that homosexual conduct in units “involves matters of privacy and human sexuality that, . . . if allowed to exist openly in the military, would affect the cohesion and well-being of the force.”…He further testified that “it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline” if the military required heterosexuals and persons who demonstrate that they do or are likely to engage in homosexual acts “to share the most private facilities together,” id. at 283, and that “[c]ohesion is strengthened or weakened in the intimate living arrangements we force upon our people.
- Among other things, Congress determined that the statute was necessary because “[t]he presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
Gen. Collin Powell officially announced his opposition to DADT back in February, noting that “attitudes and circumstances have changed.” Yet DOJ continues to cite his outdated views to justify a policy that the government is supposed to be unraveling.
All this puts Obama and repeal advocates in a strange position. It’s difficult to push for reform and push back against supporters of the policy when the federal government is using their arguments to defend it. If anything will motivate the president and his national security team to begin working directly with Congress to get repeal legislation into this year’s defense authorization bill, this is it.
FLASHBACK: In 2006, Bankers Association Argued For Separating Consumer Protection From Bank Regulation
FLASHBACK: In 2006, Bankers Association Argued For Separating Consumer Protection From Bank Regulation
One of the most common arguments employed by the banking industry and conservatives in Congress against the creation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) — which would be empowered to police abuses in consumer lending — is that that it will divorce consumer protection from the “safety and soundness” of banks, unnecessarily undermining the health of the financial system.
“What we don’t want to do is separate out the regulation of the entity from the regulation of the product, which is what the CFPA would do,” Scott Talbott, Senior Vice President for Government Affairs at The Financial Services Roundtable, has said. Creating a CFPA “would actually impair the ability of regulators to monitor the health of our financial institutions and undermine the safety and soundness of our banking system,” added Tom Donohue, president of the Chamber of Commerce.
One of the organizations leading this charge has been the American Bankers Association, which has said that “a more workable approach [to consumer protection] would be to bolster consumer protection and oversight while ensuring that the existing regulatory agencies retain both safety and soundness and consumer protection responsibilities.” But the ABA evidently hasn’t always felt this way.
As Elizabeth Warren, Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, pointed out in a Politico op-ed today, the ABA in 2006 was advocating that consumer protection be broken away from bank regulation. Here’s what the ABA has to say regarding proposed guidance on nontraditional mortgage products:
The Guidance combines safety and soundness guidance with consumer protection guidance, creating confusion that is best addressed by separating the them [sic]…ABA is concerned that these apparent changes in supervisory and enforcement policy may arise simply from the Board trying to marry safety and soundness supervision with consumer protection supervision. The result of this marriage of inconvenience between supervision and consumer protection appears to blur long-established jurisdictional lines…[T]he combination of safety and soundness guidance with consumer protection guidance appears to create confusion in the Guidance.
ABA concluded that it “does not believe that the lender’s role is to limit the borrower’s choice of mortgage products or features for which he or she qualifies.” So the ABA explicitly argued that consumer protection is a responsibility is best taken on by an entity other than the bank regulators, adding that combining “safety and soundness” regulation with consumer protection would create confusion! As Warren put it, “this 2006 memo illustrates the ABA’s real consistency — consistent opposition to meaningful reform.”
The argument that consumer protection will undermine bank safety and soundness only holds water if you think that banks have to rip off customers in order to make money. And the ABA’s memo shows that it doesn’t actually believe in its own rhetoric; it’s just resorting to whatever argument will be most convenient in its push to derail financial reform.
RSS
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
