Olbermann Will Return On Tuesday Night
Olbermann Will Return On Tuesday Night
MSNBC’s President Phil Griffin released the following statement this evening:
After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee touts at least 280,000 people who signed a petition to “put Keith back on TV now!“
- Comments
- View Comments
Pawlenty And Perry Tout Opposition To Health Law, While Accepting Some Of Its Funding
Pawlenty And Perry Tout Opposition To Health Law, While Accepting Some Of Its Funding
Outgoing Minnesota Governor and potential presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty (R) reiterated his opposition to the Affordable Care Act this morning on CNN’s State of the Union, touting his principled rejection of the law’s grants and programs:
PAWLENTY: I think ObamaCare is one of the worst pieces of legislation passed in the modern history of the country. I’m doing everything I can in Minnesota to stop delay or avoid its implementation in my state, including signing an executive order saying we’re not going to participate unless required by law or approved by me. We’ve been given opportunities to early enroll in that program and take advantage of other aspects of it. We’ve declined and I hope between now and 2014, when it’s fully kicked in, that as many states as possible do what they can to reel that program back or that the new Republican congress, better yet, can repeal it. Because it’s dragging stuff into Washington, DC, creating a new bureaucracy, spending a lot of new money that they don’t have isn’t going to work. We should have market-based solutions.
Watch it:
But Pawlenty’s opposition to federal funds isn’t nearly as absolute or widespread as he would have his party faithful believe. Pawlenty’s executive order includes a caveat that allows the Governor to “evaluate federal funding opportunities on a case by case basis,” and he has recently allowed the state’s Management and Budget Office to apply for a grant from the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, “a $5 billion program that helps pay for the insurance costs of retirees between the ages of 55 and 64.” So far, Minnesota has received some $11.1 million in ACA grants, and Pawlenty has separately accepted $263 million in federal dollars to bolster the state’s Medicaid program.
Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), who appeared on the show with Pawlenty, also denounced the new law without noting that his state legislature and state agencies are busy implementing the measure. As Thomas M. Suehs, the state’s commissioner of health and human services told the New York Times, the governor “expects me to implement the federal law in the most cost-effective, efficient manner.” According to HealthCare.gov, the federal government has made $47.5 million in new grant funding available in Texas since passage of the law.
Former Reagan Budget Director Says Wall St. Doesn’t Need Another Tax Cut: ‘They Don’t Deserve It’
Former Reagan Budget Director Says Wall St. Doesn’t Need Another Tax Cut: ‘They Don’t Deserve It’
This morning on ABC’s This Week, host Christiane Amanpour asked Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) whether he considers it “fair” that the richest Americans should get an extra tax cut. “What’s not fair,” Pence responded in defense of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, “is that you would actually allow a tax increase on job creators.” Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman, who ushered in one of the most sweeping tax cuts in history, rejected Pence’s argument:
Two years after the crisis on Wall Street, it has been announced that bonuses this year will be $144 billion — the highest in history. That’s who’s gonna get this tax cut on the top, you know, 2 percent of the population. They don’t need a tax cut. They don’t deserve it. And therefore, what we have to do is focus on Main Street.
Watch it:
Cantor Refuses To Take Government Shutdown Or Default On U.S. Debt Off The Table
Cantor Refuses To Take Government Shutdown Or Default On U.S. Debt Off The Table
In an interview with Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the #2 Republican in the House, threatened to take the nation’s economy hostage if President Obama does not comply with House GOPers’ as yet undefined demands. When asked if he would take a government shutdown on forcing the United States to default on its debt off the table, Cantor responded that it would somehow be President Obama’s fault if House Republicans press this agenda:
QUESTION: Are you willing to say right now we’re not going to let the country go into default, and we won’t allow a government shutdown?
CANTOR: Chris, look at this now. The chief executive, the president, is as responsible as any in terms of running this government. The president has a responsibility, as much or more so than Congress, to make sure that we are continuing to function in a way that the people want.
Watch it:
It’s difficult to exaggerate just how harmful a shutdown or default would be for the United States and its economy. A “shutdown” occurs when Congress fails to appropriate money to fund the federal agencies. As a result, nearly every federal employee is sent home, including the officials who cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid checks. In other words, by threatening a shutdown, Cantor is holding the incomes of millions of American seniors hostage unless Obama complies with his petty demands.
The consequences of a default would be even worse — indeed, if a shutdown amounts to a hostage crisis, a default is the equivalent of shooting the hostage. A default could occur if the House GOP refuses to authorize the Treasury to issue new bonds in order to cover the interest on the nation’s existing debt, and the results of such a default would be catastrophic.
If the world’s safest investment — US Treasury bonds — were essentially converted into junk bonds overnight, it would trigger a worldwide financial panic. Meanwhile, the extraordinary economic steps America would need to take in order to mitigate the possibility of a default would pull more than a trillion dollars of spending out of the world economy, potentially triggering a second Great Depression. And even if Cantor eventually backed down, the lasting effects of a default would drive up borrowing costs for the United States — jacking up our national debt in the process.
To date, Cantor has not indicated just how large a suitcase of small, unmarked bills the American people will need to deliver if they ever want to see their economy alive again. But there are early signs that Cantor’s ransom note will make pretty steep demands. After acknowledging that Obama’s offered a hand to House Republicans after this week’s election, Cantor promptly tried to bite that hand off — warning that Republicans are “not going to be willing to work with him” on what Cantor describes as an “expansive liberal agenda.”
Gates Says He Supports Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell In The Lame Duck Session Of Congress
Gates Says He Supports Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell In The Lame Duck Session Of Congress
At a press availability en route to Melbourne, Australia, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters that he would like Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the lame duck session but was “not sure what the prospects for that are“:
Q: (Laughs.) Yes, exactly, ours, [inaudible] one in Australia, too, but – yeah, U.S. election outcome. In the short run, do you see any prospect for passage of START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the lame duck? And then going forward into the spring, do you think the election outcome makes it more or less likely that President Obama will decide to pull a significant number of forces from Afghanistan in the summer?
SECRETARY GATES: Well, first of all, I hope that the Congress will – that the Senate will ratify a new START. I think it’s in our interest. Both the chairman and I have testified why we think it’s in our security interest to ratify the treaty.
I would like to see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but I’m not sure what the prospects for that are and we’ll just have to see.
The statements mark the first time Gates publicly endorsed efforts to end the policy before the new Republican House is sworn-in in January, something Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell avoided during his press conference on Thursday. Morrell insisted that Gates wanted “a study to take place in advance of that repeal to educate us how to deal” with repeal. “You know from his discussion of this dating back to last February that [the Secretary] believes that it’s better to do this smart than stupid and that this report is very important to us doing this smartly,” Morell said.
The Wonk Room has more.
Graham Calls For War To ‘Neuter’ The Iranian Regime
Graham Calls For War To ‘Neuter’ The Iranian Regime
Speaking at a security conference in Canada yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took it upon himself to make U.S.-Iran policy, declaring that “Containment is off the table“:
The South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic “not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime.”
In a recent article, Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that an attack of the sort that Sen. Graham is calling for “will likely mean the end of the international effort to contain the Iranian nuclear program altogether”:
Tehran will probably withdraw from the NPT, arguing (rightly) that the vast majority of the information that the United States relied on to mount the air strikes came from the IAEA inspectors—and since the NPT was a vehicle for American aggression against Iran, there is no reason for Tehran to remain a party to it. As for the international community, they will doubtless blame Washington for having driven the Iranians out of the treaty. Gone too will be the international consensus to compel Iran to end its nuclear activities through sanctions. America would have violated a critical provision of the resolutions, not to mention the UN Charter, and will have to expect that China will lead a stampede of countries away from that effort and back into the arms of the Islamic Republic.
A repeat attempt by the United States (or anyone else) to destroy Iran’s facilities by force will then be impossible. Once the IAEA inspectors are gone, so too will be our best and most comprehensive sources of information on the Iranian program. Washington won’t have the option of bombing Iran again if the regime begins to rebuild its nuclear capabilities after the first round of strikes. And serious international pressure on Tehran will come to an end.
Pollack determined that, “Under current conditions, attacking Iran is more likely to guarantee an Iranian nuclear arsenal than to preclude it.”
Iranian democracy activists have been very vocal against a U.S. attack on Iran. In a recent interview with Think Progress, Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi stated unequivocally that the military option would be disastrous:
“The military option will not benefit the U.S. interest or the Iranian interest,” said Ebadi. “It is the worst option. You should not think about it.” Ebadi said, “The Iranian people — including myself — will resist any military action.”
An attack on Iran “would give the government an excuse to kill all of its political opponents, as was done during the Iran-Iraq war.” For this reason, Ebadi suggested that the Iranian government probably “wouldn’t mind the U.S. throwing a missile at them.”
Ebadi also criticized the Bush administration’s “axis of evil” approach in the Middle East, saying that Iran and Ahmadinejad, had become more popular in the region because of U.S. policies, particularly the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In a May interview, Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji described the destructive impact of Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric on pro-democracy Iranian moderates. “The belligerent rhetoric of Bush didn’t help us [the Iranian democracy movement], it harmed us,” Ganji said. He insisted that “jingoistic, militaristic language used by any foreign power would actually be detrimental to this natural evolution of Iranian society.”
It’s amazing that, having been proved catastrophically wrong about Iraq, neocons like Graham are now calling for yet another war in the Middle East, defiantly ignorant of the actual consequences. Is it too much to hope that America has learned to stop listening to them?
Oklahoma Voters May Have Accidentally Voted Against Ten Commandments, Too
Oklahoma Voters May Have Accidentally Voted Against Ten Commandments, Too
Last year, radical right-wing politicians in Oklahoma passed the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act, which ordered “the placement of a monument displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol.” The bill authors noted that “the Ten Commandments found in the Bible, Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, are an important component of the moral foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and of the State of Oklahoma.”
As ThinkProgress noted, many of these same legislators voted to put a proposal on this week’s ballot, the “Save Our State” constitutional amendment, that bans Sharia from being considered in Oklahoma courts. The ballot states that Oklahoma courts must “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and forbids them from “considering or using international law” and “from considering or using Sharia Law.” The measure passed with 70 percent of the vote.
As a law professor noted to CNN, however, the religious zealotry of these lawmakers may now be in serious self-conflict:
Rick Tepker, the first member of the University of Oklahoma School of Law faculty to try a case before the U.S. Supreme Court…called the passage of the measure “a mess” with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.
“Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don’t cry,” he said. “I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin.”
The complicated “mess” caused by the Sharia ban is also affecting Oklahoma Muslims, who say that, though they obviously never considered seeking sharia law remedies, the constitutional amendment makes them feel alienated. “It’s really brought the Muslim-haters out,” said Allison Moore, a Muslim activist in Tulsa. Sheryl Siddiqui, a spokeswoman for the Edmond-based Islamic Council of Oklahoma, said her group tries outreach and education about Islam, though clearly with frustrating results. “Muslims in Oklahoma do a phenomenal amount of outreach,” she said. “It’s not on us anymore. There are people out there who still believe Obama is a Muslim.”
A lawsuit has also been filed against the amendment, which charges it transforms Oklahoma’s Constitution into “an enduring condemnation” of Islam by singling it out for special restrictions. “We have a handful of politicians who have pushed an amendment onto our state ballot and then conducted a well-planned and well-funded campaign of misinformation and fear,” said Muneer Awad, who filed the suit and is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma.
New GOP Governors Kill $1.2 Billion In High-Speed Rail Jobs
New GOP Governors Kill $1.2 Billion In High-Speed Rail Jobs
Govs. elect John Kasich (R-OH) and Scott Walker (R-WI).
Republicans who were elected on Tuesday are beginning to deliver on their campaign promises to kill America’s future. Within hours of declaring victory, the incoming tea-party governors of Wisconsin and Ohio stood fast on pledges to kill $1.2 billion in funding for high-speed rail in their states. The funding, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will revert to the federal government for investment in other states — unless Republicans in Congress are able to kill that, too. Walker warned he would fight President Obama to keep the Milwaukee-Madison link killed “if he tries to force this down the throats of the taxpayers.” Kasich — who called the high-speed rail project linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati “one of the dumbest ideas” he’s ever heard — used his victory speech to announce, “That train is dead“:
Scott Walker, the incoming governor of Wisconsin, for instance, vowed on Wednesday to carry out a campaign pledge to kill a proposed high-speed rail link between Milwaukee and Madison, part of a larger project to create a high-speed rail corridor across the upper Midwest, from Minneapolis to Chicago. The project was to be fully paid for with $810 million in federal stimulus funds. Mr. Walker said he wanted the money spent on roads, although under the terms of the grants, such a use of the funds is prohibited.
The newly elected Republican governor of Ohio, John Kasich, who ousted Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has also reiterated a campaign pledge to kill a $400 million stimulus-funded rail project in his state. “Passenger rail is not in Ohio’s future,” Mr. Kasich said at his first news conference after the election. “That train is dead.”
In addition to their ideological opposition to creating new jobs through government investment, both Walker and Kasich question the reality of climate science, like other new Republican governors threatening clean energy projects across the nation.
Cross-posted on the Wonk Room.
Rick Perry Proposes Letting States Opt Out of Social Security
Rick Perry Proposes Letting States Opt Out of Social Security
Appearing on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer this past week, occasionally secessionist Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) proposed allowing states to opt-out of Social Security:
“Here’s what I think would be a very wise thing,” he began. “In 1981, Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties all opted out of the Social Security program for their employees. Today, their program is very, very well-funded and there is no question about whether it’s going to be funded in the out years. It’s there. That’s an option out there.”
“So, you want to let people opt out?” responded Spitzer.
“I think, let the states decide if that’s what’s best for their cities,” Perry replied.
“So the states will let people opt out of Social Security?” Spitzer asked
“They should,” the recently reelected Texas governor said.
Watch it:
Perry should learn a little history before he raises up the 1981 experiment as a model for Social Security reform. In that experiment, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” But this system left participants worse off than they would have been under Social Security.
Moreover, Perry’s proposal closely resembles Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe “A Noun, a Verb and Unconstitutional” Miller’s economically impossible plan for a state takeover of Social Security and Medicare. A workable plan to allow states to opt out of Social Security would require draconian provisions, such as a mandate that everyone must retire in the same state that they worked and paid taxes in. Otherwise, workers who are too young to receive Social Security benefits would move to an opt-out state to avoid paying Social Security taxes — and then promptly move to a state with Social Security benefits the moment they became eligible. Eventually, the entire system would collapse under the weight of too many Social Security beneficiaries who had not paid into the system.
And this isn’t even the first time this week that Perry released a completely unworkable idea whose only virtue is that it will poll well with the Tea Party. Earlier this week, Perry released excerpts from his forthcoming book that attack the Constitution for allowing a national income tax and for requiring senators to be chosen through a radical process known as an “election.”
UPDATED: Before Bush Donor Takeover Of MSNBC, Network Selectively Applies Rules To Suspend Olbermann
UPDATED: Before Bush Donor Takeover Of MSNBC, Network Selectively Applies Rules To Suspend Olbermann
UPDATED: We have been notified that Comcast has not yet officially taken over MSNBC/NBC Universal. Although Comcast has tentatively finalized a deal to purchase a majority stake in NBC, Comcast awaits final approval of the takeover from the Justice Department and from the Federal Communications Commission. A statement from Comcast reads: “The joint venture between Comcast and GE has not yet received regulatory approval. Comcast is not in any way involved with decisions made currently by NBC News.” However, once Comcast gains final approval from federal regulators to move forward, Comcast COO Steve Burke, a Bush fundraiser, will be placed at the helm of MSNBC and other NBC companies. Our original post inaccurately asserted that Comcast’s Burke was involved in the decision to fire Olbermann. We apologize for the error.
Earlier today, MSNBC declared that it would be suspending progressive host Keith Olbermann because he violated NBC’s ethics rules by donating to three Democratic candidates for Congress. As many bloggers have noted, conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has donated to Republican candidates for Congress while promoting the same candidate on air, but has never been disciplined. Moreover, Gawker notes that MSNBC has been exempt from the formal NBC ethics rules for years. It is still a mystery why MSNBC selectively applied NBC’s ethics rules to Olbermann. However, it important to realize that MSNBC has undergone a fundamental change in leadership in the last two months.
Late last year, Comcast — the nation’s largest cable provider and second largest Internet service provider — inked a deal taking over NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC. Comcast moved swiftly to reshuffle MSNBC’s top staff. On September 26th of this year, Comcast announced perhaps the most dramatic shift, replacing longtime MSNBC chief Jeff Zucker with Comcast executive Steve Burke [Updated: The shift from Zucker to Burke has not taken place yet -- Burke will preside over MSNBC once the Comcast merger is complete. We have been informed that no Comcast officials are currently involved in the decisions of NBC or MSNBC.]. Burke has given generous amounts to both parties — providing cash to outgoing Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) as well as to Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and other top Republicans. But as Public Citizen has noted, Burke has deep ties to the Republican Party. Public Citizen’s report reveals that Burke served as a key fundraiser to President George Bush, and even served on Bush’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology:
Comcast – the country’s largest provider of cable TV and broadband Internet services – has increased its political giving along with its mergers and acquisitions. CEO Brian Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the 2000 Republican Convention. Comcast Cable President Stephen Burke has raised at least $200,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign. [...] Comcast’s political giving has increased along with its mergers and acquisitions. The company was a “platinum sponsor” at the 2000 GOP convention, and Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the Philadelphia event. Burke was appointed to the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology in 2002.
Why would Comcast be interested in silencing progressive voices? Historically, Comcast has boosted its profits by buying up various telecommunication and media content companies — instead of providing faster Internet or better services (overall, American broadband services are far slower than in many industrialized nations). Many of these mergers, as Public Citizen and Free Press have reported, have been allowed by regulators because of Comcast’s considerable political muscle. Comcast’s latest regulatory battle has been to oppose Net Neutrality — a rule allowing a free and open Internet — because the company would prefer to have customers pay for preferred online content.
Olbermann has been a strong voice in favor of a free and open Internet. Republicans, on the other hand, have supported the telecommunication industry’s push to radically change the Internet so corporate content producers have the upper hand over start-ups like blogs, independent media, small businesses, etc. As Reuters has reported, the incoming Republican Congress has signaled that it will vigorously side with companies like Comcast against an open Internet.
It is not clear why MSNBC has selectively suspended Olbermann indefinitely without pay — but the move showcases the limits of the corporate media. While modern technology has created a seeming multitude of entertainment and television choices, the reality of corporate media consolidation has resulted in fewer investigative news options and less voices in the media with a critical perspective on powerful business interests. Olbermann has stood out as a voice for working people in a media universe dominated by “reality television” and business lobbyists posing as political pundits. It is unfortunate that Comcast and MSNBC have chosen to suspend him. [Update: Comcast has no formal control over MSNBC yet, but will once the merger is complete in the coming months.]
Comcast is in line to acquire control of NBC Universal, once regulators sign off on the $30 billion deal. Mr. Chernin asked Mr. Roberts how he planned to handle daily editorial control of such an immense news operation. “Are you saying that you’ll never interfere?” he asked. Mr. Roberts blanched slightly at the question, which included a hypothetical situation that had Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC host, attacking a couple of Republican congressmen just as the approvals were being finished. “Let’s have that conversation in six months or 12 months,” Mr. Roberts said.
Stimulus Bashing Governors Issue Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Stimulus Funded Bonds
Stimulus Bashing Governors Issue Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Stimulus Funded Bonds
Govs. Haley Barbour (R-MS) and Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
And Christie is evidently not the only stimulus-critic who feels no guilt about building up his state courtesy of the Recovery Act. Today, the Treasury Department released a full list of Build America Bond projects, as issuances under the program surpassed $150 billion, and look who’s on the list:
– Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX): Perry said that, when it came to the stimulus, “this was pretty simple for us…We can take care of ourselves.” But he used $2 billion in Build America Bonds for highway improvements and another $182 million for “public improvements.”
– Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS): “A lot of this is just crazy,” Barbour said of the stimulus. “I’m better off not to get it.” But that didn’t stop him from using $98 million in Build America Bonds for recreational facility improvements.
– Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN): “It hasn’t worked,” Daniels said of the stimulus. “You have to be a blind zealot to say that this thing has done any good.” The Indiana Financial Authority issued $192 million in Build America Bonds, while the Indiana Bond Bank issued another $54 million.
– Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA): Jindal has called the Recovery Act “a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus that has not stimulated.” Louisiana has issued $181 million in Build America Bonds for highway improvements.
These totals leave out the slew of local school districts and local governments in these states that also took advantage of the Build America Bonds program to make critical investments in state infrastructure. As The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz explained, Build America Bonds “is one of the most successful programs of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, spurring productive investment, job creation, and creating a more progressive and democratic method of local finance.”
Of course, stimulus hypocrisy is nothing new for the GOP; ThinkProgress has identified 114 Republicans who voted against the Recovery Act, while touting its benefits back home.
Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.
Shareholders Demand To Know If The Chamber of Commerce Is Using Their Money To Buy Elections
Shareholders Demand To Know If The Chamber of Commerce Is Using Their Money To Buy Elections
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as ThinkProgress has repeatedly noted, does not disclose the donors to its aggressive political activities. Insiders have revealed certain contributions — like the lobbyists who revealed that health insurance companies pumped money into ads to defeat health care reform — and reporters can sometimes use tax filings and other public records to deduce some contributions, but the Chamber by and large remains a black box — unnamed corporate money comes in, and political attack ads come out.
The Chamber’s finances are so opaque, in fact, that shareholders in companies that are known to contribute to the Chamber don’t actually know if their money is being used to attack political candidates. But following an election season where the Chamber contributed $32.1 million to defeating mostly Democratic candidates — with a high degree of success — some shareholders are demanding disclosure. Walden Asset Management in Boston and Domini Social Investments in New York said this week they filed resolutions calling for independent directors to review political spending at Pfizer and Pepsi, along with IBM and Accenture.
If accepted, the resolutions will be voted on by shareholders next spring, though they would still be non-binding. Pepsi said it will review the resolution, but a spokesman praised the Chamber as “an effective advocate of business.” A Pfizer spokesman said it will consider the resolution and that it “takes seriously all shareholder concerns.” Accenture says it believes their money doesn’t go towards political activities, and IBM would not comment.
Experts say that in the post-Citizens United environment, and with bills to force disclosure dying in Congress, more and more shareholders may begin demanding to know where their money is going:
Shareholders are likely to introduce more such measures as similar legislation stalls in Washington, said Lucian Bebchuk, a Harvard University law school professor who studies corporate governance.
In a forthcoming paper, Bebchuk himself and co-writer Robert Jackson of Columbia University argue that shareholders should be given the chance to vote directly on political contributions and that companies ought to be required to disclose their spending to intermediaries.
Currently, when it comes to such support, “the interests of (company) directors and executives may significantly diverge from those of shareholders,” they write.
Shareholders are increasingly demanding corporate responsibility and disclosure from business entities beyond the Chamber, when the government isn’t able to force it. In October, some shareholders in News Corporation rebelled over donations to the Republican Governor’s Association. Shareholders in Valero Energy, Tesoro and Occidental Petroleum — which contributed $8 million on behalf of Proposition 23, a California ballot initiative that would have repealed the state’s global warming rule –also demanded to know if their money was being used in that effort.
Breitbart: Boehner’s Full Of Himself For Crying After Election, ‘He Broke Up At The Concept Of Him[self]’
Breitbart: Boehner’s Full Of Himself For Crying After Election, ‘He Broke Up At The Concept Of Him[self]’
Appearing on comedian Dennis Miller’s radio show Wednesday, right-wing media tycoon Andrew Breitbart criticized House Republican Leader John Boehner for crying during his self-congratulatory post-election speech, saying Republicans’ electoral victory Tuesday wasn’t about Boehner, but was about the tea party movement, which is skeptical about the future-speaker’s commitment to fiscal responsibility. “This wasn’t about ‘I,’ he broke up at the concept of him[self],” Breitbart said, ironically commenting that he was glad that those comments “can’t get recorded” so Boehner “won’t hear me”:
MILLER: What’d you make of Boehner last night? That got a little weird, huh?
BREITBART: It was a little weird but thankfully this can’t get recorded and he won’t hear me, what I have to say about it. This wasn’t about ‘I,’ he broke up at the concept of him. Nobody voted him — he hasn’t even been elected by his own caucus to be the House speaker, that thing is still up in play. It was not like the fait accompli that Nancy Pelosi was.
I mean, he was behind TARP. The Tea Party created this environment out there, this Juggernaut, and the tea party and America are going to have to judge whether or not these people are sober and serious and will allow for America to move into a more fiscally responsible era. They did not do this in 1994.
MILLER: Yeah, he’s on the clock now, I would agree with you. I like John Boehner, he seems like a nice man and the initial quiver in the voice was quite touching. When he got seized up and couldn’t move on, I remember thinking like [Tom] Hanks and ‘there’s no crying in blood sport,’ and I wanted him to get on with it. But you’re right, that TARP thing was ill advised in the first place.
Listen here:
Indeed, while Boehner has taken on the mantle of extreme frugality — he told ABC’s Diane Sawyer last night that his first priority is to “stop the spending” — as Breitbart noted, Boehner backed the TARP bailout. Despite its success, the TARP has become universally reviled by tea party activists, but Boehner took to the House floor in 2008 to passionately — though not quite to the point of tears — urge his colleagues to support the Wall Street bailout. Boehner’s support for TARP, and his past support for other supposedly fiscally irresponsible measures, has led several tea party-backed candidates and lawmakers to say they may not support Boehner for speaker.
McConnell Discredits CBO Analysis Of Affordable Care Act, Despite Previously Citing CBO As Leading Authority
McConnell Discredits CBO Analysis Of Affordable Care Act, Despite Previously Citing CBO As Leading Authority
Yesterday, the Wonk Room argued that Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) pledge to repeal the health care law undermined his goal of reducing the deficit and slowing government spending. Last night, CNN’s John King asked McConnell about this contradiction and the Senate minority leader conveniently dismissed the notion, claiming that nobody believes that the health care law will save money:
KING: So answer somebody out there, whether they’re a Democrat or an Independent, or maybe even just some Republican who is doing the math, who says, ‘okay, this Republican leadership says they want to reduce the deficit. But if you extend the Bush tax cuts, I understand your policy argument, people can agree or disagree with it, that would, in the short-term at least, maybe if the economy roars back it would change it, but in the short-term that would add to the deficit, somewhere in the ballpark of $700, $800 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says, the Obama health care bill, for all the policy disagreements that you have with it, reduces the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years or so. Are those inconsistent?
MCCONNELL: Well, the assumptions are all wrong. The fact of the matter is if you raise taxes in the middle of a recession, the government is going to get less revenue, not more. … Nobody seriously believes the health care bill is actually going to save money. Nobody believes that. So don’t assume that you’re going to exacerbate the deficit by doing any of those things.
Watch it:
Of course, the Congressional Budget Office does, and as McConnell’s Senate colleague Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has pointed out, “CBO is God around here, because policy lives and dies by CBO’s word.” Grassley is right and McConnell’s dismissive attitude underscores that he is either not serious about repeal and is not concerned about offsetting its costs or is ready to repeal the law without plugging the budget hole it will leave behind. The Wonk Room argues that Republicans, including McConnell himself, frequently tout CBO estimates to criticize the health care law or bolster their own proposals.
Olbermann Suspended Without Pay From MSNBC After Making Political Donations To Democrats
Olbermann Suspended Without Pay From MSNBC After Making Political Donations To Democrats
Today, Politico reported that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made political contributions to three Democratic candidates — Kentucky senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona House members Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. Following the story, MSNBC President Phil Griffin released a statement this afternoon stating that Olbermann has been suspended without pay:
I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.
MSNBC’s policies governing its employees states:
Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.
It’s unclear what harm Griffin determined resulted from Olbermann’s contributions. Politico noted that Olbermann donated to Grijalva on the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on his show. In his defense Olbermann said, “I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level.”
Atrios reports that Pat Buchanan, a very frequent guest on MSNBC and an official contributor, has also made a number of donations to Republican candidates.
Meanwhile, Steve Benen observes that, while Olbermann made his donations in a personal capacity, News Corp. — Fox News’ parent company — “made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News has helped GOP candidates raise money on the air; Fox News personalities are featured guests at Republican fundraisers; while other Fox News personalities continue to help generate financial support for Republican candidates now, even after the elections.”
After Using The ‘Pro-Life’ Issue To Defeat Dems, Ralph Reed Dismisses Deaths From Healthcare Crisis
After Using The ‘Pro-Life’ Issue To Defeat Dems, Ralph Reed Dismisses Deaths From Healthcare Crisis
Yesterday, former lobbyist Ralph Reed, who now heads the new nationwide Christian right group “Faith and Freedom Coalition,” held a press conference to boast about his role in helping to defeat dozens of Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. Reed explained that he used a sophisticated voter-targeting method to identify and activate Christian voters, particularly on issues like abortion and heterosexual marriage, to defeat even pro-life Democrats like Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH). After the event, ThinkProgress spoke to Reed and asked him to reconcile how he could advocate repealing health reform as a pro-life activist given the fact that the healthcare crisis causes tens of thousands of Americans to die every year because of lack of adequate health insurance:
TP: On the issue of life, Harvard Medical School reported that on average 45,000 people die every year because of lack of health insurance. I know you don’t like the health reform bill passed last year. Do you think to protect life, Republicans in Congress have to propose have to propose a solution that covers everyone?
REED: Well that depends on how you define everyone, I don’t favor a federal individual mandate that says –
TP: Maybe another mechanism?
REED: Well we had already been working on other mechanisms for years. I mean, we’ve been during the Bush administration, Republicans in Congress significantly expanded community-based health clinics, where people can get free care.
TP: But there was still 50 million uninsured during the Bush years. [....]
REED: I’m the son of an M.D. so I grew up in a small town in north Georgia and I assure you that there were a lot of people who came to see my father [...]
TP: So you think charity could be the public policy plan?
REED: I didn’t say that. [...] Secondly, Republicans have worked for decades to expand Medicaid where we are able to. [...] If Barack Obama had come forward with a plan that would have provided matching federal funds for state efforts to expand Medicaid for people who didn’t have health insurance, he would have been able to pass a bill with 200 to 250 votes. That isn’t what he did.
TP: I think [Republican Senator] Lamar Alexander said that’s like expanding single payer if you expand Medicaid. [...] There’s a little cognitive dissonance there if you say you want to expand Medicaid but it’s a terrible idea to put people on a government plan.
REED: I didn’t say I wanted to expand Medicaid. If he had gone forward with a plan like that, he would have been able to pass it on a bipartisan basis.
TP: You would have supported that?
REED: I didn’t say that. [...]
TP: My question was, 45,000 people die because of lack of health insurance. That’s a pro-life issue to cover people with health insurance. What do you think this new majority should do to cover this crisis? There is a healthcare crisis. [...]
REED: I’m not sure that you’re statistic is accurate.
Watch it:
Reed tried to deflect the question about saving lives with healthcare by claiming that Republicans support an expansion of Medicaid, federal matching grants, and an expansion of community-based health clinics. In fact, President Obama’s health reform contained the largest expansion of Medicaid in generations by granting access to Medicaid at 133% of the federal poverty line with matching funds to states, where 95% of the money would be provided by the federal government. President Obama also oversaw a massive expansion of community health clinics, providing an additional $2 billion in community health clinic money from the stimulus and another $11 billion in the health reform law. Republicans fought both measures, even going as far to claim that the expansion of Medicaid would be a “medical ghetto.” Now, Republicans in Congress, empowered by Reed’s “pro-life” campaigning, are promising to repeal the funding for both the Medicaid expansion and the community health clinics by rescinding all of health reform.
Health reform provides 32 million Americans with health insurance, ensuring that tens of thousands of people do not needlessly die and suffer every year. Although taxpayer-funded abortion services are restricted in the new health reform law, Reed and his cohorts spread a disinformation campaign to confuse voters with the lie that health reform increased abortion services. If Reed were sincere with his “pro-life” convictions, he would know that health reform actually reduces the number of abortions in society. As T.R. Reid has noted, women contemplating an abortion are far less likely to seek one if they can afford health insurance for themselves, and feel confident they can provide quality medical care to their newborn children. That is why in Western democracies where abortion services are free and more accessible than in America, abortion rates are actually significantly lower than here in the United States. Health reform not only ends the peculiar American system where pregnancies can be classified as a “preexisting condition,” but also provides new funds for prenatal care and other services for pregnant women.
GOP Senator-Elect Dan Coats Endorses Filibuster Reform
GOP Senator-Elect Dan Coats Endorses Filibuster Reform
Senator-elect Dan Coats (R-IN), who also served in the Senate throughout the 1990s, embraced reforming the Senate Rules in a recent interview with NPR:
SIEGEL: Republicans in the minority in the past couple of years have invoked the threat of filibuster a lot more often than was common when you were in the Senate in the 1990s. And I wonder: Do you think that it serves the institution well to require 60 votes for every issue of consequence since your party aspires to be in the majority within a couple of years? And wouldn’t Democrats do the same thing to every bill that your party wants?
Mr. COATS: I think what we need is the opportunity to debate and have an up-or-down vote on every issue. Filibustering the motion to proceed -that is, we can’t even go forward and talk about an issue without overcoming or without gaining a 60-vote majority for it – I would support removing that provision. I think the American people deserve to have the issues debated regardless of which side they’re on, so that they are fully aware of what their representatives and senators are voting for and voting against.
To be clear, the actual rule change that Coats pledges to support here is fairly modest. Present Senate rules permit senators to filibuster both the beginning and the end of debate on most bills. Coats’ proposal would eliminate pre-debate filibusters, but still give senators an opportunity to filibuster before a bill can receive a final up-or-down vote. Nevertheless, because the Senate’s rules also allow the minority to force up to 30 hours of delay every time a filibuster is broken, Coats’ proposal would be a meaningful step towards eliminating a minority’s power to delay virtually all Senate business into oblivion.
As Coats admits, his willingness to support any limits on obstructionism “would be a change of tactics from what’s happened in the past couple of years.” Since President Obama took office, right-wing senators like Jim DeMint (R-SC) have claimed the right to veto any legislation his office has not personally approved, and because the Senate’s rules require unanimous consent to get much of anything done, DeMint has largely gotten his way.
Although it normally requires 67 votes to change the Senate rules, there is a brief window next January where a majority of the Senate can reform the body’s rules. Were they to do so, they would have popular opinion on their side. A recent poll shows nearly two-thirds of voters want to scrap the filibuster, including a majority of Republicans.
Iranian Nobel Prize-Winning Human Rights Activist: ‘You Should Not Think About’ Military Strikes On Iran
Iranian Nobel Prize-Winning Human Rights Activist: ‘You Should Not Think About’ Military Strikes On Iran
Responding to recent statements by American conservatives supporting the “military option” against Iran, Iranian human rights activist Dr. Shirin Ebadi stated unequivocally that the use of such an option would be disastrous. “The military option will not benefit the U.S. interest or the Iranian interest,” said Ebadi. “It is the worst option. You should not think about it.” Ebadi said, “The Iranian people — including myself — will resist any military action.”
In an interview with ThinkProgress, Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 “for her efforts for democracy and human rights,” said an attack on Iran “would give the government an excuse to kill all of its political opponents, as was done during the Iran-Iraq war.” For this reason, Ebadi suggested that the Iranian government probably “wouldn’t mind the U.S. throwing a missile at them.”
The Wonk Room reports more from the interview with Ebadi.
ThinkProgress Is Hiring
ThinkProgress Is Hiring
ThinkProgress has a couple job openings that we wanted to let you know about:
1) Reporter/blogger — We’re looking for a reporter/blogger who has a good grasp of the blogosphere, strong research skills, core progressive beliefs, and a desire to do some reporting.
2) Video editor — We’re looking for someone who has all the skills above, but, most importantly, also has advanced video editing skills to help us produce and shoot videos.
Both positions are D.C.-based. Here’s some answers to common questions we’re asked. If you’re interested, email thinkprogress@americanprogressaction.org with your resume and a note explaining your qualifications.
Coburn Boldly Calls For Cutting Pentagon’s ‘Sacred Cows’: ‘Taking Defense Spending Off The Table Is Indefensible’
Coburn Boldly Calls For Cutting Pentagon’s ‘Sacred Cows’: ‘Taking Defense Spending Off The Table Is Indefensible’
This morning, conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has an op-ed in the Washington Examiner titled “What Republicans Can Accomplish In The 112th Congress.” In the op-ed, Coburn lays out a legislative agenda that he thinks Republicans should pursue in the new Congress. Many of these are boilerplate conservative ideas, like refusing to raise the debt ceiling and relying entirely on spending cuts instead.
Yet at one point, Coburn breaks with many of his Republican colleagues — and his party’s own much-touted “Pledge For America” — by calling for cuts to the defense budget. He writes that “Republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table.” He advocates for taking “common sense steps like freezing defense spending until the Pentagon can pass an audit and remove all nondefense spending from the Pentagon’s budget.” Coburn concludes that “taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows“:
Republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table. Newly elected Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky had the courage to say he’d go after defense waste during his campaign, and I look forward to working with him.
We should start by taking common sense steps like freezing defense spending until the Pentagon can pass an audit and remove all nondefense spending from the Pentagon’s budget. Our nation’s military leaders understand the need to cut spending.
As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.” History shows that every nation eventually adopts the foreign policy it can afford. Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows.
As Coburn notes with his praise for Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY), he isn’t the only Senate Republican calling for reining in the military budget. Paul told PBS’s Gwen Ifil last month that that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” The same month, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” The week before, Illinois Senator-elect Mark Kirk said we need “across-the-board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier that same month, Johnny Isakson (R-GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” And two weeks ago, Bob Corker (R-TN) said on CNBC that defense cuts have to be “on the table” because there’s “a lot of waste there.”
If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll