Merkley Lays Out A Course For Reforming The Filibuster In The Next Senate: ‘Mark This Date On Your Calendar’
Merkley Lays Out A Course For Reforming The Filibuster In The Next Senate: ‘Mark This Date On Your Calendar’
Earlier this year, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) delivered an address about conservative obstruction at the Center for American Progress Action Fund titled “Deliberation, Obstruction or Dysfunction? Evaluating the Modern U.S. Senate and its Contribution to American Governance.” At the event, Udall discussed what he called the “Constitutional Option,” which he described as the Senate having the ability to alter its rules with a simple majority vote at the beginning of each Congress. Indeed, with record use of the filibuster in the current Senate, an overhaul of the procedure is needed to prevent further obstruction. Udall reiterated his desire to reform the filibuster in an interview late last month with Tikkun.
Now, another senator has embraced the use of the “Constitutional Option” to reform the filibuster at the start of the new Senate. This week on The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) laid out a path to fundamentally change the way the filibuster works. Merkeley told Hartmann to “mark this date on your calendar: January 5th. That’s the date we’re going to come in for the next Congress, and it’s on that date that a group of us is trying to pass a motion for the Senate to adopt new rules.”
Merkley then went on to explain his proposal for the new filibuster rules. The senator explained that by assembling 51 votes at the start of the new Senate, he wants to change the chamber’s rules so that when a senator engages in a filibuster, they have to go to the floor of the Senate, “defend your position, hold the floor, and if you’re not there, the Senate goes forth and holds a majority vote.” In other words, Merkley is proposing that if senators want to filibuster bills, they actually have to show up and physically spend time on the floor of the Senate to stop bills from going forth. “Hopefully we can bring together that magic 51 to say let’s make it function, the Senate function, to be that deliberative body that it once was,” he concluded:
HARTMANN: My read of the Constitution is that every two years when a new Congress is installed that each body establishes the rules under which it will operate, and it goes by majority vote. So why are the Senate rules, why are they so disfunctional? And why hasn’t anybody stepped forward to change them?
MERKLEY: Mark this date on your calendar. January 5th. That’s the date we’re going to come in for the next Congress, and it’s on that date that a group of us is trying to pass a motion for the Senate to adopt new rules. And I want to mention Tom Udall has been very instrumental in that effort. We have to get 51 votes on that day in order to open that door. And we need 51 in order to get a new set of rules or modifications. And the type of conversation we’re having right now is to say let’s make the filibuster work the way all of America thinks it works. The American people believe that you have to go defend your position, hold the floor, and if you’re not there, the Senate goes forth and holds a majority vote. And so that is the model we’re trying to create. We’ve laid out a series of ideas, we’re holding a caucus discussion on them, and hopefully we can bring together that magic 51 to say let’s make it function, the Senate function, to be that deliberative legislative body that it once was.
Watch it:
Merkley mapped out his plans in further detail in a memo released two weeks ago. Merkeley writes that he would “require a specific number of Senators — I suggest five for the first 24 hours, 10 for the second 24 hours, and 20 thereafter — to be on the floor to sustain the filibuster. This would be required even during quorum calls. At any point, a member could call for a count of the senators on the floor who stand in opposition to the regular order, and if the count falls below the required level, the regular order prevails and a majority vote is held.”
Merkley and Udall aren’t the only senators wanting to fix the broken filibuster. On Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) called for ending the practice altogether. “Let’s work together to get rid of the filibuster once in for all!” he said. Their sentiments are in line with 50 percent of Americans, who said in a February 2010 CBS/New York Times poll that the filibuster should be changed (44 percent were opposed).
- Comments
- View Comments
Bill To Extend Only Middle-Class Tax Cuts Blocked In The Senate
Bill To Extend Only Middle-Class Tax Cuts Blocked In The Senate
Today, the Senate held two separate votes on the Bush tax cuts, but ultimately failed to extend any of the cuts that will be expiring at the end of the year. The first piece of legislation, which would have extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 per year, was defeated 53-36, falling seven votes shy of the 60 necessary to invoke cloture. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Jim Webb (D-VA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) joined all the Republicans in voting no. Eleven senators, all Republicans, did not vote. The second bill, which would have extended the tax cuts for everyone making less than $1 million, was defeated 53-37. As CNN noted, “Despite the realization that neither would get the 60 votes to succeed, many Democrats said before the vote they wanted to get on-the-record in support of extending the lower rates to lower earners.” On Thursday, the House successfully passed a bill extending only the middle-class tax cuts.
Churches Launch Campaign For Jobless
Churches Launch Campaign For Jobless
Yesterday, a coalition of religious groups along with three U.S. Senators announced a grassroots push to help find jobs for the unemployed, in the absence of stronger action from Washington. The Faith Advocates for Jobs Campaign will organize 1,000 congregation-based unemployed worker support committees in 2011, in order to help the unemployed both find jobs but also deal with the sometimes crushing emotional and spiritual side-effects of long-term unemployment.
“As people of faith, we call for an economy that provides a job for everyone who wants and needs one,” the group’s mission statement reads. “We affirm that all jobs should be good jobs, paying living wages and benefits, allowing workers dignity and a voice at the workplace, ensuring workers’ health and safety, and guaranteeing their right to organize unions.”
In addition to helping shepherd people through the difficulties of unemployment, the group — along with Sens. Bob Casey (D-PA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — also aims to organize political action around more job-friendly policies by bringing the voices of those they’re helping to Washington, In These Times reports:
“Most Members [of Congress] don’t know any unemployed people,” said Senator Brown of Ohio. But, he remarked, unemployed workers are in congregations where they receive support–even food and shelter when necessary.
Senator Casey of Pennsylvania told of unemployed workers coming to Washington to give personal testimony about their experience of living on Unemployment Insurance (UI). “They should not walk alone,” he said.
“The world would be a different place if one million unemployed workers said, ‘I need help in my fight for dignity, in my fight for work,’” Senator Sanders of Vermont remarked.
It’s not the first time religious groups have addressed the increasing needs of the unemployed. In These Times also notes that a Christian megachurch in Dallas began helping its congregants find work. “It is not just a support group to offer encouragement – though that is a vital aspect of it,” said the Rev. Dr. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas. “But it is helping people be pro-active instead of reactive.”
There are 25 million people searching for full-time work, and the probability that they find work steadily decreases the longer they are unemployed. And, of course, unemployment benefits just expired due to Republican obstruction in Congress — creating a huge void that these groups are trying to fill in spite of government inaction.
Scalia Mocks Sotomayor’s Compassion For ‘People Sitting in Their Feces for Days in a Dazed State’
Scalia Mocks Sotomayor’s Compassion For ‘People Sitting in Their Feces for Days in a Dazed State’
One California inmate dies every eight days from inadequate medical care. In one case, a prisoner who experienced “recurrent severe abdominal pain and vomiting over a five week period” received no treatment until they eventually died. Moreover, lawsuits stretch back twenty years seeking to remedy these unconstitutional conditions — until a federal court finally ordered the state to reduce its prison population. That order is now before the Supreme Court.
Against this backdrop, Justice Sonia Sotomayor confronted California’s attorney with some of the more horrific stories from California’s unconstitutional prison system, and received a mocking response from fellow Justice Antonin Scalia:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, the best interest of the State of California, isn’t it to deliver adequate constitutional care to the people that it incarcerates? That’s a constitutional obligation.
MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely. And California recognizes that.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So when are you going to get to that? When are you going to avoid the needless deaths that were reported in this record? When are you going to avoid or get around people sitting in their feces for days in a dazed state? When are you going to get to a point where you are going to deliver care that is going to be adequate?
JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t be rhetorical.
Listen:
While Scalia’s remark was ostensibly directed at California’s attorney, it was clearly intended to slight Sotomayor. Earlier in the proceeding, Sotomayor had warned the attorney to “slow down from the rhetoric” when he repeatedly characterized the lower court’s action as “extraordinary.” So Scalia is suggesting that Sotomayor also crossed an inappropriate rhetorical line when she expressed concern for human beings left helpless in a pile of their own excrement.
One of the most disgusting displays of the last two years has been right-wing lawmakers demanding that all judges must purge themselves of the capacity to identify with and understand another’s situation. It is nothing less than terrifying that a member of the Supreme Court appears to meet their standard.
Republicans Claim Lousy Jobs Report Means Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Must Be Extended
Republicans Claim Lousy Jobs Report Means Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Must Be Extended
Today’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics paints an ugly picture of lackluster job creation and increasing long-term unemployment. The Federal Reserve — which is taking its own steps to boost employment after dithering for months — has been reduced to pleading with Congress for further fiscal stimulus, in the hopes of averting an even longer jobs slog.
So, naturally, Congress is spending the day debating whether or not the richest two percent of Americans should receive a tax cut (in addition to the tax cut they will receive on their first $250,000 in income if, as everyone in Congress wants, tax rates are extended for the lower- and middle-classes). In fact, many House Republicans are claiming that the richest two percent of Americans desperately need a tax cut because of the bad jobs report:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): Any sign of job growth in this struggling economy is encouraging, but clearly no match for the uncertainty families and small businesses are facing, which is why we must cut spending and stop all the looming tax hikes.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA): Today’s jobs report marks the 19th consecutive month in which unemployment has exceeded nine percent — an unacceptable result. We must do everything possible to bring that number down and get people back to work by ending the uncertainty that is plaguing the private sector. To start, Congress should reassure job creators and investors by taking the impending tax hikes off the table.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): Today’s heartbreaking unemployment report should be yet another wake-up call to Democrats that raising taxes in the middle of the worst economy in 25 years is a mistake. Higher taxes on America’s small businesses won’t get anyone hired. I call on Washington Democrats to abandon their plan to raise taxes on small businesses and get America back to work.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): Nationwide, the unemployment rate has stayed at 9.4 percent or higher for 19 straight months. Yet instead of sensible policies to encourage private sector job creation, Democrats have pushed one job-killing idea after another…Well, higher taxes don’t hire Americans.
Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took this line of thinking to the Senate floor today. Watch it:
As The Wonk Room noted, there was no attempt on the part of these Republicans to grapple with the fact that the Bush tax cuts ushered in the weakest period of job growth in the post-war period, or that the Congressional Budget Office ranks extending the Bush tax cuts as the least effective tax measure for promoting economic growth.
DeMint Falsely Claims ‘The Military Is Telling Us’ Repealing DADT Is ‘Not A Good Idea’
DeMint Falsely Claims ‘The Military Is Telling Us’ Repealing DADT Is ‘Not A Good Idea’
As arguments against repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell collapse one by one, conservatives have been forced to resort to baseless talking points, “changing standards,” condescension towards military leaders, and in the case of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), blatant distortions, to maintain their stubborn opposition to repeal. Appearing on CNN’s John King USA last night with Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), DeMint argued that the military’s discriminatory policy should not be changed because the “military is telling us now that’s not a good idea”:
DEMINT: The studies that I’ve seen, the generals who are free to express their opinions are saying this would be bad for morale, it would be an adjustment that’s not necessary — let’s allow people to serve, unless they want to make an issue of their sexuality. The military is telling us now that’s not a good idea. So this is not a good time to make a change like this. … This has noting to do with the security of our country. So we just need to take that off the table.
KING: Are you in the same place congressman?
PENCE: Well, I really am.
Watch it:
Of course, DeMint could not be more wrong. The military’s two top leaders, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joints Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, came out strongly in support of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell way back in February and today, at a hearing on the policy before the Senate Armed Services Committee, all six of the military’s Service Chiefs said they could effectively implement a policy change. In fact, as the Washington Post reported today, “The Pentagon is increasingly worried that Congress will not act to repeal” the policy by the end of the year, and that the courts will order the change instead, making a smooth transition more difficult to achieve.
As for “studies,” which DeMint claims show that repeal is a bad idea, he need only look at the military’s comprehensive review released earlier this week, which found that 70% of servicemembers said they would be able to “work together to get the job done” with a gay servicemember in their immediate units. Indeed, “research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness,” a Palm Center study noted. As Gates said Tuesday, “Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year.”
DeMint’s fellow Senate Republican Scott Brown (MA) was willing to accept the military advice, saying this afternoon, “Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal.”
Bush Officials Celebrate Tax Cut ‘Trap’ They Laid Nine Years Ago
Bush Officials Celebrate Tax Cut ‘Trap’ They Laid Nine Years Ago
As debate rages in Washington over the Bush tax cuts, set to expire at the end of this year, the Bush administration officials who initiated the steep tax cuts are celebrating what they see as an apparent victory, since signs point to a temporary extension of all the cuts. The Daily Beast’s Howard Kurtz interviewed Dan Bartlett, Bush’s former communications director, and Andy Card, Bush’s former chief of staff, among others, and they were pleased at how the expiration debate has played out:
“We knew that, politically, once you get it into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it,” says Dan Bartlett, Bush’s former communications director. “That’s not a bad legacy. The fact that we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth.” [...]
“[Democrats] are definitely on the defensive,” Card says. “The fact that the 10-year clock ran out now had a big impact on the election.”
As Media Matters notes, former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove went on Fox News this week and further laid the proverbial trap, saying “without a hint of self-awareness” that “we’ve known this was going to be happening for a decade,” while lamenting the Democrats’ inaction.
When the tax cuts were enacted, with an expiration date, Republicans and Bush officials understood the political advantages of the “fiscal time bomb” they were setting. As Kurtz puts it: “At some point in the way distant future, Democrats could be accused of raising taxes if they tried to undo the Bush breaks and return to Clinton-era levels of taxation.” Democrats understood this, too: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told the Washington Post at the time that “[Bush is] going to be out of office when the roof falls in.”
There was a more sinister motive for sunsetting the tax cuts beyond politics, as well. It allowed the administration to pass the bill with a lower vote count in the Senate than would otherwise be necessary. Card freely admits to Kurtz that the administration wanted “the law to be permanent but couldn’t muster the votes to trump the Byrd Rule,” which would have required a 60-vote margin for a measure that significantly increases the federal deficit more than 10 years in the future. By setting the tax cuts to expire just short of ten years, the measure passed with 58 votes.
The various sunsets also hid the true cost of the bill. As Paul Krugman wrote at the time: “The administration, knowing that its tax cut wouldn’t fit into any responsible budget, pushed through a bill that contains the things it wanted most — big tax cuts for the very, very rich — and used whatever accounting gimmicks it could find to make the overall budget impact seem smaller than it is.”
Such deception and fiscal irresponsibility hardly seem cause for celebration. But because it appears that all of the tax cuts will once again be extended, resetting the fiscal time bomb in spite of public opposition, perhaps these Bush officials are justified in their mirth.
Lieberman: McCain’s Past Positions On DADT ‘Suggest’ He’s ‘Changing Standards’ On Repeal
Lieberman: McCain’s Past Positions On DADT ‘Suggest’ He’s ‘Changing Standards’ On Repeal
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been all over the map on whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. In 2006, he said he would defer to military leaders, but when military leaders said it should be repealed, he said there should be a Pentagon study. Now that the Pentagon released its report, finding that DADT can be repealed in a way that won’t hurt the military, a grumpy McCain is inventing new reasons to oppose repeal. Last night on CNN, host Anderson Cooper asked McCain’s good friend Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — a lead sponsor of repealing DADT — if McCain is “moving the goalpost“:
COOPER: Has he been moving the goalpost here?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I — John is my good friend, but I disagree with him on this. And the tapes you played suggest changing standards here. I mean, in my opinion —
COOPER: So you do think that he’s changed his standings, that he’s moved the goalpost.
LIEBERMAN: I think the question that John raised today has been answered in this survey. Two-thirds of the American military, a little more than that, say that they don’t think repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will have any effect on military effectiveness, and most importantly, 92 percent of the American military who feel that they have served with somebody gay or lesbian in their own unit say that it has simply not been a problem.
Watch it:
Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart last night also observed that McCain keeps moving the goalpost on DADT, comparing the Arizona senator to the Black Knight from Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail.”
Rep. Jim Jordan: ‘I Don’t Know If I’d Be Willing’ To Extend Tax Cuts For 95 Percent, Even With Cuts For Rich
Rep. Jim Jordan: ‘I Don’t Know If I’d Be Willing’ To Extend Tax Cuts For 95 Percent, Even With Cuts For Rich
As Congress considers extending the Bush tax cuts, Republicans have made it explicitly clear that they are prepared to go to the mat to extend the cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Now, White House officials are floating the possibility of including an extension of the so-called “Obama tax cuts” — middle-class cuts included in the economics stimulus package — as part of any larger tax deal. These cuts, such as The Making Work Pay tax credit, which reduced payroll taxes on 95 percent of working families, will expire in January unless Congress acts.
Asked about this potential deal yesterday by Fox News host Neil Cavuto, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who sits on the Budget Committee, suggested that congressional Republicans would not be willing to extend these middle-class tax cuts — which he called “much less effective” — even if the Bush cuts for rich are also extended:
CAVUTO: I know that extending it for everyone. But even if it included this provision that the White House, I guess, is now pushing?
JORDAN: Oh, the Making Work Pay and the tax credit? I think those are not near as effective, but I’d be willing to look for that if we keep all the Bush tax cuts in place–
CAVUTO: So that’s what they just did. I think they offered you a negotiating point. And you would be willing to take it?
JORDAN: I have not seen that. Well, I don’t know if I would be willing to take it. I’d be willing to look at it.
Watch it:
Congressional Republicans have already been holding hostage the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year, threatening to let all Americans’ taxes go up if the cuts for wealthiest two percent are not extended as well. Yesterday, “Republicans were furious” that the House passed an extension of just the Bush cuts for the middle class, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has threatened to filibuster a similar bill in the Senate.
But Jordan’s comments yesterday bring the GOP’s brinkmanship in defense of the rich to a new level. The Making Work Pay credit boosted paychecks for 110 million families and were “designed exclusively as a middle-class benefit.” These cuts only applied to payroll taxes, meaning people had be employed and earning a living to enjoy them. Yet these too will apparently be taken hostage so the rich can get their share.
And Jordan is wrong in suggesting these cuts were “not near as effective” as the Bush tax cuts for the rich. As the Center for American Progress’ Michael Ettlinger noted, the Bush tax cuts simply “didn’t deliver” on their promise to stimulate the economy. “The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts.” However, as Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Chuck Marr explained about the Obama tax cuts, “Most people may have no idea they received it and no idea that it’s going away. But what you can be certain of is that they’ll have less money and they’ll spend less — and this is a terrible time for the economy to lose $60 billion of spending.”
Durbin Once Opposed Raising Social Security Retirement Age: ‘It’s Tough To Say Just Stick Around’
Durbin Once Opposed Raising Social Security Retirement Age: ‘It’s Tough To Say Just Stick Around’
Today, President Obama’s Deficit Commission voted on the recommendations laid out in its deficit reduction report. Included among the report’s recommendations is gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075. Although the commission failed to get the 14 votes it is required to get in order to pass the plan on to Congress, its recommendations are expected to be taken up in some form by legislators at some point.
Yesterday, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) announced that he will be voting in favor of the commission’s recommendations. The same day, he wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune explaining why he was voting in favor of the plan. While explaining that he believes that Social Security “is the most important social program in America,” he explicitily endorsed raising the retirement age, citing the need to make “hard choices“:
On Friday, when President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform gathers to consider a plan to bring our national debt under control, I will be voting yes. It was not an easy decision, and I know my vote will be widely criticized, but I believe it is the right thing to do. [...]
Social Security is the most important social program in America. The commission creates an actuarially sound program for an additional 75 years. It increases the minimum benefit for the lowest income Social Security recipients and adds a much needed increase in benefits for those above the age of 85. It raises the retirement age one year to 68, 40 years from now, meaning no one above the age of 28 today would be affected and the retirement age would be 69, 65 years from now. [...]
My friend, mentor and former Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, echoing former Sen. Paul Douglas , famously said: “To be a liberal doesn’t mean you’re a wastrel. We must, in fact, be thrifty if we are to be really humane.” It’s time for all of us to come together to make hard choices. I am ready to do my part.
Yet Durbin’s position is a disappointing reversal from his previous stance on Social Security. In October, he told Congress Daily that he “opposed increasing the retirement age for Social Security.” In explaining his opposition, he said, “It’s tough to say just stick around and deliver mail for another couple of years, be a waitress for another couple of years“:
Durbin also said that he opposed increasing the retirement age for Social Security – a move called for in a deficit-reduction plan written by House Budget Committee ranking member Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Durbin said raising the retirement age would be unfair to workers who do physical labor.
“It’s tough to say just stick around and deliver mail for another couple of years, be a waitress for another couple of years,” Durbin said. Instead he recommends boosting the percent of wages that can be taxed to fund Social Security. He said in 1983 90 percent of wages were subject to Social Security taxes and now only 83 percent are. He added that the increase would come from beneficiaries “in upper income categories or their employers.”
On many issues, Durbin has been one of the Senate’s strongest fighters for progressive priorities. He led the fight against the Bush Administration’s privatization of Social Security, has been one of the Senate’s top advocates for the rights of undocumented immigrants, has worked towards greater fairness in the justice system, and has been on the right side of nearly every economic justice issue during his time in the Senate.
That’s why it’s disappointing to see Durbin endorse such a regressive proposal. Social Security is currently projected to be fully solvent until the year 2037. After that, it is expected to be able to pay out 75 percent of benefits until 2084 (once you account for inflation those basically consist of full benefits). That does not mean that there aren’t positive and progressive changes that could possibly be made to the system. Raising the Social Security age, however would be a particularly punitive change.
While it is true that average life expectancy has increased over time, these gains are largely a result of life expectancy rising among upper income earners. Among moderate and low income workers, life expectancy has barely changed. And “nearly half of workers over the age of 58 work at jobs that are either physically demanding or involve difficult work conditions.” Raising the retirement age would create enormous burdens on those who work at these jobs.
One place to start in pursuing better, more progressive solutions to the long-term Social Security deficit would be to raise the payroll tax cap. Currently, only the first $106,800 of a person’s income is considered taxable for the purpose of funding Social Security. Raising this cap significantly or eliminating it would essentially leave the program fully funded for decades to come, and not create undue hardship on those working physically demanding jobs.
An Election Day poll by Survey USA found that 85 percent of voters are opposed to cutting Social Security, and that Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin back raising the tax cap over raising the retirement age. Should Durbin once again oppose raising the retirement age, he will have a huge majority of Americans at his back.
Bachmann Calls For An ‘Insurrection’ Against GOP Leaders If They ‘Cave’ On A Full Repeal Of Health Care
Bachmann Calls For An ‘Insurrection’ Against GOP Leaders If They ‘Cave’ On A Full Repeal Of Health Care
After Congress passed the historic health care law last year, the GOP unleashed a litany of hyperbolic derision towards “Obamacare,” seeing it as the coming of “socialism,” “martial law,” “death panels,” and a “gangster government.” In September, the GOP’s Cicero of extremism Rep. Steve King demanded a “blood oath” from GOP leadership to include repeal in every appropriations bill next year, even if it results in government shutdown.
Not to be outdone by her bosom buddy, Tea Party matron Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) one-upped King yesterday by warning GOP leaders of a rank-and-file mutiny over health care repeal. Suspicious of GOP leadership’s “repeal and replace” mantra, Bachmann told CNS News’s Terrence Jeffrey that there will need “to be an insurrection” against “our own leadership” if they “cave or go weak in the knees” and fail to deliver a “full scale repudiation” to the American people:
JEFFREY: Congressman, you say you want to repeal Obamacare lock stock and barrel. Are you confident that the Republican leadership in the new Congress will allow members to have a straight up or down vote on the complete and utter repeal of Obamacare?
BACHMANN: If they don’t, I think there needs to be an insurrection here in Washington, D.C. against our own leadership. Because that is the message that’s come loud and clear out of this election — a full scale repudiation and rejection of the federal government takeover of private industry, whether its private industry in health care, whether its the takeover of GM and Chrysler, the takeover the student loan industry, or the secondary housing mortgage market, or of banks. This is completely antithetical to American history.[...]
JEFFREY: Congressman, you don’t sound completely confident that the Republican leadership will allow a straight up or down vote on total repeal.
BACHMANN: Well I take them at their word. I believe the best in them. And I take them at their word when they say this is what they’re going to do. But if they decide their going to cave or go weak in the knees, you will see members of Congress who will stand up against our leadership because we’re going to stand with the people on this issue.
Watch it:
In response to Bachmann’s possible mutiny, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) spokeswoman Megan Whittemore wanted “to be absolutely clear and avoid any possible confusion” that Bachmann and Cantor’s position “is the same” and that “there will be a straight up or down vote on full repeal of ObamaCare, period.”
However, earlier this week, Cantor told American University students that the GOP’s push for repeal will be coupled with a “replacement bill” that will include the two popular parts of the health care law already being implemented. This position is more in line with the GOP’s Pledge, which includes the same reforms already in the original health care law. Apparently more in tune with actual public opinion than Bachmann, even Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) admitted he didn’t think that “starving or repeal” of the health care law “is probably the best approach here.”
CBS Poll Finds Only 46 Percent Of Republicans Support GOP’s Stand On Extending Bush Tax Cuts For Rich
CBS Poll Finds Only 46 Percent Of Republicans Support GOP’s Stand On Extending Bush Tax Cuts For Rich
A CBS News poll released last night finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts “extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year,” a position that was advanced by a House vote yesterday. Another 14 percent want to expire all of the Bush tax cuts. Taken together, two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) want to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich. One interesting statistic from the survey indicates that the GOP’s push for giving the richest 2 percent an additional tax cut is not even supported by its own base:
Only ten percent of Democrats and one in four independents back the GOP proposal to extend the tax cuts for all. Even among Republicans, support for extending all the cuts is less than half at 46 percent.
Nevertheless, the White House is indicating to the GOP leadership in private negotiations that it is willing to acquiesce on its views and temporarily extend the tax cuts for the rich.
ThinkFast: December 3, 2010
ThinkFast: December 3, 2010
A new employment report from the Labor Department released this morning indicates the U.S. economy added only 39,000 jobs last month, far fewer than the 145,000 that economists had predicted. The unemployment rate edged up to 9.8 percent.
President Obama has “frequently clashed” publicly with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but the Los Angeles Times reports that the White House privately asked business leaders to persuade the right-wing business lobby to “cancel TV ads aimed at defeating Obama’s healthcare plan,” and even asked them to “drop their membership in the Chamber,” as several major companies have done.
Secret “talks between the White House and GOP leaders” are expected to produce White House approval of a deal where unemployment benefits for jobless Americans are extended in return for extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans.
This Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will force the GOP to vote on two plans “to end Bush-era tax cuts to the nation’s highest income earners.” The Senate will hold cloture votes on both Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) and Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) plans in order to end Republican filibusters blocking them from floor consideration.
Two lawyers, one Republican and one Democrat, who serve on the 9th Circuit Advisory Board write in an L.A. Times op-ed today that that there is a “vacancy crisis” that “threatens our federal judiciary.” “In short,” they write, “the promise of justice remains undelivered to the constituents our federal courts are intended to serve.” They urge both the Senate and the President to act to schedule confirmation votes.
A child nutrition bill heralded by First Lady Michelle Obama passed the House yesterday, 264-157, one day after Republicans blocked the bill. The law expands school lunch programs and sets new standards on the meals, with more fruits and vegetables.
GOP Sens. James Inhofe (OK), John Barrasso (WY), David Vitter (LA), and George Voinovich (OH) urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “to freeze new funding” that helps “poor countries fight climate change.” In a letter sent yesterday, the Senators said they “do not believe that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars should be transferred to developing countries” when Americans are concerned about deficit spending.
The House of Representatives voted 333-79 last night to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) for corruption including tax dodging, making him the first member of Congress to be censured in almost three decades. “I am confident that when the history of this has been written,” Rangel replied to the vote, “people will recognize that the vote for censure was a very, very, very political vote.”
The House passed a bill yesterday forbidding television advertisers from jacking up the volume on their spots to gain viewers’ attention. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), said she introduced the measure after watching television with her parents, and such commercials “blew us out of the house.”
And finally: Chuck Norris, who long played a Texas Ranger on TV, has now become one in real life. Yesterday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) awarded the actor and conservative commentator “with a designation as an honorary member of the famed law enforcement group.”
ThinkProgress is hiring! Details here.
Judd Gregg Concerned With Metaphorical ‘Force-Five Hurricane,’ But Not Actual Climate Change
Judd Gregg Concerned With Metaphorical ‘Force-Five Hurricane,’ But Not Actual Climate Change
Worried that “there is something catastrophic” that will happen to the economy within years, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) pleaded for action on the budget deficit in a Fox News interview today, using incipient climate disasters in a forceful metaphor. Gregg sharply criticized those who would “do nothing” about a metaphorical “force-five hurricane in five years”:
I genuinely believe there is something catastrophic, I can’t tell you that it’ll happen within the next 2 years. I can tell you within the next five years it will happen. If there’s a force five hurricane in five years, and you know it’s going to hit your shoreline in five years, do you do nothing about it?
Watch it:
Like the rest of his caucus, Gregg has taken a do-nothing policy when it comes to the threat of actual climate disasters, even though they have been dramatically increasing in his own state.
In March 2009, Gregg slammed Obama’s proposed climate action outline, calling it a “non-starter.” A month later, Gregg voted repeatedly to preserve the filibuster for green economy legislation, even if “the Senate finds that public health, the economy and national security of the United States are jeopardized by inaction on global warming.”
After the House passed major legislation to reduce the threat of climate disasters, Gregg again stood up to do nothing. “I think cap and trade has a long road here obviously,”, Gregg said in February 2010, opposing the work by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to draft climate policy. “I think it’s more logical to focus on those things we can do in the short term.”
He then co-sponsored and voted for Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) failed attempt to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific finding that greenhouse pollution is an imminent threat — which notes the “conclusion in the assessment literature that there is the potential for hurricanes to become more intense with increasing temperatures (and even some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have already become more intense).”
Flashback: NASA Agency That Discovered New Life Form Was Subject To Severe Budget Cuts Under Bush
Flashback: NASA Agency That Discovered New Life Form Was Subject To Severe Budget Cuts Under Bush
This afternoon, NASA’s Astrobiology Institute revealed a fairly breathtaking finding: the discovery of what is essentially another form of life. Geobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon found bacteria in Mono Lake, California that can live without phosphorus, instead sometimes using arsenic. All life on earth is made of six components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, but these bacteria are instead made of arsenic, something previously thought impossible. It even has a DNA blueprint that can contain arsenic, instead of phosphorus, meaning they are essentially a different form of life than anything else that exists on earth.
This discovery not only changes our current definition of “life,” but also significantly expands the possibility that life exists elsewhere in the universe. NASA explains:
“The definition of life has just expanded,” said Ed Weiler, NASA’s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at the agency’s Headquarters in Washington. “As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it.”
This finding of an alternative biochemistry makeup will alter biology textbooks and expand the scope of the search for life beyond Earth…. The results of this study will inform ongoing research in many areas, including the study of Earth’s evolution, organic chemistry, biogeochemical cycles, disease mitigation and Earth system research. These findings also will open up new frontiers in microbiology and other areas of research.
“The idea of alternative biochemistries for life is common in science fiction,” said Carl Pilcher, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute at the agency’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. “Until now a life form using arsenic as a building block was only theoretical, but now we know such life exists in Mono Lake.”
It is important to note that NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, which produced these amazing findings, is surviving despite falling victim to the Republican war on science. Under President George W. Bush, the department saw its funding reduced by half. The cuts were so drastic that many young astrobiologists faced tough decisions about leaving the field entirely:
Astrobiology at NASA has been hit especially hard by the budget cuts. NASA astrobiology funding has declined 50% over the last 2 years, and funding isn’t likely to be restored anytime soon. “These cuts have already resulted in major reductions in programs that fund graduate students and postdocs,” says Michael Mumma, principal investigator at NASA’s Goddard Center for Astrobiology in Greenbelt, Maryland. Mumma says he tries to protect the young people as much as possible, but “sometimes you just can’t renew a student or postdoc position when the money simply isn’t there.” Mumma is seeing many young astrobiologists reaching decision points about leaving the field. [...]
Another young researcher, who asked to remain anonymous, says that astrobiology is “dead in the water.” After years of working on flagship missions at a major NASA centers, she tells the students she mentors not to “go into anything related to NASA because it’s too difficult and unstable.” She switched from planetary science to astrobiology 4 years ago, just before the budget cuts started. “I’m seriously thinking about doing something else with my life, maybe starting a business. I don’t know what yet.” She hasn’t given up on science completely. “I’m a good scrounger, so I’m hoping to be able to scrounge up some money.”
Felisa Wolfe-Simon, the young scientist who made these discoveries, apparently persisted in the face of these cuts. One wonders what other discoveries have been set back by the Republican war on science. Just today, The Hill reported that the Bush-era prohibition on stem-cell research may soon return if Congress doesn’t take action; the delays have already had destructive effects on researchers.
157 Republicans Vote Against Deficit-Reducing Bill That Gives Free, Healthy Meals To Hungry Kids
157 Republicans Vote Against Deficit-Reducing Bill That Gives Free, Healthy Meals To Hungry Kids
Well-versed in obstructing help to the hungry, House Republicans first blocked, then voted against the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act yesterday, a bill that “would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier.” The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in August — essentially a 100-0 vote in favor of providing school meals to the nation’s 17 million hungry kids.
But 157 House Republicans had a different message for hungry children: get in line. During the House’s first attempt to pass the bill yesterday, Republicans “used a procedural maneuver” to add an amendment requiring background checks for child care workers. Recognizing it as a poison pill, House Democrats delayed the final vote till today rather than allow an amendment to “kill the bill.” The main champion of this tactic Rep. John Kline (R-MN) decried the Hunger-Free Act as a Democratic ploy to increase government spending. On the House floor yesterday, Kline insisted the bill was massive “deficit spending,” dismissing the bill’s offsets as a “stalling tactic that obscures government expansion”:
KLINE: The people are telling us, stop spending money we don’t have…this bill spends another $4.5 billion on various programs and initiatives and creates or expands 17, 17 separate federal programs…The majority claims this bill is paid for. They want us to believe we can grow government with no cost or consequences, but the American people know that’s just not true. More spending is more spending. Whether or not those dollars are offset elsewhere in the massive federal budget, but one offset is particularly questionable. The truth is that, at least some portion of the billions of new program costs is deficit spending. This money was borrowed from our children and grandchildren in 2009 when it was put in the stimulus. That borrowed money is simply being redirected today. It was borrowed then and its borrowed now. This bill with its so-called pay for is merely a stalling tactic. It obscures government expansion in the short-term so this bill can become law and its spending can become permanent.
Watch it:
An equally indignant Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) called the pay-for “a farce!” “It’s a farce, it’s a lie. And it’s borrowing more from our children and this kind of idiocy just has to stop,” he added.
The only “lie” emanating from the House floor yesterday came directly from Kline and Broun. The bill is indeed paid for, unfortunately with offsets from food stamp benefits included in the Recovery Act. Because of the Congressional pay-as-you-go rules that prohibits deficit spending on non-emergency measures, Democrats reluctantly raided much-needed food stamp funds — again — to pay for the Hunger-Free Act. Kline and Broun’s outrage at such a strategy is curious, considering Republicans have pushed the same exact strategy in the past.
Not only is their “deficit spending” cry hypocritical, it is also a downright lie. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the offsets in the Senate bill will actually generate “total savings that effectively meet or exceed costs” while simultaneously providing meals to hungry children. Essentially, 157 Republicans voted to block the holy grail of legislation. The House did, however, pass the bill today and it will now go to the President for signature.
The GOP’s continuing callous treatment of those in need was not lost on Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). “If cutting off unemployment insurance for out-of-work Americans wasn’t enough, House Republicans are now blocking critical legislation to help schools feed thousands of hungry children,” he told ThinkProgress. “Childhood nutrition shouldn’t be a partisan issue. But Congressional Republicans – intent on blocking any progress while President Obama is in office – are willing to put hungry children in the partisan crosshairs.”
VIDEO: Grumpy McCain Repeatedly Complains About DADT Hearing
VIDEO: Grumpy McCain Repeatedly Complains About DADT Hearing
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who previously said that he was open to considering DADT repeal if the military carefully studied the consequences of such a policy change — is nevertheless vocally opposed to lifting the ban after the military released its study indicating support for repeal. From the very first DADT hearing in February 2010 to today’s session, McCain has grumpily refused to consider the views of the witnesses before him. This morning — after reviewing the overwhelming positive DADT report and listening to the pleas of the leaders to end the policy in the lame duck session — McCain went further, openly implying that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen was not living up to the expectations of leadership because he did not ask the troops if they favored repealing the policy. Watch it:
The Wonk Room points out that all of the leaders in front of the commission — Mullen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Working Group chairmen Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham — disagreed with McCain’s approach of polling the troops about the policy.
RNC Chair Candidate Ann Wagner: ‘We Should Not Be Raising The Debt Ceiling’
RNC Chair Candidate Ann Wagner: ‘We Should Not Be Raising The Debt Ceiling’
With the all-important debt ceiling vote looming in the next few months, more GOPers are making their feelings known about the issue. A few conservatives have rightly chastised their Republican brethren for playing games with the debt ceiling and possibly forcing the nation to default on our debt. They include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who called such a move “naïve,” and incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who said that those GOPers who vote against raising the debt ceiling and risk a government shutdown will be seen as “yahoos.” Unfortunately, many on the right are ignoring these warnings and instead pitching their tents in the Shutdown Caucus by refusing to raise the national debt ceiling.
Now, one of the candidates to become the next RNC Chairman, former Missouri Republican Chair Ann Wagner, is taking a firm stance on whether her party should fight against raising the debt ceiling. In an interview at the first RNC Chairman debate, Wagner told ThinkProgress, “no, we should not be raising the debt ceiling”:
TP: One of the things that I know is going to be a real big issue coming up and I know Chairman Steele has been outspoken about is the debt ceiling. He said that the GOP is just not going to compromise on that. Is that a call you’d be comfortable joining him in?
WAGNER: No no, I will tell you I believe that the Congress and our new Speaker and leadership will be tackling issues like that. I know for sure what we have to do is rein in spending and this soaring debt. We cannot turn into Greece or — I think Ireland is now on the verge of this also. It’s very important that we bring our debt down. [...]
TP: But in order to do that, do you think the next move would be to raise the debt ceiling, or [...] (crosstalk)
WAGNER: No, we should not be raising the debt ceiling. But I will leave that to Congress to navigate over the next Congress here.
Watch it:
David Brooks Slams GOP Obstructionism: ‘If You Offered Them 99-1, They’d Say No’
David Brooks Slams GOP Obstructionism: ‘If You Offered Them 99-1, They’d Say No’
Yesterday, the entire Senate Republican caucus signed a letter vowing to block every piece of legislation unless the body holds a vote on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. This came after two years of a concerted GOP effort to “obstruct, delay, obstruct, delay,” as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yesterday. This morning, at a debate with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) at the American Enterprise Institute, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks slammed the GOP’s reflexive obstructionism and demand for ideological purity, saying their “rigidity” harms “governance” and is based on a false world view that progressives are a “bunch of socialists”:
BROOKS: And my problem with the Republican Party right now, including Paul, is that if you offered them 80-20, they say no. If you offered them 90-10, they’d say no. If you offered them 99-1 they’d say no. And that’s because we’ve substituted governance for brokerism, for rigidity that Ronald Regan didn’t have.
And to me, this rigidity comes from this polarizing world view that they’re a bunch of socialists over there. You know, again, I’ve spent a lot of time with the president. I’ve spent a lot of time with the people around him. They’re liberals! … But they’re not idiots. And they’re not Europeans, and they don’t want to be a European welfare state. … It’s American liberalism, and it’s not inflexible.
Watch it:
Before Bankruptcy, Conservatives Touted Ireland As Model For U.S.
Before Bankruptcy, Conservatives Touted Ireland As Model For U.S.
ThinkProgress intern Riley Waggaman contributed research for this post.
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) praised the Irish economy for its low corporate tax rate and said that if the U.S. would just follow suit, companies would “be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment.” And McCain was far from the only conservative making the “Celtic Tiger” argument that Ireland’s low tax rates were a shining, successful model of conservatism in action. Some examples:
– Dan Mitchell (then of the Heritage Foundation, now at The Cato Institute), July 2002:
Ireland already has shown that tax cuts are a recipe for prosperity. Thanks to Reagan-style tax-rate reductions, including a corporate income tax rate of just 10 percent, Ireland has become the “Celtic Tiger” and is now the European Union’s second richest country.
– Sean Dorgan, The Heritage Foundation, June 2006:
While economic success over the past 15 years can be ascribed to a range of domestic and international factors, it was not a fluke. Ireland has long had, and intends to sustain, low tax rates to attract investment. Its current 12.5 percent corporate tax rate evolved from the zero rate on export sales in the 1950s and the 10 percent rate on manufacturing and some internationally traded services introduced in 1980.
– Chris Edwards, The Cato Institute, March 2007:
However, the key to Ireland’s success has been its excellent tax climate for business. In 1980, Ireland established a corporate tax rate for manufacturing of just ten percent. That low rate was subsequently extended to high-technology, financial services, and other industries. More recently, Ireland established a flat 12.5 percent tax rate on all corporations — one of the lowest rates in the world, and just one-third of the U.S. rate. Low business tax rates have helped Ireland attract huge inflows of foreign investment.
– Jurgen Reinhoudt, American Enterprise Institute, October 2007:
The real credit belongs to Irish fiscal policy. Beginning in the late 1980s, successive Irish governments pursued vital spending cuts and tax relief…At present, Ireland has a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate, which has made it a magnet for powerhouse firms.
– Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), FOX News, January 2008:
MITT ROMNEY: Well, you know, the — the experience of other countries in the world is some guide. You take a nation like Ireland, for instance. They cut their tax rate. I believe it’s less than half of the tax rate in most of the other European nations. And they have become — well, they have moved from a basket-case economy to a booming economy. Jobs have been flowing into Ireland.
– Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sean Hannity, FOX News, October 2008:
MCCAIN: No. But you know what, Sean? You’re going to go on my first overseas trip. And I think it might be to Ireland.
HANNITY: Listen, you were right about their tax rates. They did lower tax rates on businesses and it’s been a big economic boom for them.
But now that Ireland’s economy has crashed down around it, those on the right are claiming that Ireland’s woes are due to big government run amok. As Jonathan Chait mocked, “Sadly, the Irish fiscal crisis has prompted a quick realization [amongst conservatives] that Ireland was not actually the free market state we thought it was”:
– Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute, November 2010:
There are lots of lessons to learn from Ireland’s fiscal/economic/financial crisis. There was too much government spending. Ireland also had a major housing bubble. And some people say that adopting the euro (the common currency of many European nations) helped create the current mess.
– Nicole Gelinas, The National Review, November 2010:
A big reason for Ireland’s current sub-crisis is that in the fall of 2008, the nation guaranteed all of its bank liabilities. This fateful choice was not a market decision, but a government one. One could make the case that had Ireland let its bank bondholders go, as Iceland did, Ireland would be better off today. Unlike Greece, Ireland has competitive tax rates, an English-speaking population, and a workforce that desires work.
– Margot Crouch, The Heritage Foundation, March 2010:
One of the reasons for the flight of companies from Ireland and other European nations is the potential for a common tax base across the European Union which forced Ireland to raise its taxes on businesses significantly to be more consistent with high-tax European norms.
– Reihan Salam, The National Review, November 2010:
Let me say that I’m quite willing to believe that an excessively progressive income tax in Ireland exacerbated underlying political economy problems.
Though far from being the sole cause of Ireland’s economic calamity, its very low-tax environment turned it into a favorite tax haven and led to an influx of “business” that wasn’t really business at all: it was just companies like Google shuffling paper through Ireland to dodge taxes.
Ireland then experienced the same housing bubble that plagued both the U.S. and mainland Europe, and its banks, the biggest of which were twice the size of the nation’s GDP, went bust. As Peter Boone and Simon Johnson wrote, “Simply put, the Irish miracle was a mirage driven by clever use of tax-haven rules and a huge credit boom that permitted real estate prices and construction to grow quickly before declining ever more rapidly.”
Now, Ireland is undertaking draconian austerity measures, including raising personal income taxes by €1.9 billion and cutting the minimum wage, in order to receive an €85 billion bailout. So as Fortune’s Dan Primack wrote, “Got to wonder if McCain would like to recall his original message, or if he still considers Ireland to be the beacon of federal tax policy. And, if the latter, I’d assume he also believes that raising personal income taxes [is] a smart way to deal with staggering budget deficits.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll