Alabama Supreme Court Justice Compares DADT Judge To Al-Qaeda
Justice Tom Parker (center) poses with the leaders of two hate groups
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, a disciple of disgraced former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, released a campaign ad comparing the judge who recently struck down the unconstitutional Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy to Al-Qaeda:
Recently, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ordered a worldwide injunction to overturn the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy on homosexuals serving in the military. With a stroke of a pen, this Clinton appointed judge—who got her law degree at Berkeley—unilaterally made the biggest single change in military policy in American history. . . . Most people believe that Al-Qaeda is one of America’s biggest security threats, I think it’s time to add liberal activist judges like Judge Phillips to that list.
Listen:
Parker’s hyperbolic claim about American history would come as a big surprise to the actual framers of the Constitution, who generally shared the view that the mere existance of a permanent standing army invites tyranny, but this kind of absurd and bigoted rhetoric is nothing new for Justice Parker. The picture above depicts Parker with two local hate group leaders. One is Leonard Wilson, a segregationist and national board member of a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens that has described African-Americans as “a retrograde species of humanity.” The other is Mike Whorton, Alabama state leader of the neo-Confederate League of the South.
(As the Wonk Room recently explained, Parker is not the only candidate with ties to the League. Martha Dean, the GOP nominee for Connecticut Attorney General, is apparently taking cues from one of the League’s co-founders, right-wing pseudo-historian Tom Woods.)
Nor is Parker’s radicalism limited to hatred towards gay men, lesbians or other minority groups. In a op-ed published during his tenure as a justice, Parker attacked his colleagues for “passively accommodat[ing] — rather than actively resist[ing] — the unconstitutional opinion of five liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.” The same op-ed elaborated that he objects to the U.S. Supreme Court because they look down on “pro-family policies” and “Southern heritage.”
- Comments
- View Comments
HHS Announces New ‘Early Innovators Grants’ To Help States Develop Technology For The Exchanges
HHS Announces New ‘Early Innovators Grants’ To Help States Develop Technology For The Exchanges
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a new round of grants this afternoon to help states expedite and simplify the process of developing IT systems for the new exchanges (the Travelocity-like market places that will help Americans find comprehensive insurance coverage). By the time the exchanges become operational in 2014, states should be able to use information technology to determine eligibly, enrollment, premium tax credits, cost-sharing assistance administration, and integrate the system with Medicaid and CHIP. Officials believe that sophisticated, yet “consumer friendly” IT systems are “critical to the success of the exchanges” and hope that the final product will look similar to the new HealthCare.gov website, where beneficiaries can compare different plans, identify if they’re eligible for government aid, and enroll in insurance.
But as Politico’s Jennifer Haberkorn points out this morning, “states view the project as an enormous undertaking, requiring them to design a system, develop the information technology and put it into action in just three years amid tight budgets. In response, the Department of Health and Human Services is planning to ask five states to develop systems that can hopefully serve as prototypes for other states to replicate.” “The states have told us that they don’t all want to all have re-invent the wheel on each aspect of the exchange; they want to be able to re-use and leverage the work of their fellow states so that the resources are used more efficiently and effectively,” Joel Ario the Director of the Office of Insurance Exchanges at HHS said on a conference call attended by the Wonk Room.
The so-called “Early Innovators Grants” will be offered to five states or coalition of states “that demonstrate leadership in developing cutting-edge and cost-effective consumer-based technologies and models for insurance eligibility and enrollment for Exchanges” that “can be adopted and tailored by other States.”
“The benefits to the states are three-fold,” Ario said. “First, there are lower costs through the uses of shared models, second there is an improved implementation schedule, increased quality and reduced risk through the re-use, the peer-collaboration and the leveraging of lessons learned across the state boundaries. And finally, there is improved capacity for program evaluation because of the more uniform implementation theory,” he explained.
Last month, the federal government awarded exchange planning grants to 48 states and the District of Columbia and has announced that it will award “Establishment Grants” in February of 2011. “We’re looking for a lot of collaboration, we’re looking for states to lead….to really kind of provide the direction and progress that needs to be made early rather than later,” Henry Chao — the Chief Technology Officer at the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight — explained on the call, noting that states struggled to implement the IT requirements in Medicare Part D because they were given “very very short timeframes” “in terms of systems development.” “I think the lessons learned have really told us that we need to collaborate much more so upfront, not just with the states, but across the federal government, with other agencies.”
Volcker: Don’t Let The Banks Weaken My Rule
Volcker: Don’t Let The Banks Weaken My Rule
As I’ve been documenting, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have set their sights on weakening some of the key provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. One of these is the Volcker rule — named after former Federal Reserve Chairman and current Obama administration adviser Paul Volcker — which is aimed at preventing banks from trading for their own benefit with federally insured funds.
Banks are already thumbing their nose at the Volcker rule and laying the groundwork for a return to risky trading; they’re taking advantage of Dodd-Frank’s infancy, going on new adventures as regulators work out what, exactly, the Volcker rule should outlaw. And the banks are betting that the GOP will push regulators into making exceedingly narrow, so that risky (but profitable) trading can go on unabated.
But Volcker is pushing back, telling regulators to leave the rule more open, thus allowing them to crack down on a potentially wider range of activities:
His suggestion: Bar banks from trading with their own funds if they benefit from any type of government guarantee, such as deposit insurance, these people said. Banks would have to police their own activities to make sure they are in compliance, with Federal Reserve examiners ensuring that is the case…Mr. Volcker’s concern, according to several people familiar with the matter, is that narrow or prescriptive rules would invite gamesmanship on the part of banks and could allow firms to evade the rule’s intent. Already, some banks and their lobbyists are seeking to sway regulators and encourage them to narrowly define certain types of trading activities.
Volcker is not alone in his attempt to push regulators into a more inclusive rule. A group of Senators led by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) — who was one of the Volcker rule’s biggest advocates during the financial reform debate — penned a letter to regulators stating that Congress “provided you with a clear mandate and broad authority to act. The American people are now relying upon you to fully carry out the law.” “Congress voted for change and we need the regulators to move forward with change. They shouldn’t be giving away the ranch so we get back in this situation again,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), one of the letter’s signers.
Volcker was reportedly disappointed in the final version of his rule, after exemptions were added to it in an attempt to win Republican votes for Dodd-Frank, so it’s not surprising that he’d go to bat to prevent even more backsliding. And that he has to wrangle with the regulators at all is symbolic of both the promise and potential pitfalls in Dodd-Frank: depending on how the regulators craft the rules, the law could be extremely effective or simply window-dressing.
Conservative Military Chaplains Complain About DADT Repeal Again, AP Runs Full Article Treatment
Conservative Military Chaplains Complain About DADT Repeal Again, AP Runs Full Article Treatment
Conservative military chaplains have opposed repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell so frequently and vociferously this year that I’ve devoted an entire tag to explaining why their warnings of a mass exodus of Christian chaplains and soliders is overblown. But their frequent outings (pun intended) didn’t stop the Associated Press from running a story detailing their latest stunt. Titled, “Retired chaplains warn against ‘don’t ask’ repeal” the article breathlessly reports on a letter the chaplains sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, regurgitating the very same claims the chaplains have been making all year — only now, they’re standing on the AP’s soap box rather than in the event room of Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council. From the AP story:
Dozens of retired military chaplains say that serving both God and the U.S. armed forces will become impossible for chaplains whose faiths consider homosexuality a sin if the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is thrown out.
If a chaplain preaches against homosexuality, he could conceivably be disciplined as a bigot under the military’s nondiscrimination policy, the retired chaplains say. The Pentagon, however, says chaplains’ religious beliefs and their need to express them will be respected.
Clergy would be ineligible to serve as chaplains if their churches withdraw their endorsements, as some have threatened to do if “don’t ask, don’t tell” ends. Critics of allowing openly gay troops fear that clergy will leave the service or be forced to find other jobs in the military that don’t involve their faiths.
“The bottom line is religious freedom,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Douglas Lee, one of 65 former chaplains who signed a letter urging President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to keep “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
In a recent Letter to the Editor published in USA Today, Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson — the first openly gay priest elected bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion — writes that this argument “raises needless fears based on a flawed understanding of the policies that govern the military chaplaincy.“
“These policies are designed to preserve and protect the free exercise of religion in the military and would remain in effect after the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT),” he notes. “No Roman Catholic, fundamentalist Christian or Orthodox Jewish chaplain would have to change her or his beliefs about homosexuality. If any gay or lesbian servicemembers went to one of these chaplains, they would still receive the counseling against homosexuality they have always received. What they wouldn’t receive is a discharge from their military service for being gay and speaking about it.” “Within each chaplain’s congregation, he or she will continue to be free to preach according to the tenets of his or her own faith. That will not change,” he says.
Fortunately, many military chaplains support repealing the ban. “As military chaplains, we routinely work with service members whose faith traditions and belief systems are different from ours. The idea that repeal of DADT will infringe on our religious liberty is insulting to all the serving chaplains who professionally minister to and with people of diverse beliefs every day,” said Captain John F. Gundlach, a retired Chaplain of the U.S. Navy. HRC has more on the broad coalition of faith leaders who support repeal here.
Climate Hawk Baron Hill: ‘This Is God’s Green Earth And We Ought To Respect It’
Faced with relentless attacks on his vote for clean energy legislation, Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) slammed his critics for questioning climate science and doing the bidding of special interests who are destroying the environment. In a recent debate with challengers Republican Todd Young and Libertarian Greg Knott, Hill explained why he supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have limited greenhouse pollution, put billions of dollars into a clean energy economy, and created new jobs in Indiana.
Young, a signatory of the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge, has argued that climate science is “a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues.” During the debate, Young took a less confrontational stance, saying that “there are people of goodwill on both sides of the issue.” Hill overcame scattered jeers from the audience when he accurately responded that the “science is overwhelming”:
The science is overwhelming. There is no question that man is contributing to climate change. No question about it. The science is overwhelming. Look, folks: this is God’s green earth and we ought to respect it. We ought to do what is right for our environment. This bill is what’s right for our environment. This is God’s green earth and we ought to protect it. For years, we have tried to pass legislation and the special interests always bought it out. If this is so bad, why did Ronald Reagan himself do the same thing with sulfur when he was President of the United States? Same cap-and-trade bill. No difference. Same bill. This is not what people have portrayed it to be. It’s the special interests again using their money influence to make sure that their interests are protected and not our environment. [APPLAUSE]
Watch it:
In May, 2010, the National Academies of Science reported to Congress that “the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change” because global warming is “caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems.”
Meanwhile, polluters have spent $247 million this year alone to shape public opinion in their favor, including $69.5 million on defending pollution and attacking clean energy reform.
Was Obama’s Handling Of Health Reform a Mistake? Yet Another Analysis From A Parallel Universe
Was Obama’s Handling Of Health Reform a Mistake? Yet Another Analysis From A Parallel Universe
I’m enjoying Jonathan Cohn’s, Greg Sargent’s, and Ezra Klein’s counterfactuals about Democrats’ mid-term election prospects had they they never taken up health care reform. All agree that Democrats would find themselves in the same spot, or be even worse off than they are today:
- COHN: A Newsweek economics columnist called Obama’s failure to address health care costs, at a time when the political forces for action were finally aligned, an unforgivable act of political cowardice. It’s hard to know whether voters share that assessment, but the perception that Obama whiffed at tackling the nation’s major issues certainly isn’t helping his approval ratings. The phrase “Carterbama” comes up a lot in conversation.
- SARGENT: There are a host of reasons to believe Dems might have been in a pretty bad position even if they hadn’t attempted reform at all. And if that had happened, and Dems had sustained big losses all the same, it could have postponed action on reform for a decade or more. Those who think Dems shouldn’t have tried reform this time around need to be asked when Dems would have gotten their next bite at the health care apple — particularly with such big majorities.
- KLEIN: In conversations over the past few weeks, some of the party’s leading strategists told me that it all comes down to accomplishments, or — here’s that ubiquitous word again — “deliverables.” The president, who ran such a brilliant campaign, they argue, has utterly failed to live up to the promise of his election. They cited perceived missed opportunities like the president’s decision to expand S-CHIP rather than pursuing health-care reform and suggested that he hadn’t done enough to re-regulate the financial sector in the aftermath of one of the worst financial crises in the nation’s history.
I agree with the above, but also wonder where Democrats would be today (regardless of the economy) if the President had approached reform in a more hands-on manner, publicly advocated for progressive priorities like the public option and drug reimportation, and crafted a more coherent and specific vision of what he wanted the final reform bill to look like. On one hand, it’s certainly possible that this more confrontational style would have put off the self-important lawmakers who took pride in personally crafting the law and pushed away the special interests whose acquiescence the administration bought with special agreements and tradeoffs. Reform might have died a slow death and Obama would likely be no better off than he is today — again, maybe even worse.
But had these Clintonian tactics led to a different result — if reform passed, it would have either included the kind of progressive ideas that Democrats could rally around or it would have mirrored something similar or even more conservative than the Affordable Care Act. In either outcome, if Obama steered the ship, the actual reform process could have been cut in half and even in the latter instance, Obama could have been seen as someone who stood and fought for what he campaigned for. And, it’s possible that his progressive base would have been more likely to stand with him than many are today. Conservatives, moreover, would have had less time to smear the law and concoct lies; without those falsehoods, and with a shorter legislative process, the American public would have been more receptive to the policy.”
Of course, all of this is mere speculation, but one can’t help but question if Democrats would see more public support for the law and their party today had the President publicly acted like it really mattered to him 16 months ago.
Iranian Democracy Activist Vahedi: ‘As An Iranian, I Don’t Like Talk Of Military Strikes On My Country’
Iranian Democracy Activist Vahedi: ‘As An Iranian, I Don’t Like Talk Of Military Strikes On My Country’
Yesterday, the Brookings Institution and National Security Network hosted a panel on Human Rights in Iran to mark the release of a new report, Placing Human Rights in Iran on top of the Foreign Policy Agenda.
Published by The Century Foundation and the Heinrich Boll Stiftung, the report is the second to be generated from a series of meetings with Iranian democracy activists, with the goal of better understanding the current state of Iran’s democracy movement, the nature and extent of political repression in Iran, and to develop ways in which democratic governments can best help the movement overcome that repression. The first report was discussed at a Center for American Progress event in April.
One of the panelists yesterday was Mojtaba Vahedi, a close aide of 2009 Iranian presidential candidate and Green movement leader Mehdi Karroubi.
Through an interpreter, Vahedi discussed some of the details of the abuse endured by protesters detained during the June 2009 election demonstrations, which included “placing 145 people in a room of 70 square meters for three days” at Kahrizak detention center. At one point during that time, according to Vahedi, 25 violent prisoners — murderers and rapists — were put into the room. “Many of the rapes that occurred happened this way,” Vahedi said. “After 16 months, not one person has been held accountable.”
Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei eventually admitted that crimes were committed at Kahrizak, but insisted they were trivial when compared to “the injustice that some did to the regime” by protesting the election.
Calling on the Obama administration to take a stronger stand in favor of Iranian human rights, report co-author Geneive Abdo said that, unlike the nuclear issue, around which there is fairly strong support in Iran, “human rights is a subject that can really turn public opinion against the regime.” There’s also evidence that criticism on this front is a sensitive issue for the regime, Abdo said, as it strikes at the core of their claim to be a just Islamic government.
Asked about Western talk of military action against Iran, Vahedi said that such an eventuality “is not in the picture for us,” something not even being considered. “As an Iranian, I don’t like talk of military strikes on my country,” Vahedi said, and “if pressure [against the regime] is applied intelligently, there will be no need for it.”
Back in May, formerly imprisoned Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji was adamant that talk of a U.S. military option was harmful to the cause of Iranian democracy. “If you do not have the threat of foreign invasion and you do not use the dialog of invasion and military intervention, the society itself has a huge potential to oppose and potentially topple the theocratic system,” Ganji said. “What I’m trying to get to is that jingoistic, militaristic language used by any foreign power would actually be detrimental to this natural evolution of Iranian society.”
Looking at the idea that we must “keep force on the table” with regard to Iran, Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch recently wrote “If the administration is really having an internal debate about whether to put the military option openly on the table, I hope that they quickly and firmly resolve it in the negative.”
It would not increase U.S. bargaining leverage over Iran. It would undermine the international consensus on sanctions for which they have worked so hard. It would almost certainly kill any prospect for the meaningful diplomatic process which is so badly needed. And it would represent the next step in the seemingly inexorable ratcheting process towards an unnecessary and counterproductive war. This would be yet another of those painfully predictable victories of narrowly-conceived tactics over realistic strategy. It may offer momentary satisfaction to U.S. domestic hawks and earn a few fleeting moments of praise, but at the expense of real U.S. strategic interests. Let’s not go there.
Vitter Refuses To Apologize For Racist Ad, Says Portrayal Is A ‘Fact Not A Stereotype’
Vitter Refuses To Apologize For Racist Ad, Says Portrayal Is A ‘Fact Not A Stereotype’
A couple weeks ago, I reported that the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was urging Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to apologize for and stop running a race-baiting anti-immigrant attack ad on his opponent, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) that contained offensive ethnic stereotypes. “We found the ad to be totally abhorrent and shocking, and I’m going to use the ‘R’ word and say racist,” Darlene Kattan of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana told a local news station.
In a debate last night, Vitter was asked to respond to the allegations. Rather than apologizing, Vitter affirmed, “I stand by the ad.” According to him, the images in it aren’t a “stereotype,” but rather, “a fact”:
MODERATOR: Do you offer them an apology or do you stand by the ad?
VITTER: We have an illegal immigration problem and a huge part of that is the Mexican border. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Ninety seven percent of our apprehensions of illegals is at the Mexican border. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Over 80 percent of the 12-15 million illegals in this country have come through that border from Mexico and South American countries. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Now there’s one thing in that ad that is offensive and that is Mister Melancon’s votes that the ad highlights. [...]
MODERATOR: How do you respond to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Charities, the Archdiocese of New Orleans who say that this ad played into offensive racial stereotypes?
VITTER: Let me just ask you, what is the stereotype?
MODERATOR:They’re talking about the images seen in your ad.
VITTER: Is it a stereotype that folks coming across the border — that is a problem and they look like that? Dennis that is a fact, that is not a stereotype! Let’s get our heads out of the sand!
Watch it:
It’s interesting that Vitter avoided taking the Sharron Angle route of denying that the negative images in the ad are necessarily Latinos. Instead, he readily admits that there’s a connection between the two. Yet, Vitter’s ad isn’t a “fact,” it’s a racist parody of Latin culture. His implication that the running image of goofy Latino men who sneak through a hole in a fence with a giant neon welcome sign and then run off with a check from the government is somehow representative of people from Mexico and South America says a lot about how Vitter perceives reality.
It also shows just how disconnected the Senator is from the immigration issue. While it is true that many undocumented immigrants are from Latin America, most of them don’t look anything like the caricatures shown in the ad. Their journey to the U.S. is plagued by the threat of violence, kidnapping, rape, and death. When they arrive, they’re not greeted with a welcome sign and a check. Instead, many of them work below the minimum wage for abusive employers in towns where their presence is resented and in states that are driving them out. Meanwhile, all undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving major federal federal benefits.
About two dozen New Orleans-area community leaders called on Vitter to apologize and remove the ad, including representatives of African-American, Latino and Vietnamese groups and Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans.
Vitter: ‘I Disagree With The Premise’ That Tax Cuts Should Be Paid For
During a debate last night, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was asked what he would cut from the budget in order to offset the expense of extending the Bush tax cuts. Remember, a full extension would cost more than $4 trillion over ten years, while extending the cuts for just the richest two percent of Americans costs $830 billion. Rather than lay out where he would make cuts, Vitter rejected the premise of the question, scoffing at the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for:
VITTER: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise that in order to keep tax rates where they are and not increase taxes, somehow we need to pay for that. I think that’s Washington-speak, not Louisiana-speak. [...]
Q: It’s a misnomer to say this continuing, for the top rates, wouldn’t have to be paid for. You would have to pay that $750 billion because it was supposed to sunset. It’s not an increase, it’s a sunset.
VITTER: Just to be clear, the premise that I disagree with is that to avoid a tax increase, we somehow have to pay for it. It’s not the government’s money, it’s our money. That’s the point.
Watch it:
Vitter did eventually endorse some spending cuts — including rescinding unspent stimulus money, which would have the practical effect of raising taxes on the middle class — but they wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of just extending the tax cuts for the richest two percent. And it’s his complete dismissal of the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for that merits attention.
Under current law, which stipulates that the Bush tax cuts expire, the government will collect 21 percent of GDP in revenue in 2020. Extending the cuts means less revenue for the government (21 percent of GDP minus the cuts) and a larger deficit. That’s not “Washington-speak,” it’s basic budgeting. For what it’s worth, the last time that the budget was balanced, the government brought in 20 percent of GDP in revenue.
But Vitter is hardly alone in his position. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in August, “you’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, pay for?” “Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), when asked if Republicans planned to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich. “It’s not a cost. That’s where we are today. That’s the baseline. It doesn’t score anything to continue them,” insisted Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).
So the next time Vitter fearmongers about the “grab-bag of deficit spending” that he sees in Washington, it’s worth remembering that he doesn’t consider tax cuts — one of the main drivers of the deficit — to be part of the equation.
Top Insurance Lobbyist Suggests Industry Does Not Support Complete Repeal Of Health Reform
Top Insurance Lobbyist Suggests Industry Does Not Support Complete Repeal Of Health Reform
AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni appeared on Fox Business on Wednesday to lay out the insurance industry’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Ignagni wouldn’t say if insurers support repealing the law outright, but highlighted several provisions that she claims would increase costs for small businesses and individuals. She maintained that the law needs to be fixed:
IGNAGNI: I think the most important thing, Neil, is that what is being telegraphed all over the country is that people are worried about costs. [...] Small businesses in 2014 are going to face an unprecedented sales tax on their health insurance premiums….. Right now, going, starting January 1, there are new regulations going into effect that cap administrative costs. It’s going to be happening overnight, a shock to the system. And it is going to lead to a number of disruptions all over the country. [...]
CAVUTO: So you think that’s more likely if Republicans grab power or what?
IGNAGNI: I think that the American people are telegraphing to both sides of the aisle that this is a priority for them. They’re worried about costs. They should be worried about costs. We need to get on with that job of addressing that.
Watch it:
Ignagni’s efforts to demur are telling. Even though the health insurance industry is in the process of massively shifting its campaign donations to Republicans and independent groups dedicated to defunding or repealing the law, I’ve suspected that insurers are more interested in favorable regulations that don’t cut into industry profits than outright repeal. Ignagni’s appearance only confirms this hypothesis.
While she may genuinely have some concerns about the penalties associated with the free rider provision that goes into effect in 2014 (employers with more than 50 workers wouldn’t be required to provide health insurance, but they would face fines if their work force received a government subsidy to buy health insurance), she’s probably more worried that if employers respond to the penalties by dropping coverage (and moving their workers into the exchanges), they’ll abandon their existing insurance products.
Other companies and plans operating inside the exchanges will pick up that business, but they will probably have to operate under better regulated market conditions. And, since companies would have to compete for business in the exchange (which in some states may include a public option) those products could bring in smaller profits. Ignagni is determined to shield the companies she represents form this kind of erosion and she’s happy to inflame concerns about rising health care costs to do so.
Barrasso’s Nuclear Idiocy
Barrasso’s Nuclear Idiocy
In a sane world, the malfunction of a squadron of ICBMs would cause great alarm at the instability of the US maintaining so many irrelevant nuclear missiles on a hair trigger alert. After all, the Cold War ended 20 years ago and the US has no peer nuclear threat. Yet, in the current reality-warped world of tea-party gripped America, the mechanical failure of a squadron of ICBMs has actually prompted demands for more nuclear weapons.
Last week, a mechanical failure caused the Air Force to lose control of 50 ICBMs. This is not the first incident of its kind; a few years ago a B-52 flew across the country with “hot” nuclear weapons aboard, unbeknownst to the pilots and crew. Also, throughout the nuclear age there have been a number of mechanical and human errors that have almost led to absolute catastrophe, making a nuclear accident in many ways a greater and more likely danger than nuclear war.
Yet, as Marc Ambinder reported, to Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the malfunction is actually a reason not to pass the New START treaty:
If new START had been in place on Sunday, we would have immediately been below an acceptable level to deter threats from our enemies. Before ratifying this treaty, the Senate must ensure we modernize our own nuclear weapons and strengthen our national security.
Honestly, what is Barrasso talking about? The notion that the US was left exposed by this failure is laughable. Does Barrasso seriously think that having only 375-400 ICBMs ready to roll instead of 450 would have put the US below “an acceptable level to deter threats from our enemies.” And what enemies is Barrasso talking about? Iran? China? Iran doesn’t even have a nuclear weapon yet and China has about 300 nuclear weapons total (compared to our roughly 2,000). Perhaps he is talking about Russia. But does he not realize the Cold War ended a long time ago, and does he really think that Russia would suddenly launch a first strike? It’s absurd.
Furthermore, Lt. General Dirk Jameson said that the interruption had “no real bearing on the capabilities of our nuclear forces to carry out their deterrent mission.” And if the modest reductions contained in the New START treaty had already taken place when this incident happened it would have made zero difference. Joe Cirinicione of the Ploughshares Fund explained that the incident shows that we have significant overkill capabilities:
Even with the 50 missiles off-alert, we still had 400 nuclear missiles each armed with a warhead twenty times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima ready to launch in 15 minutes, plus 1,500 hydrogen bombs on submarines and bombers.
Really, Barrasso is just talking nonsense. He is, after all, from an ICBM state and wants to keep the nuclear pork flowing; Obama is for New START, therefore Barrasso thinks he must be against it. But his comments also just demonstrate how untethered from actual reality the far right in the Senate has become. As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said this week:
There are those in America that are trying to flex their muscles and pretend they’re ballsy by saying, ‘we’ve got to keep those nuclear weapons… [They think] that’s very rugged, when you say that. It’s not rugged at all. It’s an idiot that says that. It’s stupid to say that.
Connecticut GOP Senate Candidate Pushes To ‘Dial Back’ Bank Regulations
Connecticut’s Republican Senate nominee Linda McMahon has been all over the place when it comes to the the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which bears the name of the senator she’s hoping to replace. “Linda supports financial reform,” her spokesman Ed Patru has said. “She believes the goals of this particular legislation are laudable and certain aspects of it are reasonable.” However, she said that she would have ultimately vote against Dodd-Frank, because “I think that this bill grows government more than it does anything else.”
McMahon has been particularly critical of attempts to place new restrictions on the risky practices of Wall Street, telling Connecticut Plus that “we have a fair amount of regulation in place now.” And during a campaign stop at Fairfield University yesterday, McMahon said that the government actually needs to roll back bank regulations, giving them freer rein:
McMahon said the government needs to “dial back” regulations on banks because the amount of money they need to have in reserve to loan out money was high enough to prevent them from loaning to people with good credit histories. “We have to really get people working in the private sector. It’s why I think it’s very important to send more business people and fewer career politicians to Washington,” McMahon said.
Businesses large and small are having trouble accessing loans because the economy is weak and banks are holding money against a variety of losses they feel might be coming their way. Lifting regulations is not going to suddenly make them feel that economic conditions merit making loans, but it would certainly free them up to go back to making risky bets and building the junk financial products that led to the economic meltdown in the first place.
But McMahon is hardly alone amongst Republican Senate candidates in wanting to do away with restrictions on the nation’s financial industry. In fact, Washington’s Republican Senate nominee Dino Rossi has explicitly called for repealing the entire Dodd-Frank law.
In addition, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have made it quite clear that they intend to take a hatchet to Dodd-Frank, and at the very least bury regulators who are attempting to implement it under a barrage of paperwork and hearing appearances. In the meantime, Wall Street banks are already back to their old tricks, engaging in risky trading and searching for loopholes to exploit.
Alaska Gov. Parnell Won’t Accept Federal Dollars From Health Law Until Constitutionality Is Settled
Alaska Gov. Parnell Won’t Accept Federal Dollars From Health Law Until Constitutionality Is Settled
Besides Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Alaska’s Sean Parnell is the only governor who is using his opposition to the Affordable Care Act to prevent his state from applying for federal grants to fund employer retirement health plans, help regulators police unreasonable insurance health premiums and plan for the exchanges. Asked to defend his resistance to accepting federal funds for reform’s most popular programs during last night’s final gubernatorial debate, Parnell — who has joined the Florida-led lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of reform — claimed that he would refuse all federal funding until the lawsuit was settled:
MODERATOR: Governor Parnell, mentioning the health care lawsuit, Democrats have accused you of footdragging in implementing some of the more popular provisions for state employees. Senator Hollis French says you’re delaying as long as legally possible provisions like getting kids staying on their parents’ health care plans until age 26 and there are Democrats who are upset you are not offering the health care benefits to state employees. States aren’t required to do that, but some are, it’s an option. Do they have some validity in saying you’re holding back? [...]
PARNELL: When I’m accused of foot dragging what I’m doing is taking each deadline in the federal legislation on a case by case basis. For example, when the federal government says here is some money to set up a health insurance exchange, but you don’t have to do it until 2014, but you ought start doing it now and here is the money if you want to try a little bit. I said no because let’s finish this lawsuit and see if the individual mandate gets overturned. That will directly bare on the health insurance exchanges and we got three years more, four years more until we’ve got to buy into a system that right now, I don’t buy.
Listen:
Interestingly, Parnell is the odd man out of the 21 other states that are part of Florida’s health care lawsuit and is offering an odd argument for why he’s refusing federal dollars for programs that have noting to do with the individual requirement. Every other state has accepted some of the early benefits of reform. In fact, even Pawlenty — who has gone out of his way to condemn the law — applied for funds to implement abstinence-only education programs and several other grants. Alaska, meanwhile, is suffering from a fairly severe health care crisis and would stand to benefit from the aforementioned grants to employers and regulators. Nineteen percent of Alaskans and 12 percent of children are without insurance coverage and the state’s health care costs tend to grow faster than the national average.
During a more lighthearted moment in the debate, Parnell was asked how old the earth was. He refused to answer, replying simply, “only God knows.” “I really don’t know. I mean, for either one of us to do it, would be quite speculative.” You can watch that exchange here.
The WonkLine: October 29, 2010
The WonkLine: October 29, 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
Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman told Fox News that the undocumented housekeeper she employed for nine years should be deported and then backtracked on the campaign trail.
NPR has released the second part of its series of reporting on the connection between Arizona’s immigration law and the private prison industry.
A federal judge has denied a request by the chief sponsor of Arizona’s new immigration law, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R) to be a party in defending against the federal government’s legal challenge to the law.
Economy
A new Bloomberg poll shows that the public doesn’t think Obama cut taxes, doesn’t believe the economy has grown for four straight quarters, and doesn’t know the bank bailout is generating a profit, all of which are true.
President Obama “will portray his state visit next week to India as a big net producer of jobs for the American economy, with several US companies expected to seal deals worth billions of dollars,” the Financial Times reports.
Elizabeth Warren explains why technology is the key to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Justice
A court ordered DOJ to release the names of people denied clemency by President George W. Bush.
One of Obama’s legal mentors believes Justice Elena Kagan will save us from all her right-wing colleagues. Justice Sotomayor, not so much.
Did more Supreme Court justices attend an anti-gay, anti-choice homily than will attend next year’s State of the Union?
LGBT Equality
“A majority of active-duty and reserve service members surveyed by the Defense Department would not object to serving and living alongside openly gay troops.”
Clint McCance, “who recently encouraged gays to kill themselves on his Facebook page, said Thursday night on CNN that he plans to resign his seat.”
Proposition 8 “is not officially on the ballot again this Election Day. Gay rights advocates say it might as well be.”
Health Care
The Department of Health and Human Services is planning to ask five states to develop health IT systems “that can hopefully serve as prototypes for other states to replicate”.
“Rep. Joe Sestak, the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate, said this week that Democrats bent too far in order to pass the healthcare reform bill.”
“If he loses re-election over his ‘yes’ vote to President Barack Obama’s health care reform, U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello said it will have been worth it, simply because something had to be done, he said.”
Education
“Higher education officials in some states are on tenterhooks about next week’s midterm elections, when voters will decide whether to infuse some much-needed cash into colleges and universities — or, in some cases, to make it harder for states to do so,” Inside Higher Ed reports.
The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy has released a new report claiming that education foundations are not doing enough to help vulnerable students.
Michelle Rhee: Outspoken until the end.
Climate Change
Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, whose coal mine explosion killed 29 workers, blamed government regulation on Fox Business News for his company’s troubles.
“Heavy downpours that caused rivers to burst around Thailand have killed 57 people” and affected more than 3 million “in nearly two weeks of flooding that officials are calling the worst in decades.”
Halliburton “downplayed the significance of cement testing results released publicly yesterday by the national oil spill commission and attempted to shift responsibility for the massive Gulf oil spill to BP.”
National Security
“Iran said Friday that it was ready to resume talks with the European Union about its nuclear program next month.”
“North Korean troops fired shots Friday in the direction of a South Korean military unit across the border, prompting return fire, a South Korean military official said.”
“Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger returned from a trip to Moscow with Silicon Valley executives with a strong message for those who are fighting against ratification of the New START nuclear treaty with Russia.”
DADT STUDY: Majority Of Troops Would Not Object To Serving Alongside Gay Soldiers
DADT STUDY: Majority Of Troops Would Not Object To Serving Alongside Gay Soldiers
Tonight, NBC News’ Richard Engel has learned some early results from the Pentagon’s Working Group study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. According to military sources who have seen the report, a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers:
ENGEL: The findings are that for most soldiers, and this wasn’t the sum total of all soldiers, it wasn’t that big of a deal…The majority — the number one answer, first answer was ‘I don’t care.’ That’s significant.
MADDOW: Predominant answer is ‘no big deal.’
ENGEL: Most common, number one. Number two was, ‘I would deal directly with the person involved.’ So when you put the two of those together, it is the majority. Now, there were some people who said, three, they would go to the chain of command and some four, who hated it, hated it. But the answers one and two are considered positive. So these studies show a relative if not positive outlook, at least an accepting outlook.
MADDOW: So the military study is, as you said, the survey of the troops is part of it. It’s an overall study of the feasibility of the issue….this survey of the troops, what you’ve learned is that a majority of troops it’s not going to be a major deal.
ENGEL: Not a deal breaker, that they they’re not going to be running from the army in droves. A key thing this study kept coming back to is that it’s very important about the chain of command. What commanders say. How far commanders act. What tone they set. The marines were the most negative out of the services. They had the most people who were — with negative responses. And the marine corps leadership has taken a stance and has been very vocally against this issue. And the study found that most soldiers and sailors and all different service members follow a chain of command. So if the chain of command accepts this as the law, the data is that so will the soldiers.
Watch it:
The study, which Engel described as the ‘core’ of the Pentagon’s review, is particularly significant since moderate Republicans have pledged to listen to the troops before voting to repeal the policy. In fact, when Republican (and several Democrats) filibustered the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — the bill in which the amendment to repeal the ban is housed — most argued that their final vote would depend on the study. Now that the results seem positive, they should have no reason to oppose the measure:
– SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME): “We should all have the opportunity to review that [DADT] report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes.”
– SEN. SCOTT BROWN (R-MA): “The Pentagon is still in the midst of its study of the matter, and its report is due in December…. I am keeping an open mind, but I do not support moving ahead until I am able to finish my review, the Pentagon completes its study, and we can be assured that a new policy can be implemented without jeopardizing the mission of our military.”
– SEN. GEROGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): “The DREAM Act deals with immigration and shouldn’t be on this bill. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a controversial issue that needs to be debated on the Senate floor but I believe it would be logical to wait for the Department of Defense to issue its report on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): “I do not support the idea of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell before our military members and commanders complete their review. This so-called compromise would repeal the legislation first then receive input from the military. This is not the proper way to change any policy, particularly something as controversial as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
– SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “Let’s let the military professionals work through their process. I’d hate to kind of short-circuit that with congressional action, so I’d rather let that occur before we start making policy here on ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”
The final results are due the first week of December. Earlier today, Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United outlined a strategy for how advocates could use the study to urge the Senate to repeal the policy in the lame duck session.
The Top Secret Plan For Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell This Year
The Top Secret Plan For Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell This Year
Servicemembers United’s Alex Nicholson — who attended Tuesday’s high-level meeting between President Obama and advocates of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — has laid out the group’s strategy for passing legislation to gradually repeal the policy during the lame duck session of the Senate. In a video published on YouTube, Nicholson stresses that advocates should lobby Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), President Obama, and moderate Republicans like Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME) and Richard Lugar (IN) to take up the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — in which the repeal amendment is housed — as soon as possible.
Given the time constraints and the tradition of Senate debate (senators will need about two weeks for floor debate and another two to conference the House and Senate versions of the bill), if the bill is not introduced before the Thanksgiving recess, Nicholson argues, “it’s possible in theory to still get it done, but the chances go down from 50 to 60% to 5 or 6%.”
His timeline looks something like this (calendar made by me):
Watch it:
Reid will be responsible for bringing up the NDAA during the lame duck session and should do so under open amendment rules. But the President also “has to get engaged in the process himself, personally and in a public way,” he adds. “The White House needs to do 3 or 4 times what it did in September or May. And the President has to be out there, making calls, doing press, sending his surrogates out, sending seniors, staff out, working Capitol Hill and actually showing that the White House has a serious stake in the Senate getting this done this year.”
One possible hiccup in the schedule is the Pentagon Working Group study, scheduled to come out on December 1st. Nicholson notes that a number of Senators — Brown, Voinovich, Lincoln, and Pryor — have argued that they preferred to wait for the results before voting on repeal but argues that “they need to realize that the final vote will take place way before the study is do on December 1.” “So they’ll have have ample of opportunity to see its conclusions and recommendations and make final decisions after it comes out,” he says.
Bank Of America’s Robo-Signer Comes Clean: ‘I Had No Idea What I Was Signing’
Bank Of America’s Robo-Signer Comes Clean: ‘I Had No Idea What I Was Signing’
Bank of America, to its credit, was the only bank to freeze foreclosures in all 50 states as a result of revelations regarding the “robo-signers”: bank employees who were approving thousands of foreclosure without verifying basic information. However, BofA restarted its foreclosure machine just ten days later, saying that it had examined more than 100,000 foreclosure cases and found no problems.
Shortly thereafter, BofA backtracked and said that it had actually found some problems, but tried to downplay them as simple paperwork errors — like misspelling names — rather than a systemic effort to rush foreclosures through the pipeline with almost complete disregard for the legal process. But a former BofA robo-signer told his story to CNN Money and painted a very different picture:
[Former BofA employee Tam Doan] didn’t have time to actually read the paperwork he was signing, he said, and in some cases, he didn’t even know what documents he was putting his pen to. “I had no idea what I was signing,” said Doan. “Either you were in or you were out.” [...]
The paperwork he robo-signed most often were the notices to delinquent borrowers that the servicer was proceeding to foreclosure. By signing that document, he was affirming that the bank had reviewed the loan and it didn’t qualify for a modification. But, he said, the reality was he had no idea whether Bank of America had really tried to save the borrower’s home. “We had no knowledge of whether the foreclosure could proceed or couldn’t, but regardless, we signed the documents to get these foreclosures out of the way,” he said, noting that he assumed another department had checked that the review was done.
Doan’s description of BofA neglecting to verify whether or not borrowers qualified for a loan modifications fits in with our previous reporting. We found that the bank was siphoning borrowers into its own private loan modification program without checking whether they qualified for federal modification programs, in clear violation of the bank’s contract with the Treasury Department.
But more importantly, Doan’s story strikes right at the heart of the image the banks want to convey regarding foreclosure-gate. They want to make it a story about careless mistakes and sloppy paperwork, when it’s really one about a system explicitly designed to cut corners, even if that meant violating due process and the legal requirements for foreclosing on a home.
Even if there were no homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon (and we know there were, including some who literally didn’t have a mortgage), the banks’ blatant disregard for process should be enough to warrant slamming the brakes on their foreclosure factories, especially considering that the extent of the problem is still unclear. One investor told CNBC today that he estimates that the mortgage mess could cost the banks $97 billion in losses.
RI-01: ‘No Climate Tax’ Candidate John Loughlin Is Radical Global Warming Denier
RI-01: ‘No Climate Tax’ Candidate John Loughlin Is Radical Global Warming Denier
State Rep. John Loughlin, the Republican candidate for Rhode Island’s First Congressional District, is part of the radical science denial movement that is a core plank of Tea Party ideology. When asked why he signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge at an October 19 debate, Loughlin launched into a falsehood-drenched rant about climate science:
I’m not a scientist, but I did work for NASA. And when I was at NASA we had a scientist who I actually did some of the press release work for by the name of Dr. James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen released a peer-reviewed paper in the ’70s that talked about global cooling. And then it’s only later that he’s kind of gotten the conversion to global warming. The IPCC had the leaked emails, I think there’s no scientific consensus. And I think it’s foolhardy to link tax policy to science when there is really not a scientific consensus on global warming at this point. . . .
I’m saying really the earth is warming, but it’s not conclusively caused by man. It’s not conclusive. I mean 94 percent of the carbon emissions which you so want to get rid of are caused by nature.
Watch it:
PolitiFact has soundly debunked Loughlin’s conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, interviewing Dr. James Hansen himself, who said quite simply that Loughlin “is speaking nonsense.”
Americans for Prosperity has repeatedly complained that their “No Climate Tax” pledge has nothing to do with questioning the science, even though AFP regularly questions the science. Speaking at a screening of (Astro)Turf Wars, AFP VP of Policy Phil Kerpen dismissed his organization’s climate denial as just being “off message.” In reality, AFP and Loughlin’s denial that fossil fuel pollution is destroying our climate serves the interests of the oil and gas companies who fund them.
“I believe global climate change is real,” Loughlin’s opponent, David N. Cicilline, retorted:
I believe we have a responsibility to address it and do whatever we can to protect our environment and develop and produce clean energy. I believe it is an opportunity for America to lead the world again in the production and development of clean energy. When Rep. Loughlin is out publicly talking about global climate change, he mocks it, that it’s not serious. This is a serious issue. We have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, to address global climate change that is caused by pollution. There is broad scientific consensus on this.
“This is not just something you believe in! This is not like the Easter Bunny!” Loughlin interrupted.
To the crowd’s applause, Cicilline retorted: “No, it’s science.”
Lawmaker Behind Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill ‘Very Confident’ It Will Pass
Lawmaker Behind Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill ‘Very Confident’ It Will Pass
David Bahatai, the Ugandan Member of Parliament behind the country’s controversial anti-gay legislation, told CNN International today that he is “confident” that the law will move forward, dispersing hopes that that the bill was shelved in response to wide-spread international pressure and condemnation. The Ugandan bill, which was introduced last year, would impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for some homosexual acts (which are already illegal), require people to report every LGBT individual they know, and criminalize so-called LGBT advocacy.
BAHATAI: Every single day of my life now I am still pushing that it passes…Lord has given us different freedoms, our democracies given us different freedoms, but I don’t think anybody has a freedom to commit a crime and we think homosexuality in our country is a crime. It’s criminal. [...]
We are very confident, because this is a piece of legislation that is needed in this country to protect the traditional family here in Africa, and also protect the future of our children.
Watch it:
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni “has encouraged his ruling National Resistance Movement Party to overturn the death sentence provision” and the Ugandan Cabinet is reportedly making changes to the legislation. Earlier this month, however, Jeff Sharlet, author of the bestseller The Family, reported that Bahati “is now being promised a second reading,” noting that the bill has started moving again just as the Ugandan tabloid Rolling Stone published photographs of what it called Uganda’s “top” 100 gays, alongside yellow banner that read “Hang Them.” The CNN International report noted that four gay people have been attacked since. “I think this new step in the press is a very alarming one, because it shows it moving right back to the forefront of Ugandan society,” Sharlet remarked.
Some on the religious far right — most prominently the secretive group The Family, also known as the Fellowship — initially promoted the Ugandan measure, but backed away from the bill in the wake of the international controversy. At least that’s what they’re saying publicly. According to Bahati, “The many friends that we have, especially the evangelicals, in America, when we speak to them privately, they do support us. They encourage us. But they are in a society that is very hostile, and we appreciate that.”
Bahati himself first began his political career in the United States where he “studied at the Leadership Institute, the conservative grassroots political organizing institute,” developed a close relationship with Mitch McConnell and John Ensign “and then they put him in touch with the Family, and he started making those connections.”
In April, Republican senators Tom Coburn (OK) and Susan Collins (ME) co-sponsored a Senate resolution condemning the bill and “five Republican representatives -– Chris Smith, Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, Trent Franks and Anh “Joseph” Cao — wrote a letter to the Ugandan President urging him to do everything within his constitutional authority to stop the legislation. (H/T: Pink News)
Top GOP Lawmaker Looks To Weaken Key Financial Reform Provisions After Soliciting Bank Donations
Top GOP Lawmaker Looks To Weaken Key Financial Reform Provisions After Soliciting Bank Donations
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
First, via Salon’s Andrew Leonard, we have Bachus saying that he would repeal the provision giving the federal government authority to dismantle large failing financial firms:
Republicans would try to repeal the government’s new authority to seize and liquidate large troubled financial firms should they take control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year, a key lawmaker said on Thursday. Representative Spencer Bachus, who is in line to be chairman of the House Financial Services Committee under Republican control, said that section of the new Dodd-Frank financial law institutionalizes government bailouts of “too-big-to fail” institutions and puts taxpayers at risk.
And then MarketWatch reported today that Bachus may also have it in for the Volcker rule, which is meant to prevent banks from trading for their own account with federally insured funds:
Crowley [of the law firm K&L Gates] predicts that Republican leadership in the House Financial Services Committee, the legislative panel responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, will hold hearings on the Volcker Rule and press regulators to limit costs to the industry as the agencies write the new rules…[Rep. Spencer] Bachus (R-AL), in July, unsuccessfully sought to amend the bank reform legislation with a provision that would have prohibited the Volcker Rule’s implementation unless other countries adopted similar measures.
These are provisions that give federal regulators key tools to both rein in the riskiness of the biggest banks and then liquidate those banks if they still get themselves into significant trouble (without relying on taxpayer dollars).
If Bachus does intend to bog down the implementation of Dodd-Frank, it seems like he’s going to have a receptive crowd of counterparts to work with. For instance, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) has expressed a desire to defund the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) has said that he would limit funding for regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in order to undermine Dodd-Frank.
RSS
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
