The Silver Lining In The Seniors Are Opposed To Health Reform Storyline
The Silver Lining In The Seniors Are Opposed To Health Reform Storyline
USA Today has an interesting story on how despite endorsements from the AARP, the Democrats’ vote for the Affordable Care Act can jeopardize their electoral chances with seniors:
Until this spring, lifelong Democrat Carolyn Land never had a second thought about voting for Rep. Allen Boyd, a Democrat who has represented her area since 1997.
But the day after Boyd cast his vote on March 21 for the new health care overhaul law, Land, 65, got out of her La-Z-Boy, switched her registration to Republican and began stumping for Boyd’s Republican challenger, Steve Southerland. The law “cut $500 billion from Medicare,” she complained. “Right now, I can see a doctor when I need to, but I’m afraid I won’t if that happens. I foresee a long wait.”
As emotions run high over the law, anger and fear about its impact on Medicare — whether founded or not — could be a deciding factor in some particularly close congressional races, especially in areas where there are large numbers of seniors, say political analysts such as Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. “It could make a difference in any one of these races,” he said.
The article goes on to explain that Republicans are taking advantage of seniors’ anxiety about the act by “pummeling Democrats with the claim that the new law would gut the program by cutting $500 billion.” Democrats are certainly fighting back by pointing out that the cuts would protect guaranteed Medicare benefits and are designed to slow the growth of the program and shore it up for future generations, but as we know, it’s always easier to distort something than to defend it.
The one silver lining that Democrats have in seniors’ resistance to changing their government-sponsored health insurance is that it suggests that as Americans experience the benefits of the new health law, they will grow more supportive of it. By the next election cycle, younger Americans will be as opposed to tweaking the benefits of the Affordable Care Act as today’s seniors are to changing Medicare.
- Comments
- View Comments
Wisconsin’s Lt. Governor Candidate Calls Same-Sex Marriage A ‘Fiscal Back Breaker’
Wisconsin’s Lt. Governor Candidate Calls Same-Sex Marriage A ‘Fiscal Back Breaker’
Marc Felion of FeastForFun.com catches Wisconsin’s Lt. Governor candidate Rebecca Kleefisch in an unusual explanation for why gays and lesbians should be denied the right to marry. “We just don’t have the money to be giving out for extra benefits right now,” Kleefisch told WITI-TV’s ‘Real Milwaukee’ program, “It’s a fiscal back breaker”:
KLEEFISCH: I voted that way, I’m against gay marriage as well. I think that especially when it comes to $3 billion budget and it’s climbing. The legislative fiscal bureau announced about five days ago that we are actually $265 million dollars further in the hole than we expected to be this year. We just don’t have the money to be giving out for extra benefits right now. It’s a fiscal back breaker.
Watch it:
Kleefisch has made this argument before. “This doesn’t just have roots in the Bible, this has roots and fiscal common sense. We can’t at this point, afford to just be handing out money to anyone,” she said during an interview with WVCY radio. “This is a slippery slope in addition to that at what point are we going to okay marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table, or this clock, can we marry dogs?”
Of course Kleefisch is wrong in her budgetary projections. As the Williams Institute has argued, allowing gay people to marry would actually boost state economies.
On Univision, Marco Rubio Says He Prefers The Term ‘Undocumented’ To ‘Illegal’
On Univision, Marco Rubio Says He Prefers The Term ‘Undocumented’ To ‘Illegal’
In an interview with Univision, senatorial candidate and son of Cuban immigrants, Marco Rubio (R-FL) told the Spanish language network that he doesn’t like to use the term “illegal” and prefers “undocumented” when talking about immigrants in the U.S. without papers:
UNIVISION: Is there a difference between an illegal and an undocumented?
RUBIO: Well “illegal” is a term that I don’t like to use, though it is a violation of the law to enter the U.S. with documents. They’re humans. I prefer to talk about the issue as “undocumented” because they are people who don’t have documents that follow the law.
Watch the Univision video and past clips of Rubio’s immigration remarks [In English and Spanish]:
I couldn’t find any clips in which Rubio ever employed the term “undocumented.” To his credit, in recent months, he has talked about undocumented immigrants as “people who come to the U.S. illegally.” However, when he was fighting a tough primary in which he tried to portray his opponent, Gov. Charlie Crist, as soft on immigration, Rubio didn’t hesitate to use the term “illegal immigrant”:
In February, Rubio opted to use “illegal immigrants” when arguing that undocumented immigrants should be excluded from the census, saying:
“Gov. Crist’s position to include illegal immigrants in this count would dilute the voting power of every American citizen. It would actually incentivize politicians to perpetuate our broken immigration system by rewarding states with large illegal immigrant populations with a louder voice in Washington.”
When he “delivered a six-minute discourse on immigration policy” back in November in which he slammed Ronald Reagan’s support of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Rubio stated:
“There were people trying to enter the country legally, who had done the paperwork, who were here legally, who were going through the process, who claimed, all of a sudden, ‘No, no no no , I’m illegal.’ Because it was easier to do the amnesty program than it was to do the legal process.”
Rubio also appears to have no problem with the fact that the term regularly appears on his website:
“Crist’s only real Social Security plan is to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants but that has actually been debunked as an idea that would lead to Social Security’s bankruptcy sooner rather than later.”
“Marco believes that our nation’s immigration policy should consist of border enforcement, securing the border, fixing the visa process and ensuring that no law extends amnesty to illegal immigrants.”
Many in the Latino and immigrant communities find the term “illegal immigrant” offensive because it “qualifies an entire person, rather than an act.”
This past weekend Rubio stated on CNN’s State of the Union that he supports fixing the legal immigration system so that “people in this country without documents” can go back to their home countries and reenter the country legally. In his interview with Univision, Rubio explained that he supports modernizing the immigration system so that undocumented immigrants can enter the U.S. through a process that works, but didn’t mention anything about going back to their “homeland.” You can watch the full interview here.
Toomey Only Able To Name One Thing He Would Cut From The Federal Budget: Study Abroad Programs
Toomey Only Able To Name One Thing He Would Cut From The Federal Budget: Study Abroad Programs
Deficit fraud Pat Toomey, who is running for the Senate on the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania, has already made it abundantly clear that he has no real interest in tackling the country’s budget deficit. After all, his main policy ideas — extending the Bush tax cuts and repealing the Affordable Care Act — would make the deficit significantly worse.
Last night, Toomey made is even more apparent that he doesn’t have any substantive ideas for reducing the deficit. When asked by CNBC’s Larry Kudlow what he would cut from the budget to offset some of the cost of the giant tax cuts he suggested (including a 10 percent cut in the corporate tax), Toomey relied on the standard conservative tropes of ending bailouts and rescinding the stimulus, neither of which does anything to reduce the structural deficit. He then said he would end earmarks (which would reduce the budget by less than one percent) and managed to identify just one specific spending cut — study abroad programs for students:
Well, I’d bring an end to bailouts. I would rescind the unspent portion of the stimulus. I would prohibit earmarks…I’d also like to consolidate programs. You know, we discovered 75 different programs between the Departments of State and Education that all subsidize overseas travel for students, in one way or another. It’s ridiculous! We don’t need 75 such programs. So there’s a lot of places.
Watch it:
I suppose Toomey deserves some credit here, as he was at least able to point to one semi-specific part of the budget, unlike so many of his Republican counterparts. But still, the portion of the budget Toomey is willing to cut is comically small.
Funding for study abroad and cultural exchange — including for the prestigious Fulbright Scholarship Program — amounts to a whopping $635 million, or 0.02 percent of the nation’s budget. Another portion of this funding goes to the National Security Education Program, which pays for students to study languages and cultures vital to U.S. national security, with a particular emphasis on Middle Eastern and Asian languages. Students are also allowed to apply their Pell Grants to study abroad.
And of course, Toomey merely said he would consolidate these programs, not eliminate them entirely, so he wouldn’t even save the full 0.02 percent. He completely failed to mention anything in the portions of the budget that actually drive the deficit (health care spending, defense spending, and massive tax cuts), and advocated for more than $4 trillion in additional budget-busting tax cuts. At this point, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by Republicans’ complete inability to identify anything significant in the budget that they would cut, but still, Toomey needs to be able to do better than this.
Gibbs Won’t Say If Obama Is Willing To Use Stop-Loss Authority To End DADT Discharges
Gibbs Won’t Say If Obama Is Willing To Use Stop-Loss Authority To End DADT Discharges
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to say whether President Obama would be willing to use his stop-loss authority to end discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should Congress fail to repeal the policy, telling the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld “our efforts in the short term will be focused on the durable repeal of a law that the President thinks is unjust. And that’s where our focus will be.” Watch it:
Gibbs also addressed this afternoon’s meeting between LGBT advocates and the White House, telling the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson that administration officials will express their “desire to see the defense authorization bill pending before the Senate taken up.” “That includes a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, as the House has already voted on. The president wants the defense authorization act and that repeal passed,” Gibbs said. But when asked if the administration had pressured senators who voted against repeal last month to switch their votes, Gibbs admitted that it had not. “To my knowledge it has not taken place yet,” he said. “But the only way we’ll get something through the senate is to change the vote count and to move past — look, you’re going to have to get passed a promised filibuster and moving to the bill and certainly the only way we can move to the bill is to change some of those votes.”
Gibbs explained that advocates attending the meeting were told that they could not address the Justice Department’s ongoing defense of the policy before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because “some of the participants in the meeting are with groups that are in litigation at the plaintiff where the United States government is the defendant.” “I don’t think either side believes that those type of conversations about the litigation between two parties represented in a lawsuit is appropriate in the meeting,” he said.
“The president continues to believe that this is a law — that the time for the ending of this law has come. The courts are signaling that. And certainly it has been his political belief going back to when I first met him in 2004,” Gibbs added.
CT Fox Affiliate Pulls ‘Unsubstantiated’ American Action Network Ad About Health Reform
CT Fox Affiliate Pulls ‘Unsubstantiated’ American Action Network Ad About Health Reform
Greg Sargent points out that FOX CT, a local Fox affiliate in Connecticut, has pulled an ad bankrolled by undisclosed donors to the American Action Network. “The group has sunk at least $445,000 into attacking Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who is running for reelection in a tough district against Republican Sam Caligiuri,” and this latest ad accuses him of supporting a health care law that jails individuals who don’t purchase coverage and provides “free health care for illegal immigrants”:
A government health care mess, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and Chris Murphy. Five-hundred billion in Medicare cuts, free health care for illegal immigrants, thousands of new IRS agents, jail time for anyone without coverage, and now a 47% increase in Connecticut health care premiums.
Watch it:
“Following a review of the spot titled ‘Mess’ and the documentation provided by the American Action Network, WTIC-TV, the FOX affiliate in Hartford, Connecticut, believes the commercial’s claims are unsubstantiated and has removed it from air,” FOX CT spokeswoman Andrea Savastra told the CapitolWatch blog. “It is the station’s responsibility to review commercials (candidates ‘uses’ being the exception) to protect the public from false or misleading statements,” she added.
Indeed, the Affordable Care Act specifically states that the Secretary “shall not file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by [the minimum coverage requirement], or levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’’ On March 25, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee that “the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance.” Rather, insurance companies “will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate.” “So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee,” Shulman said.
Section 1411 of the Affordable Care Act states that individuals have to be legal immigrants or citizens in order to receive subsidies under the law.
Beyond The Affordable Care Act: Experts See All-Payer Rate Setting As Way To Control Health Costs
Beyond The Affordable Care Act: Experts See All-Payer Rate Setting As Way To Control Health Costs
A new Commonwealth Fund/Modern Healthcare Health Care Opinion Leaders Survey found that most respondents support “moving toward salaried physician practice, with appropriate rewards for quality and prudent use of resources” and reimbursement methods that “use cost and quality information to foster price competition among providers and suppliers.” Interestingly, a majority of experts also said they would “favor either all-payer payment rate setting or a single system of payment negotiation on behalf of all payers”:
Currently, public and private health insurers engage in a complex and continuous process of negotiations with multiple health care providers to establish reimbursement rates for services. This increases administrative expenses among payers and providers and leads to wide variation in prices. Fifty-six percent of leaders support replacing the current system with either all-payer payment rate setting or a single system of payment rate negotiation on behalf of all payers. Twenty-three percent of respondents support letting each provider set its own prices; insurers would pay the lowest price and patients would pay the difference in cost for seeing higher-priced providers. Nine percent of leaders support keeping the current system.
The Affordable Care Act will finance new demonstration projects that reimburse providers in ways that focus on quality rather than quantity but won’t directly lead to an all-payer system in which health care providers would charge all payers (private and public) the same price for the same service (while allowing for age and risk adjustment to ensure that hospitals would be adequately reimbursed for the costliest patients).
The strategy was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when at least 30 states used all-payer rate setting to contain health care spending. Lawmakers established rate boards that considered “the differences in labor markets and how much a hospital pays in wages; the amount of charity care the hospital does; and whether it treats a large number of severely ill patients” and set rates accordingly.
By setting prices at the actual cost of delivering services, lawmakers hoped to reduce wasteful spending and spur efficiency — while freeing hospitals from the uncertainly of annual rate negotiations with insurers. And it worked. At least, a little. One study found that from 1982 through 1986, “all-payer ratesetting reduced hospital expenditures by 16.3 percent in Massachusetts, 15.4 percent in Maryland, 6.3 percent in New York, and 1.9 percent in New Jersey, compared with the national average.” Other studies disagreed and during the conservative revolution of the 1980s, most states abandoned the practice in the hopes that managed competition could deliver lower rates. Today, Maryland is the only state that continues to maintain an all-payer rate setting system, but the strategy is also used in France, the Netherlands, Japan, Australia and Germany.
As Maggie Mahar notes that “a review of the Maryland plan published in a recent issue of Health Affairs reports that, since 1976, state regulation of hospital rates has saved $40 billion. Had a similar system been in place over the same period of time for all states, savings would have totaled $1.8 trillion or more.” The Maryland system is “widely regarded as having created a market in which payments are predictable, transparent, and fair, and in which profits have not suffered as a result,” Mahar argues. “Providers are protected from having to negotiate rates with payers; payers, meanwhile, are shielded from the high markups attached to hospitals services in other states; and patient access to hospital care is protected.”
Regulators in Massachusetts are also eying all-payer rate setting as a way to control health costs. A recent RAND study of 12 options for reducing health care spending in the state ranked traditional hospital all-payer rate setting as the second most likely tool for changing the trajectory of health care growth, but concluded that “there were no ‘silver bullets’ that, alone, would reduce the rate of growth in health spending to that of GDP.” The report found that, “at a maximum, hospital rate setting could reduce health spending in Massachusetts by nearly 4 percent between 2010 and 2020.” RAND warns however, that providers could try to undermine rate setting by unbundling certain services, increasing admissions or length of stay.
Given the process of implementing the Affordable Care Act, however, lawmakers are years away from considering or applying this apparently popular method of cost control on a federal level, but if they do, at least some insurers may be on board. During the health care reform debate, it was rumored that the insurers would have accepted the public option if the law adopted a rate scheme under which all payers would reimburse providers at the same price for the same service.
Tim Burns: ‘I Don’t Believe In Global Warming’
Tim Burns: ‘I Don’t Believe In Global Warming’
At a debate in Pennsylvania’s 12th district to fill the seat left by Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), Republican candidate Tim Burns denied the existence of global warming. “I don’t believe in manmade global warming,” Burns told the audience last Friday, as ThinkProgress captured in this exclusive footage. Burns also seemed not to understand that cap-and-trade plans include tariffs on countries that don’t limit
carbon emissions, nor that both China and India have established aggressive climate plans — including cap and trade programs — to limit their own carbon pollution:
First of all, I don’t believe in manmade global warming. And if I did, cap-and-trade would not be an appropriate way to address it. Cap-and-trade will do a couple of things. It will increase artificially the energy costs here in the United States, but it will not increase the costs anywhere else in the world. So, if we would believe, which I don’t, that man is causing global warming with increased carbon, all that would do is ship the carbon production from here to China and India where they don’t have cap-and-trade imposed on them.
Watch it:
Burns could have learned about the reality of climate change by consulting the National Academies of Science — which said “the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” — or by simply asking his own constituents, such as the climate scientists at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, in the 12th District.
“I find it interesting that politicians continue to ignore the science,” Dr. Steve Hovan, chair of the Geoscience Department at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania, told the Wonk Room in an phone interview. “My professional opinion is that it’s real and that it’s something to be concerned about.”
Hovan was sympathetic to the challenge politicans and average citizens have in understanding the scope and urgency of the threat of global warming pollution, especially as climates scientists usually just focus on the long term picture and don’t try to tackle the economic or political implications of the problem. However, before he ran off to teach his next class, Hovan concluded that he believes policymakers should tackle global warming pollution now, not later:
It’s a big enough problem that if we don’t start now, we may not get a handle on it. I think the Academies of Science is right that we need to get a grip on this now before it becomes ungrippable.
Administration Issues Anti-Bullying Guidance To Schools, But More Comprehensive Measures Still Needed
Administration Issues Anti-Bullying Guidance To Schools, But More Comprehensive Measures Still Needed
Responding to the growing number of LGBT teen suicides in recent weeks, the Obama administration announced today that “schools that don’t address the bullying of gay students may lose U.S. funds for not enforcing gender-discrimination laws.” In a first of its kind anti-bullying guidance distributed to some 15,000 school districts and colleges that receive federal funds, the Department of Education clarifies that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 “requires schools to take action against bullying—including gender-based and sexual harassment of LGBT students.”
“A school is responsible for addressing harassment incidents about which it knows or reasonably should have known,” the memo instructs. “In all cases, schools should have well-publicized policies prohibiting harassment and procedures for reporting and resolving complaints that will alert the school to incidents of harassment.” The memo provides “hypothetical examples of how a school’s failure to recognize student misconduct as discriminatory harassment violates students’ civil rights” and describes “how the school should have responded in each circumstance.” Here is the example of LGBT bullying:
Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination based solely on sexual orientation, Title IX does protect all students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, from sex discrimination. When students are subjected to harassment on the basis of their LGBT status, they may also, as this example illustrates, be subjected to forms of sex discrimination prohibited under Title IX. The fact that the harassment includes anti-LGBT comments or is partly based on the target’s actual or perceived sexual orientation does not relieve a school of its obligation under Title IX to investigate and remedy overlapping sexual harassment or gender-based harassment. In this example, the harassing conduct was based in part on the student’s failure to act as some of his peers believed a boy should act. The harassment created a hostile environment that limited the student’s ability to participate in the school’s education program (e.g., access to the drama club). Finally, even though the student did not identify the harassment as sex discrimination, the school should have recognized that the student had been subjected to gender-based harassment covered by Title IX.
In this example, the school had an obligation to take immediate and effective action to eliminate the hostile environment.
“This is a wonderful first step as far as what the Department of Education is capable of doing with the existing laws, now we need that comprehensive law like the Safe Schools Improvement Act that gives more clarity to the states and the school district as to how they can address this problem,” Daryl Presgraves, Media Relations Manager of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) told me during a phone interview.
“The practice right now falls to the states to enact enact anti-bullying laws absent any sort of federal action which we are hopeful will happen in the future.” Currently, 45 states that have enacted anti-bullying legislation but only 10 have a law that protects students from bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2005 survey conducted by GLSEN found that these general laws do very little to prevent LGBT bullying, while “LGBT students who were covered by a comprehensive safe school policy that specifically protects sexual orientation were less likely to report being harassed at school, more likely to tell school officials when incidents of harassment occurred..and more than twice as likely to have a teacher intervene when harassment occurred versus students covered by a non-enumerated, or ‘generic,’ policy.” “Having a law that says don’t bully is great and feels good, but in practice, doesn’t necessary do a whole lot to address bullying in schools,” Presgraves added.
There are two pending pieces of federal legislation that would help enhance lax standards.. The Safe Schools Improvement Bill — sponsored by Representative Linda Sánchez (D-CA) in the House — would require schools and districts receiving federal funds “to adopt codes of conduct specifically prohibiting bullying and harassment, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Sen. Al Franken’s (D-MN) Student Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit discrimination in schools on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
Presgraves said that the Obama administration is expanding on President Clinton’s interpretation of Title IX. “The Department of Justice under the Clinton administration, their interpretation of Title IX related to in some ways protections of bullying based off of sexual orientation and gender expression. The Bush administration did not intervene in cases or show their support in cases of students protected by Title IX based on sexual orientation and gender identity expression,” he said. “So what this essentially does is it goes back to the Clinton-era interpretation of the law and adds to it by putting out this clear message to schools.”
Rand Paul Says He Would Cancel HAMP And Leave Struggling Homeowners On Their Own
Rand Paul Says He Would Cancel HAMP And Leave Struggling Homeowners On Their Own
Yesterday, the Inspector General for TARP, who also oversees the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the Obama administration’s signature foreclosure prevention program, said that only $600 million of the $50 billion allocated to HAMP has been spent. And if it were up to Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, the rest of the money would be rescinded and struggling homeowners would be left on their own.
During a debate last night, Paul was asked if he would continue HAMP and whether the government should be trying to keep “deserving” borrowers in their homes. Paul first said that he would cancel the remaining funds for HAMP. When asked what would happen to borrowers who would lose one of their last viable chances at staying in their homes, Paul simply replied “nothing good”:
PAUL: I think that the TARP funds that are left should go to restore the deficit and to try and pay off debt. I think the TARP funds, the whole entire $800 billion should have never been spent…I would vote for any unused funds to go back to try to offset the deficit. [...]
Q: What’s going to happen to those people [who are underwater on their mortgages]?
PAUL: Well, nothing good. And it’s not something that makes any of us happy. I mean, it’s really a tragedy. But the tragedy really, if you want to think this through, is the bad policy by Barney Frank and others.
Watch it:
HAMP obviously has its problems, but they stem from the inability to get borrowers through the program successfully and the banks’ obvious foot dragging. These are design flaws that should be fixed. Paul, though, would simply give up and leave borrowers to the mercy of mortgage servicers who have shown no interest in creating sustainable mortgage modifications on their own.
Instead of advocating a way to actually help struggling borrowers stay in their homes — and thus prevent all of the negative consequences of a foreclosure on individuals and the surrounding neighborhood — Paul resurrected the conservative fiction that lending in traditionally under-served communities caused the financial meltdown. Paul blamed the Community Reinvestment Act for the country’s economic woes, a thoroughly debunked narrative, and refused to lay out any plan for helping distressed homeowners.
This position fits in with the rest of Paul’s ideology, which basically involves leaving people to the mercy of Big Business. But 100,000 foreclosures occurred last month alone, and there is a straightforward way to help struggling borrowers, if HAMP were streamlined and taken out of the hands of the banks.
Study Documents Corporate Takeover Of Supreme Court
Study Documents Corporate Takeover Of Supreme Court
In an unfortunate interview with Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr, Justice Stephen Breyer rejected the notion that the Roberts Court is unusually pro-corporate because business interest “have always done pretty well.” Yet a new empirical study by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center demonstrates that Breyer is mistaken. The study compares the right-wing Chamber of Commerce’s win-rate since Justice Alito joined the Court in January of 2006 to their win-rate twenty-five years ago, and the results are clear and undeniable:
If anything, this chart understates just how successful the Chamber’s powerful corporate lobby has been in stacking the Court with right-wing justices. The study also examines each individual justices’ votes, and finds that fully five of today’s justices — a majority of the Court’s members — are significantly more pro-corporate than the most pro-corporate member of the Court in the early 1980s (the study did not include the Court’s two newest members because of an insufficiently large data sample):
Also significant is the increasingly ideological nature of the Court’s votes on the Chamber’s cases:
The Burger Court, during the period of our study, was also dramatically less polarized by corporate cases than it is today. As noted above in our study of the Roberts Court, the average level of support for Chamber positions among the Court’s conservative bloc was 31 points higher than the average support for the Chamber by the Court’s moderate/liberal bloc (74% to 43%). There simply was not a similar ideological division revealed in our study of the Burger Court. For example, the voting records of then-Justice William Rehnquist, widely viewed as the most conservative member of the Burger Court, and Justice William Brennan, probably its most liberal member, differed by only three points – 46% Chamber support compared to 43%, respectively. Even Justice Lewis Powell – who worked for the Chamber before joining the Court, writing a now famous memorandum urging the Chamber to take advantage of a “neglected opportunity in the courts” – only supported the Chamber’s position 53% of the time, the highest percentage of any member of the Court during that period.
Significantly, this ideological shift in favor of corporations appears to be driven entirely by the Court’s conservative members. While a member of the Court’s more moderate bloc still votes with the Chamber 43% of the time — a rate that is comparable with conservative Justice William Rehnquist’s votes in the early 1980s — the five conservatives have become consistent votes for the Chamber’s position. In other words, left-leaning justices have largely stood still, while the Court’s conservatives sprinted into the arms of corporate America.
And there can be no doubt that the nation has suffered dearly because this corporate capture of the judiciary. In just the last few years, right-wing justices have immunized powerful corporate interest groups from campaign finance law, from laws intended to protect the environment, and from laws intended to protect women and older Americans in the workplace.
Plaintiffs In DADT Case Urge Court To Lift Stay, Argue Admin Has Not Shown Harm From Ending Policy
Plaintiffs In DADT Case Urge Court To Lift Stay, Argue Admin Has Not Shown Harm From Ending Policy
Yesterday, the Log Cabin Republicans, the group which won an injunction against enforcing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell earlier this month from a federal judge in California, filed a response to the government’s emergency motion for a stay in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Department of Justice has not shown that “it is likely to succeed on the merits on appeal, or that it would sustain irreparable injury if the district court’s judgment remains in place pending determination of this appeal.” The court of appeals can decide whether to lift its temporary stay of an injunction barring enforcement of DADT at any time.
“The emergency stay of injunction that the government requests would perpetuate this unconstitutional state of affairs with no countervailing benefit to the government that outweighs the deprivation of rights such a stay would entail,” the group argues, pointing out that the government has “not shown irreparable injury if a stay is denied”:
Much of the appellants’ motion is devoted to their claim that the military will be harmed if the district court’s injunction remains in place while the government appeals. The supposed harms identified in the motion, and enumerated in the Stanley Declaration, are all to the military’s institutional interests and its bureaucratic needs. But the injunction does not require the military to take any affirmative measures: it does not order the military to redesign its barracks, to retool its pay scales or benefits, to re-ordain its chaplains, to rewrite its already extensive anti-harassment or “dignity and respect” rules, or anything else. Nor does it prevent the military from undertaking the acts appellants now claim it must do if DADT is enjoined – revising policies, preparing educational and training materials, and the lie. The district court’s injunction requires only one thing: to cease investigating and discharging honorable, patriotic, brave fighting men and women for reasons unrelated to their performance and military ability. [...]
The supposed “injury” to the military that the government claims would result from the district court’s injunction is, by the government’s own account, entirely a matter of rewriting handbooks and personnel manuals, developing training and “education” materials, reassuring serving personnel that their “views, concerns, and perspectives” are valued, and the like. These activities are not “irreparable injury” of the type that the test for a stay contemplates. Moreover, the government has known since June 2009, when the district court set this case for trial, that it might lose and have to adjust its policies accordingly. By contrast, the injury to Log Cabin’s members and to all American servicemembers from granting a stay is both immediate and truly irreparable, in a Constitutional sense, as the following section shows.
Also yesterday, four other LGBT groups including Servicemembers United, SLDN, the Palm Center and Lambada Legal filed amicus briefs urging the court should allow Judge Phillips’ injunction to stand until the case comes to appeal early next year. Interestingly, Lambda Legal’s brief argues that DADT’s discriminatory message is particularly damaging to lesbian, gay and bisexual youth, as exemplified by the surge of recently-reported teen suicides caused by antigay bullying. “The government cannot plausibly claim that its actions are unrelated to such tragedies and abuses, so long as it remains the nation’s leading model for open discrimination against LGB people,” it says.
TARP Watchdog: Just $600 Million Of HAMP’s $50 Billion Has Been Spent
TARP Watchdog: Just $600 Million Of HAMP’s $50 Billion Has Been Spent
For months now, the Obama administration signature foreclosure prevention program — the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) — has been sputtering along, with more borrowers now getting booted out of the program than receiving a sustainable mortgage modification. In fact, many borrowers who enter the program wind up worse off financially, as the failure to obtain a permanent modification results in the borrower owing back fees and late penalties to the bank.
One of the biggest problems with the program is that the banks simply have no incentive to participate on a large scale, as they receive incentive payments for successful modifications but are subject to no repercussions for failing to keep qualified borrowers in their homes. Yesterday, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), from which HAMP’s money comes, noted that just $600 million of the $50 billion allocated to HAMP has been expended, adding that “a program that began with much promise now must be counted among those that risk generating public anger and mistrust.”
Now, the program is designed to pay out incentives to mortgage servicers for every borrower that stays current over the next few years, so that would explain some of the delay. But it doesn’t explain why barely more than one percent of the money allocated to the largest Obama administration program meant to aid homeowners has actually been expended.
According to the latest data, which was released yesterday by the Treasury Department, about 466,000 borrowers have received permanent mortgage modifications under HAMP, while almost 700,000 trial modifications have been canceled. Another 30,000 people received a “permanent” modification, only to have it canceled. The program clearly needs some reworking.
And there are things that could be done to get more borrowers into sustainable modifications and to move the HAMP money out the door faster. For one thing, housing counselors could be given the authority to approve loan modifications, and if the banks don’t challenge the modification in three months, it would automatically become permanent. Paul Krugman wrote that such a move “would do a lot to clarify matters and help extract us from the [mortgage] morass.”
Yesterday, Paul Willen, a senior economist and policy adviser for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said that recent anti-foreclosure efforts by the federal government have amounted to just “three years of failed policies.” “To prevent foreclosures we must pay lenders or borrowers a lot of money or force lenders to modify loans even when they don’t want to,” he said. “The idea we can go forward and all we need to do is tweak things a little or change a rule here or there or even change a lot of rules and give some incentive payments — that is not enough.”
The WonkLine: October 26, 2010
The WonkLine: October 26, 2010
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 9:30 a.m. roundup of the latest public policy news. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below. You can also follow The Wonk Room on Twitter.
Immigration
Referring to immigration reform, President Obama told Latino voters: “If the Latino community decides to sit out this election, then there will be fewer votes and it will be less likely to get done.”
Latino voters are showing far more enthusiasm about the midterm elections than they were in early September with almost 60 percent of Latino voters saying they are “very enthusiastic” about voting, up from 41 percent in Sept.
Two of the three judges assigned to Arizona’s appeal of the injunction against SB-1070, which is to be argued on Monday, are Latino: Richard Paez and Carlos Bea.
Economy
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said yesterday that they have suspended all activity on foreclosure cases that had been referred to David Stern, a Florida attorney who is under investigation by state officials for running a “foreclosure mill.”
FDIC Chair Sheila Bair said yesterday “that federal officials should have recognized ‘warning signs’ in recent years that the mortgage industry was cutting corners in the foreclosure process.”
U.S. and South Korean officials will meet today in an attempt to resolve differences over the stalled trade agreement between the two countries.
Health Care
“Altering payment mechanisms and care delivery structures aren’t enough to achieve a successful accountable care organization, according to a new report examining ACO experiences in California.”
“As emotions run high over the law, anger and fear about its impact on Medicare — whether founded or not — could be a deciding factor in some particularly close congressional races, especially in areas where there are large numbers of seniors, say political analysts.”
“A requirement that insurers summarize their health plans in a short brochure has led to a drawn-out clash between industry and consumer advocates over how to best define health insurance benefits.”
National Security
“Breaking with many other leaders in his party, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) warned against a government shutdown in a debate on Sunday, saying it would endanger U.S. troops,” the Huffington Post reports.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai acknowledged yesterday “that he regularly receives bags of cash from the Iranian government in payments amounting to millions of dollars.”
“The youngest detainee at Guantanamo Bay pleaded guilty to war crimes, including murder, on Monday, part of an agreement with prosecutors that allows the Obama administration to avoid a trial that threatened to undermine its use of military commissions.”
Justice
Omar Khadr, the youngest detainee at Guantamo Bay, pled guilty to war crimes as part of a deal that will return him to his native Canada to serve a seven year prison sentence.
Will right-wingers demand that the two Latino judges assigned to hear a challenge to Arizona’s draconian immigration law recuse themselves — just like they thought a gay judge cannot hear a marriage equality case?
You wouldn’t like Clarence Thomas when he’s sober. Neither do we.
Education
“As funding for higher education continues to shrink in some states, more community colleges are considering charging differential tuition rates for their costly career and technology programs,” Inside Higher Ed reports.
How will the D.C. teachers union elections affect outgoing Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s initiatives?
Can California’s next governor get the state out of its education mess?
Climate Change
#Chiclone: A cyclonic storm of historic proportions is blowing through the Midwest from Michigan to Texas, spinning off tornadoes, gusting winds, and severe thunderstorms.
The historic heat wave and ensuing wildfires in Russia killed nearly 56,000 people this summer, the Russian government reports.
PolitiFact rebukes Robert Hurt for running “false” “jobs in China” ads attacking Tom Perriello his support of clean energy jobs, an attack also made in National Republican Campaign Committee ads running in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Colorado, Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, Oregon, Michigan and Minnesota.
LGBT Equality
“The Obama administration is launching a campaign to prevent anti-gay bullying and other harassment at school, advising educators that federal law protects students from many forms of discrimination.”
“During an exclusive interview with Politics Daily Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii) discussed his opposition to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, arguing that some people use the law to work the system.”
“Colorado-based abstinence education group WAIT Training has received more than $8.3 million in federal funding since 2005, despite having several brushes with political controversy.”
HHS Pressured To Apply Health Reform’s Consumer Protections To Student Health Plans
HHS Pressured To Apply Health Reform’s Consumer Protections To Student Health Plans
Approximately 4.5 million college students nationwide receive health insurance coverage through so-called student health plans (SHP) — insurance that is available to college students — and if progressive advocates get their way, these plans will have to abide by the federal consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act, which prohibit insurers from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions, rescinding coverage, or placing annual or lifetime caps on benefits. Following an investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, which found that some college plans offer porous coverage that skirs state laws and regulations, youth organizations like Rock the Vote and Young Invincibles sent a letter to White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asking regulators to ensure that SHPs abide by the regulatory baseline created in the Affordable Care Act.
The crux of the matter is whether HHS (which has regulatory authority over the plans) classifies SHPs as individual health plans — thereby requiring that they abide by the consumer protections in the law — or limited duration plans, potentially exempting them from the new federal standards. In their letter, the groups argue that the latter approach would “leave these plans virtually unregulated,” “exempt from even the most basic protections”:
Some groups have suggested defining student plans as “short-term limited duration insurance.” However, student plans do not fit into the definition of “short-term limited duration insurance.” Moreover, because this type of insurance is generally considered neither individual nor group insurance, there is a strong argument that such a definition would leave these plans virtually unregulated by the PPACA – a scenario clearly not within the intent of Congress.
Defined as “short-term limited duration insurance,” student health plans would arguably be exempt from even the most basic protections in the PPACA, including the:
- Ban on rescissions;
- Ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions;
- Limits on annual and lifetime benefit caps;
- Preventive care requirements;
- Minimum benefits package;
- Medical loss ratio requirements, among others. [...]
Indeed, student plans have not historically been classified as “short-term limited duration insurance,” under HIPAA, the PHSA, or any other federal statutory scheme – nor should they be. Student plans are often offered for a full 12 months. Moreover, they are almost always offered to any student who chooses to stay enrolled in a college or university. Additionally, any partial classification, leaving some shorter-term student plans regulated in this category, would merely encourage all student plan issuers to redefine their coverage as semester-based coverage, giving them a loophole through which to deprive students of important consumer protections. As such, any attempt to call student plans “short term limited-duration” plans would be both inaccurate and potentially detrimental to the well-being of several million students enrolled in them.
The American Council on Education — which represents presidents and chancellors of accredited educational institutions — and several other higher education associations disagree. They’re asking the government to “designate, in regulation, that student health coverage is considered minimum essential coverage under the individual mandate,” but argue that these plans have been traditionally seen as short-term limited duration insurance” and should be classified this way “[t]o avoid unintended consequences.”
“We believe that there is going to be coverage under ACA even under limited duration plans,” Steven Bloom, ACE’s Assistant Director of the Division of Government and Public Affairs told me in a phone interview. “The question is, tell us what they have to comply with under ACA.” The education associations do agree that the SHPs should be “made available to eligible students and their eligible dependents as defined by the policy without regard to health status or pre-existing conditions” and that they should meet the “actuarial standards of the Bronze Plan,” but do not go as far as Young Invincibles in demanding that they be required to meet almost of the requirements of individual health insurance plans.
Along with concerns that the law’s guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewability rules would undermine the plans’ student-only enrollment structure, Banson says that his group is also worried that issues like “pricing and rating” could undermine the policies. The law requires states to “establish 1 or more rating areas within that State,” but SHPs are priced differently, “based on campus population,” Banson told me.
Banson stressed that the higher education associations who signed on to the letter are not advocating against the new consumer protections. Rather they are asking for “guidance for what the rules of the road are” so “schools can understand what their student plans are required to comply with in the Affordable Care Act and what insurance reforms apply to student health plans.” Bloom says that even if these plans are “classified as limited duration plans it still means that students will have to purchase something that satisfied” the minimum benefits requirement under the law and would have to meet federal standards of coverage.
HHS is likely to issue the regulations in the coming weeks.
Bipartisan Group Of New Jersey Lawmakers Introduce ‘The Anti-Bullying Bill Of Rights’
Bipartisan Group Of New Jersey Lawmakers Introduce ‘The Anti-Bullying Bill Of Rights’
Weeks after 18-year-old Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped off the George Washington bridge as a result of LGBT-related bullying, a bipartisan coalition of New Jersey lawmakers have introduced legislation “designed to combat harassment, intimidation and bullying among students.” The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights builds on New Jersey’s existing anti-bullying measure, passed in May of 2002, but advances stronger accountability standards and reporting requirements. From Blue Jersey:
Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-37) and Senator Barbara Buono (D-18) will introduce on Monday the eagerly anticipated harrassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) awareness and prevention legislation. It is expected that it will have bipartisan support, including Assemblywoman Pat Angelini (R-11), and Senators Diane Allen (R-7) and Thomas Goodwin (R-14).
Their bill is squarely aimed at the school environment where discrimination and bullying often begin. It will provide that training on HIB be a part of the training required for public school teaching staff members in suicide prevention. It will create a fund for state grants to school districts. It will include sections on enforcement and response to HIB and on accountability of schools, districts and the state. It will also require the addition of an anti-bullying policy and enforcement mechanism to the student code of conduct of every public college and university.
Lawmakers first began crafting the legislation in 2008, and held numerous meeting with victims and advocates such as Garden State Equality, the Anti-Defamation League and the New Jersey Coalition for Bullying Awareness and Prevention. The goal was to “create a standardized way to identify and investigate incidences of bullying and to train teachers, administrators and school board members in identification and prevention techniques” to reduce New Jersey’s bullying rate which is higher than the national average.
“This bill protects all students who are bullied, not just students bullied because they belong to a particular group that faces discrimination,” Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality told NJToday.net. “Given the painstaking year of work that went into this legislation, it should not be interpreted as a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic death of Tyler Clementi. Although New Jersey must respond to that – and this bill does.”
The legislation also “comes just weeks after New York state introduced a new law requiring New York school districts to protect children against bullying because of their sexual orientation or weight.” Currently, 45 other states have enacted anti-bullying measures, but advocates believe that most laws leave too much discretion to the schools and see the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights as a model for insuring compliance and accountability. For instance, the bill provides that “a school administrator who fails to initiate or conduct an investigation of an incident, or who should have known of an incident and fails to take action, is subject to discipline” and requires the Department of Education to “establish a formal protocol to be used by the offices of the executive county superintendent of schools in investigating complaints that school districts are not adhering to the provisions of law governing harassment, intimidation, or bullying in the schools.”
A spokes person for Gov. Chris Christie said “the administration would look at the bill if it’s passed – and given its bipartisan sponsors, that seems likely.” “While Christie hasn’t commented on the bill, he did express sympathy to Clementi’s parents and anger over the circumstances of the suicide,” the Washington Post notes.
Nearly 9 Million Students Facing Pell Grant Cuts If Congress Doesn’t Act
Nearly 9 Million Students Facing Pell Grant Cuts If Congress Doesn’t Act
When Congress comes back into Washington for a lame duck session following November’s midterm elections, it will have a few noteworthy tasks that it needs to accomplish. As Congressional Quarterly’s Chuck Conlon and Greg Vadala pointed out, one of these is the federal Pell Grant program — which provides higher education grants to middle- and lower-income students — as it is facing a substantial budget shortfall:
President Obama wanted to include extra money for Pell grants in the stopgap legislation that Congress enacted to fund the government until early December, one of many add-ons that were not included in the measure. Republicans mainly opposed Democratic efforts to add funding to the continuing resolution, which kept it relatively “clean”…If the Pell shortfall is not addressed, almost 9 million students would face a cut of more than 15 percent in their fiscal 2011 maximum award, said the Committee for Education Funding.
For the 2011 fiscal year, which theoretically began at the beginning of this month, the Pell Grant program is facing a roughly $5.7 billion shortfall. If it isn’t closed, the maximum grant under the program will be cut by some $845 for the 2011 academic year. And this will come at a time when, due to the lingering effects of the Great Recession, there will be about 8.7 million Pell Grant recipients, up from 7.7 million in 2009.
Of course, Republicans in Congress might very well be unwilling to play ball. After all, their plan for the federal budget, assuming they were willing to actually follow through on it if given the chance, would cut about $9 billion from the Pell Grant program, even in the face of increased demand. And a few Republicans have even advocated for reversing the student loan reform passed this year, resurrecting billions of dollars in senseless subsidies to bankers and further reducing the pot of money available for grants.
Keeping the Pell Grant program fully funded is about more than ensuring adequate access to higher education for lower-income students (though that, by itself, is a worthy goal). America has a falling level of educational attainment in relation to the rest of the world, and by 2025, according to estimates by the Lumina Foundation, the U.S. will be short 16 million college educated workers. So the nation’s supply of human capital and its ability to remain economically competitive with the rest of the world hinges on its ability to encourage a highly-educated workforce. Reducing the supply of Pell Grants would, obviously, have just the opposite effect.
Americans For Prosperity Lies: ‘We’re Not Arguing The Science Of Climate Change’
Americans For Prosperity Lies: ‘We’re Not Arguing The Science Of Climate Change’
Tonight, the Center for American Progress Action Fund is screening the documentary (Astro)Turf Wars. Following the screening, the ThinkProgress Wonk Room will host a panel with director Taki Oldham, Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen, and Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. The panel will be streamed live here.
The pollution-funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP) claims not to question the science of global warming, arguing that its massive Astroturfing campaign against climate policy hinges purely on economic arguments. However, footage from the new documentary (Astro)Turf Wars reveals that AFP officials in fact are radical climate science deniers, promoting untenable conspiracy theories to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus that fossil fuel pollution is dangerously warming the planet.
“We’re not arguing the science of climate change,” Steve Lonegan, AFP-New Jersey state director told Taki Oldham, (Astro)Turf Wars’ filmmaker, last year, at an AFP “Hot Air Tour” event challenging climate legislation. “What we’re saying is the price tag put on it is so destructive as to be reckless and irresponsible.” However, when Oldham asked Lonegan about the science, the AFP official launched into a denier tirade:
The science is not finished, the debate is not over, as the left who support this legislation would tell you. It is quite far from over. There is some very doubtful science into whether or not manmade global warming is causing significant climate change, or whether that climate change is bad or not.
Oldham also attended AFP’s annual summit in October 2009, where the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell, also funded by Koch, told AFP members that global warming is “phony”:
First I want to talk about global warming for a minute. Here’s the last 30 years. You’ll see for the last ten years we haven’t had any global warming. I think that shows the models are phony.
Watch it:
Ebell spoke at a panel moderated by AFP’s vice president of policy, Phil Kerpen, which also included radical climate conspiracy theorist Phelim McAleer and Koch front-group lifer Daniel Simmons.
When the Wonk Room noted that numerous Republican candidates who question climate science are also signatories of the AFP “No Climate Tax” pledge, AFP argued that “our pledge has nothing to do with science,” complaining, “Why can’t Think Progress approach this issue with intellectual honesty, instead of distorting our sincere efforts to fight government growth as some sort of scientific position?”
“We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases,” Koch Industries spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia claimed in March, 2010.
Lonegan and Ebell’s denial of climate science is, in fact, the default policy position of AFP and Koch Industries:
– “The scientific establishment has dropped the ball. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” said Peggy Venable, AFP’s State Director for Texas, in 2009. “On the contrary it makes crops and forests grow faster. We exhale carbon dioxide.”
– AFP’s website flatly claims that the fact that global warming could cause an eventual 7-meter sea level rise is a “falsehood.”
– “Endangerment of public health and welfare is not ‘reasonably anticipated,’” AFP argued in an April 15, 2009 letter challenging the EPA’s endangerment finding.
– Koch Industries’ official position on climate policy explicitly questions the science of manmade global warming, arguing it may be “simply part of the earth’s natural cycle” and claiming that “the past 10 years or so of data” indicate “we have emerged from a warming cycle and are now entering a cooling cycle.”
Angle Releases Yet Another Race-Baiting Ad
Angle Releases Yet Another Race-Baiting Ad
First, Republican senatorial candidate Sharron Angle ran offensive images of menacing Latino men with flashlights walking along a fence alongside a snapshot of an innocent looking white family in order to make the point that her opponent Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is the “best friend an illegal alien ever had.” Then her campaign released a second commercial with a new image of scowling Latino men juxtaposed against a photo of white college graduates. Despite the fact that her ads have sparked outrage in the Latino community, Angle has decided to continue with her anti-Latino campaign theme.
In her newest attack ad, Angle pits brown against white in order to make the case that Reid is a friend of dark-skinned, scary looking “illegal aliens” and an enemy of white Nevadans like her:
Watch it:
Angle’s third ad is especially surprising considering the fact that many outlets are reporting that Latinos may decide the tight Nevada senatorial race. “Angle has made few friends among Latinos after she supported neighboring Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 law, the strictest in the nation to curb illegal immigrants. And as polling day gets closer, her gaffes and missteps are helping to bring the Latino vote out for Reid,” reported Reuters last week.
Despite Denying GOP Connection, De Posada Toes The Republican Party Line On Immigration
Despite Denying GOP Connection, De Posada Toes The Republican Party Line On Immigration
Robert de Posada, the man behind the group telling Latino voters not to vote, has denied any affiliation with the Republican Party, or that he is trying to advance the party in close elections. The GOP has similarly distanced itself from de Posada’s controversial ads. However, besides the fact that de Posada’s own resume includes stints at the RNC and Bush White House, de Posada is toeing the conservative line.
For someone who claims to be independent, de Posada’s message is closely aligned with the Spanish-language talking points espoused by GOP pundits like Ana Navarro and Alfonso Aguilar, and Republican lawmaker Mario Diaz-Balart who constantly claim: 1) Democrats promised Latinos immigration reform and have done nothing; 2) Democrats are in “full control” and would’ve passed immigration reform if they were really serious about it; 3) Latinos shouldn’t look at the Republican party’s record, but rather the record of each individual candidate:
DE POSADA: The Democrats, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, promised us immigration reform two years ago in one year. After that, he hasn’t done anything. There’s hasn’t been one vote in one subcommittee.
DIAZ-BALART: Let’s be clear, the President — on your program — said that in his first 12 months he would present and approve immigration reform. He didn’t do it in his first 12 months, he didn’t do it in his second 12 months. Basically, he used us.
NAVARRO: President Obama has talked and talked talked. He told our community — on your program — that he would pass immigration reform within his first year in office. We all agree that President Obama has talked a lot about immigration reform, but he’s done little.
AGUILAR: During the 2008 elections, they [Democrats] said they would do something about immigration. In two years they haven’t done anything.
DE POSADA:He [Reid] has the power to do whatever he wants. Besides that, he didn’t need the Republicans for health care reform, for the stimulus, for finance reform, for a number of things. Why didn’t he do that for Latinos? You know why? Because we aren’t his priority.
DIAZ-BALART: They [Democrats] blame Republicans, but we all know that the Democrats control the House, the White House and the Senate. If they were serious about approving immigration reform, they would’ve done it by now the way they did with health care reform.
NAVARRO: I think Republican senators don’t feel that the White House is serious about this issue. Evidently they did have 60 votes to pass health care reform, evidently they have 60 votes to pass economic things. They have 60 votes when the White House puts forth all its support.
AGUILAR: They tell us that it’s the Republicans, but the truth is they know that they don’t have all the Democratic votes. They had the votes to pass health care reform, but what happened with immigration reform? Absolutely nothing.
DE POSADA: They [Latinos] have to evaluate the records of the candidates.
NAVARRO: Latinos have to evaluate each candidate — their values, where they are on different issues.
AGUILAR: The important thing is not to make generalizations. [..] The Latino voter has to balance and look at all the issues. Immigration is one issue, it’s not the only issue for Latinos.
Watch it [in Spanish]:
Most Republicans aren’t coming out and telling Latinos not to vote. However, when Republicans slam Democrats on Spanish-language television they usually don’t mention that Democrats have been unable to push immigration reform due to Republican obstructionism that has delayed — if not stalled — the entire White House’s agenda. They also fail to note that while the majority of Democrats support immigration reform, it doesn’t have the same support that other policy proposals have and that more Republicans are needed to enact it. However, while Democrats could’ve done more to move immigration reform, it has been pretty clear that the GOP support needed to make it happen is non-existent. Finally, even if Latino voters ignored the Republican Party’s overarching anti-immigrant platform and just looked at individual candidates, they’d still be hard-pressed to find many Republicans who are willing to fight for the Latino community’s interests.
In an interview with radio host, Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo, President Obama explained, “There is a notion that somehow if I had worked it hard enough, we could have magically done it. That’s just not the way our system works. If I need 60 votes to get this done, then I’m gonna have to have some support from the other side. If the Latino community decides to sit out this election, then there will be fewer votes and it will be less likely to get done. And the other side, which is fighting against this, is not gonna support it.”
RSS
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
