In the past two weeks, Republican lawmakers have revived the prospect of privatizing Social Security and Medicare, starting with a push from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), whose budget proposal radically slashes and privatizes the entitlement programs. On Tuesday night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) went on Fox Business to lend his voice to the campaign. Kingston said to “cut…programs that are expanding the entitlement mentality,” we should privatize both Social Security and Medicare:
KINGSTON: We need to go in, and we need to cut duplicate programs, programs that are inefficient, programs that are expanding the entitlement mentality. I think we should go back to Social Security, take it off budget, dedicate the funds, put personal accounts on it. On Medicare, I think something like vouchers, where people actually have an incentive to save money.
Watch it:
If President Bush had been successful privatizing Social Security, an October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge. Indeed, as a Center for American Progress report has found, if the U.S. stock market had behaved like the Japanese market during the duration of that retiree’s work life, “a private account would have experienced sharp negative returns, losing $70,000 — an effective — 3.3 percent net annual rate of return.” And a Wonk Room analysis of the recent Medicare privatization plan by Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) found that such an arrangement would shift the cost of insurance from the government to the individual, particularly lower-income beneficiaries. Nevertheless, Republicans, along with their Wall Street allies, are pressing forward to fight again to dismember popular, effective entitlement programs.
In today’s Washington Post, David Broder has a prominent column titled, “Palin’s populism: It just might work,” which is devoted to extolling her appeal. He praised her recent Fox News Sunday interview, saying that she struck “a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past.” Some other highlights:
The snows that obliterated Washington in the past week interfered with many scheduled meetings, but they did not prevent the delivery of one important political message: Take Sarah Palin seriously. [...]
But in the present mood of the country, Palin is by all odds a threat to the more uptight Republican aspirants such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty — and potentially, to Obama as well. [...]
Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.
Palin may have won Broder’s heart, but he is significantly off the mark on her appeal to the rest of America. Also in today’s Washington Post, on page A3, is a report showing that Palin’s unfavorability ratings are at an all-time high. From the Washington Post/ABC News poll:
In a new Time article today, Joe Klein writes on the “brilliance of Sarah Palin,” asserting that she is “the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination and therefore someone to be taken absolutely seriously.” If he’s right, the Republican Party is in a sad state. According to the new poll, 71 percent of Americans say that Palin is “not qualified to serve as president.” That figure includes 52 percent of Republicans. Ironically, on Sunday, the Washington Post story about Palin’s speech at the Party convention read, “With her remarks, greeted with wild enthusiasm here and carried live by all three major cable news networks, Palin moved firmly to reestablish herself as a politician capable of national office.”
Moreover, the Tea Party movement that commentators have held up as one of the most significant forces in American politics, really isn’t all that popular with the public. Not only do most Americans not identify with the right-wing activists, but 64 percent say they know “some/little/nothing” about the Tea Party movement stands for.
On his radio show yesterday, Fox News host Glenn Beck argued that the world’s climate scientists should commit suicide because they “have so dishonored themselves.” After repeating exaggerated and false smears about the work of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific and governmental body tasked with assessing the threat of global warming, Beck said “there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occured,” referring to the form of ritual suicide used by Japanese samurai:
There’s not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred. I mean, these guys have so dishonored themselves, so dishonored scientists.
Listen here:
Beck’s hateful attack is part of a larger campaign to demonize the thousands of climate scientists involved in the IPCC and discredit their consensus that manmade pollution is destabilizing the global climate. Their latest effort paints a wild picture of a global conspiracy to defraud the public, based on a handful of inaccurate or poorly sourced but valid claims buried in the 3,000-page report. Unfortunately, Beck is not the first to tell climate realists to commit suicide. Last year, hate-talk host Rush Limbaugh told New York Times climate reporter Andrew Revkin to “just go kill yourself.”
Fox News contributor Sarah Palin has claimed that studies showing polar bears are threatened by global warming are “snake oil science.” Speaking in Redding, CA, at the Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference, Palin argued that the science of climate change is really just a plot to hurt oil companies. “Those promoting polar bear listing really want to shut down oil and gas leasing in Arctic coastal waters off Alaska,” Palin argued:
We knew the bottom line . . . was ultimately to shut down a lot of our development. And it didn’t make any sense because it was based on these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.
In reality, the 2006 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a “product of research by 300 scientists from northern countries, warned that the Arctic is warming at a rate much faster than the rest of the Earth.” Arctic ice is now at historically low levels. In 2008, George Bush’s Fish and Wildlife Service director Dale Hall testified that there was no significant scientific uncertainty in the endangerment posed by global warming to polar bears, based on numerous scientific studies. In contrast, when Palin petitioned to overturn the endangerment finding, she cited a paper funded by Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and Koch Industries. Now that’s snake oil science.
Local news outlets are reporting that last week, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio disseminated a stinging letter urging Republican primary voters to support right-wing shock jock and former Congressman J.D. Hayworth over Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in his bid for Arizona’s U.S. Senate seat. Arpaio wrote:
Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it’s time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D...I just wish Senator McCain had run as hard against Barack Obama as he is against a conservative like J.D. That could have prevented the harmful, liberal agenda we are all now suffering through…[W]e must stop Senator McCain’s policies to open up our borders.
Ironically, when it comes to immigration, neither Hayworth nor Arpaio have been the “consistent conservatives” they like to portray themselves as. During the 2006 and 2007 immigration debates, Hayworth dedicated a lot of time to lambasting immigration reform, particularly proposals for a temporary worker program. However, the website of NumbersUSA — the sort of immigration restrictionist group Hayworth is pandering to — shows that he repeatedly voted in favor of expanding temporary worker programs throughout the 1990s. Republican columnist and commentator Linda Chavez points out that Hayworth’s anti-immigrant flip flop in the proceeding decade likely cost him his House seat. Chavez writes that Hayworth switched positions as soon as he “sensed bashing immigrants was a surer ticket to re-election.” However, voters “wanted no part” in Hayworth’s hardline policies and voted him out of office in 2006.
Arpaio also is no steadfast conservative either. In 2005, Arpaio held that “being illegal is not a serious crime. You can’t go to jail for being an illegal alien.” At the time, Arpaio told the Arizona Republic’s Michael Kiefer, “I want the authority to lock up smugglers, but I am not going to lock up illegals hanging around street corners.” These days, Arpaio brags about locking up 32,000 “diseased” immigrants for smuggling themselves across the border, even though it created a $1.3 million deficit in just three months. However, polls show that Arpaio’s popularity may be waning partly due to the controversies surrounding his harsh immigration enforcement tactics.
For the past several years, McCain has been a conservative voice of reason in the immigration debate. Many speculate that he actually lost the critical support of the Latino community when he backed away from his immigration position during the 2008 presidential election. With Latinos comprising 11.7% of Arizona voters, McCain would be wise to resist the temptation of getting pushed farther to the right by a right-wing has-been and a mud-slinging Sheriff mired in controversy.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
When Democrats decided against televising health care reconciliation negotiations last month, they were blasted by congressional Republicans. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), for example, wrote:
There’s no good reason to keep the negotiations of the health-care bill secret – unless, of course, the President and congressional Democrats know that Americans wouldn’t like what they see and the only way they can get this bill is to write it in secret and pass it quickly, before the American people know what’s in it.
The major reason Republicans joined the media in calling for televised negotiations was that they saw a political opportunity to attack Democrats and claim that they — and the American people — needed to be part of the process. However, Republicans are far less concerned about transparency for the public on the Senate’s jobs bill, since some of the closed-door negotiations involve the GOP. Fox News reports that Kyl in particular is perfectly happy with backroom deals this time:
While much has been made of “backroom deals” over healthcare reform, no such outcry has come on the jobs bill. One reason? A handful of Republicans have been in the back room this time. Kyl, who loudly decried the closed door sausage-making on healthcare legislation, had a softer tone on the jobs bill.
“The truth of the matter is, a lot of things here are done by staff behind closed doors, and it’s not always the wrong way to put something together, as long as you have plenty of time for that product to get out to members so they can evaluate it, have the public take a look at it. … If you’re going to forgo the committee process, then you at least have to get it out to members so they can reflect on it. And that’s why you can’t vote on it by Thursday or Friday,” Kyl said.
To be sure, there are thoughtful, legitimate cases to be made both for and against letting cameras into typically closed-door proceedings. CAP President and CEO John Podesta argued that “corruption in government begins at the moment when officials in power believe no one is paying attention,” whereas the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky pointed out that in front of the cameras during the health care debate, lawmakers spent most of their time “[g]randstanding” and “launching unnecessary rhetorical attacks” while the real work went on behind the scenes. However, abandoning calls for transparency just because you get a chance to be in the back room and want to make deals in private is hardly a legitimate reason.
In March 2009, President Obama issued an executive order that removed President Bush’s limitations on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, ending the tragic politicization of the issue that existed under the former president. GOP Senate candidate Curtis Coleman (R-AR), who is running against Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), blasted Obama’s decision in an interview yesterday, comparing embryonic stem cell research to “what the Nazis did to the Jews“:
On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order, removing barriers to responsible research involving human stem cells.
Coleman, however, has different view on things.
“Embryonic stem cell research is taking the concept of taking a life and using it to conduct experiments so we can temporarily extend somebody else’s life. Let me tell you what I just described. I just described what the Nazis did to the Jews in the death camps of WWII,” says Coleman.
Almost immediately after Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab failed to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day, conservatives rushed to politicize the attempted terrorist attack. “People have got to start connecting the dots here and maybe this is the thing that will connect the dots for the Obama administration,” Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said before he’d even been briefed on the incident. Karl Rove and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) criticized President Obama for issuing a statement on the failed bombing 72 hours after the event, even though President Bush waited longer to comment on “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid’s failed attempt to bring down an airliner in Dec. 2001.
The drumbeat of political criticism from conservatives since then has been unrelenting, especially focusing on the fact that Abdumuttalab was read his Miranda rights after he awoke from surgery. Recently, the Obama administration has begun pushing back at the GOP’s political onslaught. On Meet The Press this past Sunday, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, a 25-year veteran of the CIA, pointed out that he had kept key Congressional Republicans informed of Abdulmuttalab detainment by the FBI:
On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond, I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was, in fact, talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that “in FBI custody” means that there’s a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point.
Brennan followed up his critique with a USA Today op-ed arguing that “too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points.” Brennan’s op-ed included the highly-charged assertion that “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”
Republicans have responded to Brennan’s pushback with incredulity. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, citing former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen’s misunderstanding of the facts, called Brennan “troubling” on Fox News yesterday. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called Brennan an “egomaniac.” Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) declared Brennan “needs to go,” and is no longer “credible.” On Fox News today, Hoekstra, who repeatedly referred to Brennan as a “White House staffer” as opposed to an intelligence “professional,” said Obama should “fire” him. Watch it:
On MSNBC today, Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie grilled Bond about whether the “Republican Party deserve[s] some blame” for terrorism becoming “too politicized.” Bond responded in denial, saying, “give me a break.” “They’re the ones who went out and called politics and they played politics,” said Bond of the White House. In an ironic twist, however, he then claimed that criticisms of the Bush administration’s terrorism policy during the past eight years had been “political attacks.” The White House said today that Bond’s call for Brennan to resign was “pathetic.”
Unintentionally, Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade summed up the situation perfectly this morning when he said that Bond and Hoekstra had told him on the radio yesterday that “they’re just astounded and befuddled that” Brennan “continues to dig like this and act so political in condemning everybody else for acting political.”
Newt Gingrich has helped lead the conservative effort to politicize the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day. Since the failed attack, he has called for “profiling” and asserted that Republican political campaigns should get a “boost” from the incident.
Last night, in an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Gingrich tried to skewer the Obama administration for reading Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged Christmas day terrorist, his Miranda rights. Stewart noted that the Bush administration had also informed the shoe bomber Richard Reid of his Miranda rights. Gingrich justified his double standard by claiming that the circumstance was different because Reid was “an American citizen.” Stewart took the extra step of returning after commercial break to correct Gingrich — Reid was a British citizen:
GINGRICH: The American people doesn’t understand reading Miranda rights to terrorists in Detroit when its fairly obvious they’re terrorists. […]
STEWART: Didn’t they [the Bush administration] do the same with Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
GINGRICH: Richard Reid was an American citizen.
Watch it:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Newt Gingrich | ||||
|
||||
Gingrich has a long history of twisting national security to fit his political agenda. For instance, as the Wonk Room has noted, Gingrich has based much of his fearmongering against Iran and other countries on a fictional thriller novel he read. And while he prides himself as a historical expert, Gingrich constantly gets his history wrong. Last year, he falsely claimed that U.S. Presidents don’t “smile and greet” Russian leaders. Photographic evidence suggests otherwise.
Listening to Gingrich lambaste the Obama administration over and over again as “radical,” Stewart noted that Gingrich seemed to inject great emotion into his arguments. Gingrich quickly agreed, “It’s part of my job, to reach out to the emotions of the American public.” Stewart then responded wryly, “I think that’s wise, and don’t let reality get in the way.”
Yesterday, the Senate rejected President Obama’s nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, even though he received a majority 52 votes. Because Becker’s nomination was subject to a filibuster by Republicans and a few Democrats, Obama was thwarted in his effort to staff the U.S. government with his nominee. Becker also was the target of intense lobbying by business groups.
Senate Republicans have used parliamentary tactics to hold up the confirmation of critical administration nominees to an unprecedented degree. Yesterday, Obama warned that “if the Senate does not act,” he would be forced to make recess appointments to fill critical jobs, because “we cannot allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government.”
Calling the holds “unfair,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took to the Senate floor last night to give a withering attack of Republican obstructionism and urge Obama to recess appoint “all” of his blocked nominees:
REID: I mean it’s disgraceful. The Republicans are holding these people up for reasons that have nothing to do with their background, morality [or] competency of these people. … I think, frankly, the President should recess [appoint] all of them. All of them. He has been given very little recognition for the importance of the job that he has trying to find the best people in America to fill this position. No one can say Democrats did this when we were in the minority — we didn’t do this. There were people that were held up, but this something that is beyond the pale.
Watch a complication of Reid and Obama’s comments:
Indeed, one year into Obama’s term, 177 nominees remained unconfirmed — thanks to an “unusual number of holds” — including “dozens” of national security appointments. One year into President Bush’s term, there were only 70 appointees awaiting confirmation. Much of this obstructionism has been for political gain, such as Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) recent attempt to hold 70 nominees hostage for billions of dollars in pork for his state.
While the Senate is given the right to “advise and consent” on nominees, as Catholic University Law Professor Victor Williams notes on the Huffington Post, the president’s right to make recess appointments is “textually based, historically supported, and has been upheld by numerous court opinions.” The Founders gave the president the ability to make recess appointments recognizing that “the president must keep the government fully staffed,” regardless of partisan posturing.
John McCain is locked in a tough battle to retain Republican support for his U.S. Senate seat in Arizona, facing a challenge from far-right former congressman J.D. Hayworth. Conservative talk show host Mark Levin, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and numerous conservative websites have backed Hayworth over McCain, who has generally been rejected by the Tea Party movement.
But on Monday, the New York Times broke the news that FreedomWorks Chairman and Tea Party profiteer Dick Armey has bucked his beloved movement and endorsed McCain. Buried near the bottom of the New York Times’ story:
Even within the fractured Tea Party movement, Mr. McCain is not without support. He is endorsed by Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the populist movement’s darling, and Sarah Palin, his running mate in the 2008 presidential campaign. And Dick Armey, whose FreedomWorks organization has become front and center in the movement, says he is throwing his support behind Mr. McCain.
Yesterday in a blog post, however, FreedomWorks shot back at the New York Times, disputing the paper’s story:
The New York Times reported recently that FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey has endorsed Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary in Arizona. This is not the case, although this story has been picked up and repeated by countless media personalities and reporters around the country.
This seems to be a good case study in how false information can make its way around the internet and the airwaves before it can be corrected. But we wanted to post a quick statement for all of you who have asked us about this.
Armey’s refusal to endorse McCain seems like pandering to the Tea Party movement. After all, Armey — formerly the Republican House Majority Leader — told the Arizona Republic recently that McCain has had a distinguished career, unlike Hayworth:
“We’re a small organization with a limited budget. There’s an awful lot of places where our presence would be needed and can really make a difference. We don’t see this Arizona race as one where we need to be actively involved. It’s hard for us to believe that J.D. Hayworth could mount a credible challenge to John McCain. Obviously, we’ll watch the race. But J.D. had a fairly short, undistinguished congressional career with virtually no initiative on his part. I just don’t see any reason why we should be concerned about that race.” [...]
“There’s nobody who can match McCain’s record on fiscal responsibility,” he said.
“As I recall, J.D. was on the Ways and Means Committee and I didn’t really see him make any distinguished effort, for example, like people like (Arizona GOP Reps.) Jeff Flake and John Shadegg in terms of creative ideas and legislative initiative,” Armey said. “Certainly nothing on the cost-control front. But John McCain was the first guy to understand the need to get earmarks under control. He took a real leadership role, as did Jeff Flake.“
Armey may be trying to avoid the backlash that Palin received when she announced her support for her former running mate. Fox News host Glenn Beck said, “This Sarah Palin thing really bothers me,” and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin wrote that Tea Party activists were “rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain.” Even Paul Streitz, co-founder of the 2012 Draft Sarah Committee, lamented, “What should this be called, the Rinoization of Sarah Palin.”
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News — making him the largest shareholder outside the family of News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch. Alwaleed has grown close with the Murdoch enterprise, recently endorsing James Murdoch to succeed his father and creating a content-sharing agreement with Fox News for his own media conglomerate, Rotana.
Last weekend, at the right-wing Constitutional Coalition’s annual conference in St. Louis, Joseph Farah, publisher of the far right WorldNetDaily, blasted Fox News for its relationship with Alwaleed. Farah noted correctly that Alwaleed had boasted in the past about forcing Fox News to change its content relating to its coverage of riots in Paris, and warned that such foreign ownership of American media is “really dangerous.” ThinkProgress was at the speech and observed attendees of the conference murmuring and shaking their heads in disapproval:
FARAH: There’s a flaw, a real compromise in Fox that you need to understand. And if you care about national security, you especially need to be attentive to it. And that is that Fox News parent company is News Corp has a significant ownership by a Saudi prince that many of you will be familiar with because right after 9/11 this prince very famously offered Rudolph Giuliani a big multi-million dollar check to rebuild and Giuliani told him to stick the check where the sun don’t shine because this guy was basically blaming America for what happened on 9/11. Well this guy owns a very significant percentage of the News Corp and has let the world know that he can get things taken off Fox News when he finds them objectionable and has in the past. And I really believe this is really dangerous for America.
Listen here:
ThinkProgess spoke to right-wing author Brigitte Gabriel, another speaker at the conference, who said that Alwaleed was recently interviewed by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. Gabriel angrily denounced the interview as a “darling high school reunion”: “All of the sudden, Neil Cavuto is interviewing him like a buddy-buddy because he is the boss.” Indeed, in the “rare” interview Alwaleed gave last month, he reaffirmed his “alliance” with the Murdoch family and told Cavuto why he has a personal stake in influencing American politics:
– On continuing America’s dependence on fossil fuels, Saudia Arabian oil: “Saudi Arabia’s strategic alliance with the United States will continue and as a derivative of that, the link with the oil between oil and dollars is there. The bulk of our GDP, the bulk of budget comes from oil and oil is still a dollar based commodity.” As Media Matters has documented, Fox News is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy, and has aggressively attacked efforts to move America away from a fossil fuel dependent economy.
– On opposing financial reforms, bank responsibility fee: “In a way I’m conflicted because I’m invested in Citigroup but at the more global picture, I’m a big supporter of the United States. I believe taxing the banks right now is not the right thing at all. It’s like you have a patient coming out of an ICU.” Alwaleed owns a $4.3 billion dollars stake in Citigroup, a massive bank that spent millions lobbying against financial reform last year.
With the Citizens United Supreme Court decision essentially freeing corporations to spend unlimited amounts in campaigns, theoretically Alwaleed can pressure the American corporations he owns stock in to spend millions — or even billions — of dollars attacking candidates he opposes. In addition to his powerful Fox News outlet, Alwaleed and other foreign investors have potentially unprecedented power to impact American elections.
Last night on his Fox News show, Sean Hannity claimed that the recent spate of winter snow storms in the Washington, D.C. region clearly means that the planet isn’t warming. He then attacked Vice President Gore, calling his anti-global warming advocacy “hysterical”:
HANNITY: And tonight’s “Meltdown” is brought to you by the D.C. snow storm, you know, the storm that dumped about two feet of snow on the Washington area over the weekend causing thousands of power outages and keeping many people home from work today. And it’s the most severe winter storm in years, which would seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories. [...]
Pretty unbelievable. I bet the snow even kept Al Gore’s jet from taking off.
Watch it:
Because of the recent snow storms in the Northeast, many conservatives like Hannity have taken the opportunity to take cheap shots at Gore. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and his family mocked the former Vice President by building an igloo on the National Mall and calling it “Al Gore’s new home.” And Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) joined in as well, tweeting today that, “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”
As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has explained, “winter snows do not invalidate the reality that the planet just experienced the hottest decade on record. Scientists have been warning for decades that global warming would increase the severity of winter storms.” And a recent National Wildlife Federation report has found that winter storms are getting fiercer even as the season gets warmer.
Climate expert Dr. Jeff Masters notes, “It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. … Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events…will also increase,” he said, adding that this “occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.” Indeed, the IPCC has said that atmospheric moisture has increased 5 percent over the last century.
In his interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric before the Super Bowl earlier this week, President Obama said that he was going to ask Republicans to put their health care ideas “on the table.” “What I want to do is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there,” said Obama. “How do you guys want to lower costs?”
Just days before Obama made his call for GOP health care ideas, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) offered a radical proposal for reform in a conversation with the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. According to a blog post by the editorial board, Bond called on Friday for giving means-tested vouchers to Medicare enrollees:
Even before he asked, Missouri’s senior U.S. senator was outlining his: Privatize Medicare and limit benefits for upper-income retirees. Meeting with Post-Dispatch editors and reporters on Friday, Mr. Bond called for radical changes to the federal health insurance program that covers 45 million elderly and disabled Americans.
Since its inception in 1965, Medicare has provided the same basic package of benefits to everyone, regardless of income. On Friday, Mr. Bond called for giving Medicare enrollees a voucher to buy health insurance on their own. “You’re going to have to means-test the benefits,” he said, adding that upper income retirees wouldn’t “get much of a voucher.”
Though Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and RNC Chairman Michael Steele have made protecting Medicare part of their argument against President Obama’s health care reform plans, Bond isn’t the alone in dreaming of dismantling the system. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told ThinkProgress last weekend that Americans should be weaned off Medicare. In his recent alternative budget proposal and the one he released in April 2009, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) advocated giving vouchers to everyone 54 and younger instead of having them enter the traditional Medicare program. It is unclear whether Bond is referring to current enrollees or just future enrollees.
Bond also isn’t the only Missouri Republican with disdain for Medicare. In July 2009, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who is hoping to succeed Bond after he retires, suggested to a conservative Missouri radio host that the “government should have never” started Medicare or Medicaid.
Fox News host Glenn Beck’s arch-nemesis is progressivism. He calls the movement the “poison in our Republic” and has accused it of genocide. In addition to attacking Democrats, Beck often condemns of Republicans he deems to be “progressive,” including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
On his radio show today, Beck hosted Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) — “one of the only people I trust in Washington.” DeMint has capitalized on the Tea Party movement to position himself as a right-wing kingmaker. Beck asked DeMint whether he would support his colleague John McCain in his tough primary fight against former right-wing congressman J.D. Hayworth. DeMint demurred and even threatened to oppose his party’s former presidential nominee:
BECK: I’m convinced that John McCain is going the one of the guys who pushes through a health care compromise. And I don’t want any health care through the federal government. Because you know and I know senator that they’re going to build this damn machine whether we like it or not, and they’re going to build it one piece at a time and a Progressive like John McCain will help them build it.
DEMINT: Well, I’m not going to get involved with this race in Arizona. And if John McCain goes with this health care bill, I’ll be his biggest opponent and I think he knows that. But I don’t know that he’s going to do that. But what we’re trying to do is get some new senators from around this country who will stand with us on these key issues.
BECK: This is great news to me. So you are not endorsing him or helping him in Arizona?
DEMINT: No I’m not. I’m not getting involved with — I know J.D. well, and they can have their own race.
Listen here:
Though Beck has often said that he’ll never endorse candidates, he clearly seems to be whipping DeMint to oppose McCain. DeMint has built a powerful organization to fund and support right-wing Senate candidates in GOP primaries and appears eager for Beck’s backing. DeMint is a frequent guest of Beck’s and repeatedly thanked him during today’s appearance for the “opportunity” to talk up his stable of conservative candidates.
On Marco Rubio, who is running for the Republican nomination for Florida’s U.S. Senate seat, DeMint assured Beck that he doesn’t have a “Progressive bone in his body” and is the “real thing” who “stands up for the principles that you talk about everyday, Glenn.”
It’s not unusual for Beck to condemn McCain, but it’s surprising to see a sitting senator condone Beck’s world view and publicly threaten to oppose his colleague for compromising with the other side.
While most right-wing public officials do not endorse the “birther” theory that President Obama was secretly born in Kenya, a handful of conservative leaders continue to demand that Obama release his long-form birth certificate, throwing fuel on the conspiracy fires. One such official is Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), who is also running for governor of the state of Georgia. At a recent event hosted by the Georgia Christian Alliance, Deal was asked about his letter to the President asking him for his birth certificate. The congressman responded that while he’s “not questioning” the president’s “legitimacy to serve,” he still wants Obama to show his birth certificate:
DEAL: Well, I think it is a communication that, uh, deserves at least his response, first of all, which we have not received. But in essence what I have told him is this. When I am asked by opponents or constituents hard questions, I don’t shy away from those questions. I try to answer those questions. If I don’t have the information to answer hard questions, I have to go to people who have the answers. What I have asked him to do is tell me where I can ask my constituents to go to see authentic documentation that he says satisfy their curiosity … I know some folks will try to label this as ‘politically incorrect.’ Let me tell you something, political correctness is paralyzing our society. These kinds of things deserve straightforward responses. I think this ought to be put to rest. I’m not questioning his legitimacy to serve as President. I would think he’d like to clear this up in as unequivocal fashion as possible. That’s all I’m asking him to do.
Watch it:
Georgia bloggers on the left and right who are fed up with Deal’s pandering to conspiracy theorists have started their own campaign to demand that Deal show his constituents his birth certificate (they are calling themselves the “proofers“). Georgia Liberal writes, “We have asked him, his Congressional Office, and his Campaign for proof that he is a resident of the state and meets the qualifications to be Governor … And still nothing. … Georgia Liberal does not shy away from the ‘hard questions.’”
Today, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced that he is recommending that President Obama nominate Daniel Alter to serve as a judge in the Southern District federal court of New York. Alter was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, becoming an expert in terrorism and security. He has also served as the National Director of the Civil Rights Division of the Anti-Defamation League. Alter would be a historic pick for Obama, becoming the first openly gay man to be nominated to the federal bench. From Schumer’s statement:
His outstanding leadership skills, his commitment to justice, and his extensive experience make him an exceptional choice for a position on the federal bench. I’m proud to nominate Daniel Alter. Period. But I am equally proud to nominate him because he is a history-maker who will be the first openly gay male judge in American history.
Although Obama chooses his judicial nominees, presidents generally defer to the recommendations of home state senators. In 1994, President Clinton nominated the first LGBT person, Deborah Batts, to serve as a federal judge for the Southern District, where she currently sits. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is currently blocking the nomination of Marisa Demeo, an openly gay Latino woman, to serve on the D.C. Superior Court.
Late yesterday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) announced that he would not vote for cloture on the nomination of former AFL-CIO and SEIU attorney Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), effectively joining a Republican filibuster. Republicans have been using Becker’s nomination as a proxy battle over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — which would level the playing field for workers who want to form a union. And Nelson bought into that frame in his statement against Becker:
Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the Administration. This is of great concern, considering that the Board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand. In addition, the nominee’s statements fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws, which have been credited in part with our excellent business climate that has attracted employers and many good jobs to Nebraska.
As the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein pointed out, Nelson had no problem voting to invoke cloture on Bush administration nominees like UN Ambassador John Bolton and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. Bush’s last nominee to the NLRB — Peter Schauber — was confirmed uncontroversially, along with a host of nominees for various positions. Now, Nelson is helping the GOP employ the filibuster to obstruct and stall Obama’s mere ability to govern.
House Republican leaders John Boehner (R-OH) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) sent a letter to the White House yesterday, stipulating some preconditions for Republican participation in a bipartisan health care meeting proposed by President Obama. Boehner and Cantor’s letter said that unless Obama was willing to scrap the current health reform proposals, Republicans “would rightly be reluctant to participate.” Their letter was met with some derision from conservatives, who called it “silly” and “politically dangerous.” The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reported today that Republican insiders said it was unlikely their leaders would follow through on their bluff. Indeed, appearing on Fox News this afternoon, Cantor backtracked on his letter. “We’re going to show up,” he said. Fox host Jane Skinner observed that his letter to the White House “wasn’t in the tone of bipartisanship.” The segment concluded:
SKINNER: But again, quickly, you’re showing up to this televised thing, right?
CANTOR: Absolutely. Republicans have always said, we stand ready and willing to work with this President.
Watch it:
Cantor has stood “ready and willing” to obstruct health care from the beginning. He has been unable to offer any compromises that the GOP would be willing to make; he has lifted Frank Luntz’s language on how to kill reform; and, he has even advised his constituents to seek out “charitable organizations” if they’re in need of medical care.
On Sunday, President Obama announced his intention to host a televised bipartisan meeting on health care reform “to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.” Yesterday, congressional GOP leaders responded with a list of preconditions for simply sitting down with the President and Democrats.
In a letter to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) wrote that, “[i]f the starting point for this meeting” is the bills that passed the House and Senate, “Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.” They also called on Obama to take reconciliation off the table as a “show good faith” to the GOP.
Yesterday on Fox News, Bill Kristol — who has made no secret of his desire to kill health care reform — criticized Boehner and Cantor for setting preconditions and being disrespectful to Obama, adding that they should instead be more direct about their intention not to meet the President half way:
KRISTOL: Obviously when the president invites you to the White House you go. They should politely go and tell him he should kill this terrible bill that the House and Senate — or two bills the House and Senate Democrats have put together and start over. [...]
And Republicans should hold their ground and they shouldn’t be apologetic, they shouldn’t snipe at the president. This letter they sent today I think is silly. Is it really going to be bipartisan? Is it really going to be transparent? You said you were going to be bipartisan in the past.
Forget all that. Just say we welcome a substantive debate. We have been engaged in substantive debate in health care, we Republicans, for a year, and we are perfectly happy to continue that debate. And Mr. President if you want to come to the position of small incremental, sensible reforms in the health care system, more than happy to work with you.
Watch it:
Preconditions or not, it’s clear that both Kristol and the GOP want the same thing — to ultimately kill health care reform. Kristol is merely suggesting to his friends that they make it clearer. Indeed, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted last night on MSNBC that the reality is that the GOP’s position means that a bipartisan compromise will be next to impossible to achieve:
KLEIN: There are two sides with different sets of ideas and they disagree about the ideas and if they can compromise on them, then we get a bill. In fact, you have two sides where one side wants a bill and the other does not want the bill, and it’s actually very hard to compromise between those two positions.
Steve Benen notes that the summit “puts Republicans in an awkward spot.” “If they participate, they’ll very likely lose the policy debate. If they reject the invitation, they’ll look petty and small (even more so than usual).”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
