During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) complained that United States policy towards Iran is not tough enough. McCain reportedly said that while the United States keeps pointing a loaded gun at Iran, it has yet “pull the trigger”:
Senator John McCain says the United States has been backing away from a brewing fight with Iran, while that country moves ever closer to having nuclear weapons.
McCain opened a Senate hearing Wednesday by saying that Iran will get the bomb unless the United States acts more boldly.
Speaking figuratively, the Arizona Republican says the U.S. keeps pointing a loaded gun at Iran but failing to “pull the trigger.”
After famously singing the words “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ song Barbara Ann in 2007, McCain later said he was joking, telling his critics to “lighten up and get a life.”
Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue
Last month, Baker — who is also running for the Democratic nomination for Governor — rebuffed Governor Sonny Perdue’s (R) calls to file a lawsuit, telling Perdue, “Considering the state‘s severe budgetary crisis, with vital services like education and law enforcement being cut deeply, I cannot justify a decision to initiate expensive and time-consuming litigation that I believe has no legal merit.” But Republicans persisted, drafting legislation that would have forced the attorney general to sue the federal government and introducing a bill to impeach Baker for refusing to take part in the lawsuit.
Having failed to force Baker’s hand, however, Perdue has now appointed Frank Jones, a lawyer in private practice, as a special assistant attorney general to file the suit. As Baker explained to Rachel Maddow last month, ” I could find absolutely no basis to file a lawsuit”:
BAKER: I took a look at the Constitution of the United States. I took a look at applicable law. I looked at all of the claims that are being raised around the country. I could find absolutely no basis to file a lawsuit. We took a look at the Commerce Clause. Commerce – the legislature has a broad expansive power when we talk about the Commerce Clause. There‘s been a lot of discussion about the government taxing and spending for this effort. Listen. That question has been settle since 1937 in this country. Congress absolutely has the power to do it.
At least 20 different states are now suing the federal government over health care reform (19 have joined the Florida suit and Virginia is pursuing its own case). The tactic has created a rift between Governors and their AGs. Republican Governors have questioned the motives of Democratic Attorneys General in Georgia, Nevada, and Mississippi and at least three other Governors — Govs. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), Jane Brewer (R-AZ), Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) — have announced that they would sue the government over the objections of their AGs.
Earlier this week, Georgia’s insurance commissioner John Oxendine, a Republican who is also running for Governor, said that the state won’t participate in the first phase of a new federal health care law which requires that states establish interim high-risk pools to provide coverage for individuals cannot find affordable coverage in the individual health insurance market.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Earlier this year, conservatives developed a conspiracy theory in which the Obama administration manipulated the redesign of the Missile Defense Agency to incorporate the Islamic crescent as part of a “submission to Shariah by President Obama and his team.” In fact, as Richard Lehner of the Missile Defense Agency told Fox News, the logo “was used prior to the 2008 election.” Now, the right-wing has worked itself into a fit over another Obama administration logo, this time claiming that the logo for Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit has the “kind of crescent moon you see on the flags of Muslim countries,” in the words of the New York Post’s Michael Goodwin. Goodwin’s argument has been echoed in the conservative blogosphere and, not surprisingly, was picked up by Fox News. Watch it:
Here is the logo:
Last month, the Dove World Outreach Center — a church in Gainesville, FL that attracted attention last year for erected a sign reading “Islam is of the devil” — posted a new sign stating “No homo Mayor.” The message was directed at Craig Lowe, an openly gay candidate in Gainesville’s mayoral race run-off. “We don’t feel as though the city should be represented by a homosexual,” said Terry Jones, a senior pastor at Dove World. When the media raised questions about whether such advocacy violated the church’s tax status, Dove World changed its sign to just say, “No Homo.” Despite this homophobic campaign, Gainesville elected Lowe as its newest mayor yesterday. However, he won by just 35 votes, so there will automatically be a recount. If Lowe takes office, he will be “among about 30 gay or lesbian mayors nationwide.”
Last month a Republican urologist in Florida posted a sign on his office door telling his patients that if they voted for President Obama, they should “seek urologic care elsewhere.” Despite later admitting that he knew little about the new law, the sign added: “Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.”
The Daily Caller reports that another doctor has pulled a similar stunt. Arizona dermatologist Joseph Scherzer put a sign outside his office warning his patients that he will be closing his doors because of the new law. “If you voted for Obamacare, be aware these doors will close before it goes into effect,” the sign reads. Scherzer — a self-described conservative — claims that the “stress” the law will supposedly impose will cause him to close up shop:
“I’m absolutely serious [about stopping practicing] and it’s not just because I’ll be nearing 65,” Scherzer said. “The stress is what would push me out the door.” [...]
Scherzer said the bill’s emphasis on punitive measures for physicians not following government-prescribed treatment methods under Medicare would increase his anxiety level to the point he would no longer be able to practice medicine.
“Doctors have actually committed suicide over these things,” Scherzer said. But it’s unclear what punitive measures Scherzer is referring to. One possibility is comparative effectiveness research (CER) into which treatments work most effectively. Indeed, conservatives have been using this provision in their attacks on health care reform to claim it would ration care, impose standards and prevent certain kinds of treatment. But as the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky noted, “CER is a recommendation, not a mandate.”
Or perhaps Scherzer is referring to basic Medicare billing fraud. But presumably he had to provide proper documentation for Medicare services provided before the President signed the bill into law. The new law simply strengthens these accountability measures to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
Like the Florida urologist, Scherzer may not be aware of what’s actually in the law. In fact, if he stays in business, Scherzer has the opportunity to perhaps reduce his anxiety level with added benefits such as an “increase in Medicaid payment rates.” Moreover, the American Medical Association has an extensive list of benefits for physicians that will come from the Affordable Care Act, including bonus payments and geographic payment differentials.
Before President Obama took office in January 2009 in the midst of an economic crisis, Rush Limbaugh was rooting for his failure, declaring “I hope Obama fails.” Though some GOP leaders claimed that “no one wants” Obama “to fail,” Limbaugh’s comments were endorsed by many leading conservatives. In an interview with radio host Scott Hennen yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that conservatives were hoping “that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed”:
HENNEN: I’m proudly accepting that label of rooting for failure for his policies, not for any one personal individual or anything else, but, I mean, should we, is that what Republicans are doing? Are we rooting for failure? Is David Axelrod right?
BACHMANN: We’re, we’re, we’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed, exactly as you said. And of course, David Axelrod unfortunately seems to be wanting to smear people who disagree with the president. We’ve seen that over and over at Tea Party events, at gatherings where people say, “look, I don’t like this idea of out of control spending and accumulating deficits that our kids have no possibility of paying back.” And to think that those of us, we who disagree with that very ill-thought out idea are being smeared, I think that’s really wrong.
Listen here:
Bachmann is free to disagree with Obama’s policies, and it’s not surprising that she thinks they are the wrong policies to pursue. But considering that the goal of something like the stimulus is to create jobs and help the economy recover, it’s odd that Bachmann would actively want Obama’s policies to fail. She might think it will fail, but why would she want it to fail in creating jobs? Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert has argued that because of “the right-wing’s obsessive campaign against Obama,” they “latch onto this idea that the economy is being driven off a cliff, which means that basically” they are “now rooting for bad news.”
“Former President Bill Clinton will give the keynote speech Friday at a symposium marking the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.” The event, which is sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the Democratic Leadership Council, will examine the bombing, “how the country reacted to it, and what lessons we can learn from it today about our political discourse.”
With financial reform moving through Congress, “Wall Street, perhaps more than any other industry, is bolstering its lobbying forces, and turning more and more to former lawmakers and Congressional staff members to lead the fight against stiff rules.” “More than 125 former Congressional aides and lawmakers are now working for financial firms as part of a multibillion-dollar effort” to shape regulation.
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) signed yesterday the nation’s first law “to restrict abortions on the basis of fetal pain.” The law, which “grew out of a battle” over whether murdered abortion doctor George Tiller’s practice could be moved to the state, bans “most abortions 20 weeks after conception.”
The Arizona House of Representatives by a 35-21 vote adopted harsh new measures aimed at curbing undocumented immigration. The measures include allowing police officers to arrest anyone who can’t provide documentation and allowing people to sue government agencies if they adopt policies that obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws.
One-time Tea Party darling Carl Paladino, a Buffalo real estate mogul running for New York governor, has been abandoned by many of his conservative followers after reports broke that he forwarded racist, sexually explicit e-mails. “Republican leaders from nine Albany-area counties” withdrew their invitation to Paladino to speak at a forum for state-wide candidates, and the Tea Party Express has disowned him.
Today, a federal court ordered a county in Walthall County in Mississippi to “stop segregating its schools by grouping African American students into all-black classrooms and allowing white students to transfer to the county’s only majority-white school.” From the Justice Department’s press release:
“More than 55 years after Brown v. Board of Education, it is unacceptable for school districts to act in a way that encourages or tolerates the resegregation of public schools,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We will take action so that school districts subject to federal desegregation orders comply with their obligation to eliminate vestiges of separate black and white schools.”
According to the motion, the district’s practice of permitting hundreds of students — the vast majority whom are white — to attend schools outside their assigned residential attendance zone without restriction prompted a disproportionate number of white students to attend a single school in the district, leaving a number of other schools disproportionately black.
Indeed, evidence in the case suggested that the community regarded certain schools in the district as “white schools” or “black schools.” The United States also asserted that officials in certain district schools grouped, or “clustered,” white students together in particular classrooms, resulting in large numbers of all-black classes at every grade level in those schools.
After being confirmed as attorney general, Eric Holder said that he would make sure the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division return to its traditional role of pushing “high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly.” During the Bush administration, officials — who were hired for their “strong conservative credentials” rather than their civil rights experience — “discouraged such tactics.”
Last year, Rick Scott emerged as the public face of the right-wing forces dedicated to stopping health reform. As first reported by the Wonk Room, Scott hired the same Republican public relations firm that managed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in 2004 to organize his campaign against health reform. Scott’s Conservatives for Patients’ Rights ran nasty, fact-less attack ads against the public option, encouraged Tea Party groups to ambush lawmakers at town halls, and lobbied aggressively (with the support of insurers) to block reform legislation.
Just as his attack group seemingly disappeared from the public discourse, Scott launched a new effort: to become the next Republican Governor of Florida. Scott’s website already seems to have difficulty distancing himself from his shady business dealings. Scott neglects to mention his disgraced business history, instead portraying himself as a “conservative outsider.” His website directs visitors to send campaign contributions to the same office as his private investment firm. In the past, his firm has invested heavily in technology firms instrumental in helping repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
As ThinkProgress has reported, before Scott entered politics, he made a career out of buying up hospitals and downsizing them for profit. But his quest for creating the “McDonald’s Of Health Care” ended abruptly in shame. As detailed in our report, not only was Scott forced to resign from his HCA corporation after paying $1.7 billion in penalties for the largest healthcare fraud settlement in history, much of his exploitation of hospitals actually occurred in Florida:
– Maggie Mahar wrote in Money Driven Medicine that doctors in Scott’s hospital workers in Florida complained, “gloves come in only one size, and rip easily.” [Money Driven Medicine, pg. 119]
– Scott bought community and nonprofit hospitals and turned them into profit driven companies. In Destin, Florida, Scott bought the community hospital with the intention of shutting it down to diminish competition. [San Diego Union, 12/8/96]
– Nine of Scott’s hospitals in South Florida were charged for systematically double-billing the government in one of the largest Medicare fraud schemes in history. [Tribune, 2/17/00]
Watch ThinkProgress’ mini-documentary on Rick Scott’s history of putting profits ahead of patients:
Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) continues to struggle with questions about why he wants to repeal a health care law that is so similar to the health reforms he signed in 2006 as Governor of Massachusetts. As he travels the country promoting his new book, Romney has had to embrace his plan while at the same time attacking Obama’s very similar proposal. This rather nuanced position has led the governor to adopt a series of contradictory positions. Recently, Romney argued that the individual mandate is unconstitutional (after saying in 2008, “I like mandates. The mandates work.”), insisted that Massachusetts is not a model for federal health reform (after saying in 2009 that “Massachusetts is a model for getting everybody insured“), and called his plan “the ultimate pro-life effort” (even though it covers abortions).
Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly further challenged Romney on the success of RomneyCare, forcing the governor to defend his plan and admit that Massachusetts relied on federal dollars to expand health care coverage. “Actually, from the beginning the plan was a 50/50 deal between the federal government and the state government,” Romney said in response to O’Reilly’s claim that state spending on health care was out of control. “The feds fund half of it, they have from the very beginning,” he repeated, while maintaining that Massachusetts solved “a problem at the state level.”
O’Reilly wasn’t buying it:
O’REILLY: You know me. I’m a simple man. Okay? You say you solved the problem in the state, but depending on 50 percent of your funding from the Feds.
ROMNEY: As we did from the beginning.
O’REILLY: Okay, but I’m just telling you, I don’t know if you solved the problem or the people in Idaho solved it.
ROMNEY: No, but what we did is we took the money the Feds used to send us–
O’REILLY: Yes.
ROMNEY: –to give to the hospitals that were giving out free care. The hospitals were doing that before. And we said, look, can we take that money that you give to us that we give to the hospitals and instead of giving it to hospitals–
O’REILLY: You’ve spread it around.
ROMNEY: We’re going to use it to help people buy insurance.
O’REILLY: Okay. One more and–
ROMNEY: It was not a new burden on the federal government. It was a redirection of what they’ve been doing before.
Watch the exchange:
National reform is “going to be a huge entitlement, which is the federal government taking power away from the states,” Romney maintained. “We solved our problem at the state level. We did it without raising taxes. That’s the key.” But this isn’t quite accurate. Massachusetts did tax insurers, hospitals, and employers (as well as individuals who refused to purchase coverage) to fund health reform.
Romney is pretending that Massachusetts decided to one day solve “our problem at the state level” by simply rerouting existing federal funds to pay for the changes. In reality, the federal government pressured the state to change its Medicaid program or lose $385 million dollars, thus helping bring about reform. The federal dollars Romney used to expand coverage came with strings attached — the state had to shift federal resources from supporting individual hospitals to funding health insurance coverage for uninsured individuals — and the state had to seek the federal government’s seal of approval.
The same thing is true about the federal health care bill. It provides states with federal funding to expand the Medicaid program, establish high-risk insurance pools, set up exchanges and then gives states some leeway in implementation. The health care law establishes federal standards and is obviously much broader in scope than the Massachusetts plan, but it’s predicated on the principle that states simply aren’t capable of reforming something as large as health reform without federal assistance. Romney should know that better than anyone.
At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich outlined a two-tiered strategy for the GOP if they win elections in 2010 and 2012: 1) Refuse to fund any of Democrats’ “radical efforts” if Republicans win control of Congress in November, and 2) Repeal “every radical bill passed by the [Democratic] machine” if Republicans win Congress and the presidency in 2012.
Basically, Gingrich seemed to be advocating a shutdown of the federal government similar to the one he orchestrated in 1995. Today, ThinkProgress attended a blogger briefing hosted by the Heritage Foundation and asked the former Speaker whether he believes his strategy could possibly lead to a government shutdown, and if he thinks conservatives should embrace that possibility. Gingrich replied that if a shutdown does occur, it would all be President Obama’s fault:
GINGRICH: Well, look — I think that would be up to President Obama. As long as the Congress passes an appropriations bill, the President would then have to decide to sign it or veto it. If the President decides on an unpopular issue that he is going to veto the Congress’ restraint of spending, I think the Congress should tolerate that.
I think having a fight over — I’m not for shutting the government down. I wasn’t for shutting the government down in ‘95. But I was for drawing a line in the sand and saying we weren’t going to allow the President to coerce us into doing things we didn’t believe in. [...]
But we will have the votes to not pass any more money. And clearly under the Constitution, all money has to originate in the Congress. So it’s perfectly legitimate for the Congress to say, I can’t as a matter of good faith to the very people who elected me, give you money to do something they elected me not to do. Now if the President then wants to force a crisis, you’d have to see how the crisis worked its way out. But I’m wouldn’t be sure going into it, how it would work out.
And it might be that you could isolate what you’re fighting over. Pass an appropriations bill that is everything except the health bill, and then pass an appropriations bill just for the health bill. Now, he would then have to decide to veto all the parts of government you’re not offending, in order to try to raise public pressure. That’s a pretty hard thing for him to sustain, even with his rhetorical skills.
At a breakfast this morning sponsored by the American Spectator and Americans for Tax Reform, Gingrich also said that “the only person who can close the government is the president.” Watch his remarks at the Heritage Foundation:
Gingrich’s government shutdown was incredibly unpopular with the American public. His personal disapproval ratings reached a high of 65 percent, and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that Gingrich “made the mistake of his life.” In 1996, even Gingrich himself admitted that “‘our strategy failed’ because Mr. Clinton and his allies, instead of surrendering and making a budget deal, ‘were tougher than I thought they would be.’”
It seems that 14 years have led to a change of heart. At today’s Heritage event, Gingrich argued that Republicans did “win” after the shutdown during the Clinton administration. “Tell me in what way we didn’t win,” Gingrich said, adding, “We took on a liberal Democratic president. We stopped the government in its tracks. We moved to the first four years of balanced budget in a generation. We had the lowest rate of increase in four years since Calvin Coolidge. And we got re-elected for the first time since 1928. Which of those is bad?”
Shareholders are calling on Massey Energy to seek the immediate resignation of chairman and CEO Don Blankenship in the aftermath of the West Virginia disaster that killed 29 miners, the worst in forty years. The Change to Win Investment Group — a union pension fund group with over $200 billion in assets — believes the Upper Big Branch mine explosion is the “tragic consequence of the board’s failure to challenge Chairman and CEO Blankenship’s confrontational approach to regulatory compliance.” New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, who controls about $14.1 million of Massey stock as the trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, blasted Massey’s “callous disregard for the safety of its employees” as a “failure both of risk management and effective board oversight”:
Massey’s cavalier attitude toward risk and callous disregard for the safety of its employees has exacted a horrible cost on dozens of hard-working miners and their loved ones. This tragedy was a failure both of risk management and effective board oversight. Blankenship must step down and make room for more responsible leadership at Massey.
Early this morning, the last of the 29 bodies of the miners killed were recovered from the mine. Yesterday, Standard & Poors upgraded Massey to a “buy,” saying the tragedy’s “financial effect” was “immaterial.”
This morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) declared his opposition to the financial reform bill before the Senate. McConnell claimed to have principled objections to the bill, saying that it “institutionalizes” bailouts of Wall Street and that it would give the Federal Reserve “enhanced emergency lending authority that is far too open to abuse.”
What McConnell did not mention was that, last week, he traveled alongside National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn (TX) to New York City for a private meeting with elite hedge fund managers and other Wall Street executives. The purpose of the meeting between the top Republicans and the financial executives was to enlist “Wall Street’s help” in funding Republican campaigns in the fall and killing any tough financial reform:
As a financial reform bill starts to take shape in Washington, two key lawmakers came to New York City last week to explain what it means for Wall Street, and how financial executives might help prevent some of its least market-friendly aspects from becoming law by electing more Republicans, FOX Business Network has learned.
About 25 Wall Street executives, many of them hedge fund managers, sat down for a private meeting Thursday afternoon with two of the most powerful Republican lawmakers in Congress: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and John Cornyn, the senior senator from Texas who runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, one of the primary fundraising arms of the Republican Party. [...]
In order to assure [Republican electoral] gains, and add even more, McConnell and Cornyn made it clear they need Wall Street’s help.
Separately, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) met with hedge fund managers this morning and told them that “Democrats’ solution for financial reform consists of two words: government control.” He added, “America will continue to be the home of freedom and the free market; the place where liberty prevails.”
As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo writes, Republicans are making “a habit” out of meeting with lobbyists to kill important reforms. In June 2009, Senate Republicans worked closely with health care lobbyists to kill the public option. In the same month they also organized a “hearing” with energy industry representatives designed around defeating cap-and-trade. In December, the House Republican leadership huddled with more than 100 financial lobbyists to debate the strategy for killing financial reform. And in February of this year, House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) met with JP Morgan chief Jamie Dimon to try to convince him to funnel funds to the Republican Party after the Democrats started getting tougher on Wall Street. Boehner last month told financial lobbyists to not let “punk staffers” take advantage of them, and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) asked bankers to donate $10,000 to Rep. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) Senate campaign.
It should be noted that some Democrats have continued to court corporate interests as well. Earlier this year, twelve Democratic senators spent a weekend fundraising at a private retreat in Miami Beach with lobbyists from the American Bankers Association, drug companies, and defense contractors. (HT: OpenLeft)
In 2007, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly came under heavy criticism after attending Harlem soul food restaurant Sylvia’s with the Rev. Al Sharpton. O’Reilly said that he “couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s Restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City…even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” He later observed, “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’” O’Reilly defended his comments by saying that he was trying to show “white America” that they didn’t have to “fear” blacks.
Last night on his Fox News show, O’Reilly hosted the Weekly Standard’s Mary Katharine Ham and NPR’s Juan Williams, who stood up for O’Reilly during the Sylvia’s controversy. O’Reilly said that he — and other “white journalists” — have stopped highlighting the “problems” of African-Americans because he doesn’t want to be “taken out of context” by “sleazeoids” like Media Matters:
O’REILLY: Now, Juan, in a serious vein, and we talked about this with the infamous Sylvia deal a couple of ago, a few years ago, I, and many other white journalists, now don’t do nearly as many reports on African-Americans or their problems, because we don’t want to be put in a situation where our opinion is taken out of context, rammed down our throat as Media Matters and all these other sleazeoids do. So unless it’s a big thing, if it’s an optional thing where I used to do it, I’m not doing it anymore. If I go to Sylvia’s restaurant, a primarily black restaurant, very fine in Harlem, I’m not going to say anything about it anymore, which is not good for Sylvia’s because she got a lot of good publicity from that.
Watch it:
It may surprise O’Reilly, but it is possible for “white journalists” to offer insightful coverage on issues in communities of color. The reason O’Reilly faces criticism is not because he’s taken out of context, but because his analysis is often condescending and demeaning. In July, for example, he tried to tell African-Americans whom they can and cannot hold up as icons. In January, he lamented that he can’t make fun of Arabs anymore because it’s considered politically incorrect. O’Reilly has been trying to make himself and other “white Americans” into victims for years. In February 2007, he said that African-Americans should “feel sorry for us white folks here, because I’m telling you now I’m afraid to say anything. … White Americans are terrified.”
Despite all this, O’Reilly still claims he is totally colorblind when it comes to race. (HT: Mediaite)
Last Friday, Rush Limbaugh asked why a coal miner union didn’t protect the 29 miners who were killed when Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, WV, exploded under unsafe conditions:
Was there no union responsibility for improving mine safety? Where was the union here? Where was the union? The union is generally holding these companies up demanding all kinds of safety. Why were these miners continuing to work in what apparently was an unsafe atmosphere?
Listen here:
There’s a simple reason the union didn’t protect the miners: the Upper Big Branch Mine, like nearly all of the mines under Massey CEO Don Blankenship’s control, is non-union. In fact, the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) “tried three times to organize the Upper Big Branch mine, but even with getting nearly 70 percent of workers to sign cards saying they wanted to vote for a union, Blankenship personally met with workers to threaten them with closing down the mine and losing their jobs if they voted for a union.”
Blankenship rose in Massey’s ranks by breaking its union mines in the 1980s. Blankenship said then that busting unions is “invaluable” to profits, as non-union companies can “sell coal cheaper and drive union coal out of business.”
Union mines have a significantly better safety record than non-union mines especially for major disasters, as union miners can refuse unsafe work and report dangerous conditions without fear of retaliation. In addition to preventing Blankenship-style intimidation, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would increase whistleblower protections for non-union and union workers alike. Under Blankenship’s direction, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association have spent millions to oppose passage of such legislation for worker rights, comparing it to a “firestorm bordering on Armageddon.”
Immediately following the tragedy, the UMW sent trained support personnel to the disaster site. “We are all brothers and sisters in the coalfields at times like this,” UMW President Cecil Roberts said in a statement offering the assistance, which was refused by Massey company officials.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma tea party leaders, “frustrated by recent political setbacks,” are working with right-wing Republicans in the Oklahoma legislature to create a new “volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.” State Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-OK) and State Rep. Charles Key (R-OK) have met with tea party leaders, like J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea group, to plan legislation for a state-authorized militia. Brogdon, who is running for Governor and sponsored the right-wing anti-health reform “state sovereignty” resolution in his state, explained that he believes his anti-federal government militia has constitutional backing:
The founding fathers “were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren’t even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other,” Brogdon said. “The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government.”
But critics say the tea party militia idea could “throw fuel in the fire of radicals.” Even some Republicans are opposed to Brogdon’s initiative. “If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard,” said Sen. Steve Russell, (R-OK), a retired Army lieutenant colonel. “Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution.” Indeed, the news of the state-sponsored militia movement arrives shortly before the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, on April 19.
Berry, the tea party leader who first solicited support for the militia, has posted rants against President Obama: the “Muslim President” — a “reincarnation of Pol Pot” who is trying imprison Americans for resisting health reform. One ominous posting from Berry says that his militia should “launch a thousand guerrilla attacks on the plans that these people have to ruin us and our country.”
Both Berry and Brogdon lean heavily on far right propaganda and media outlets to fuel their conspiracy theories. Berry frequently cites conservative news outlets like CNS and notes that he draws inspiration from the white supremacist thriller The Turner Diaries. Despite his extremism, Berry has met with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other members of the Oklahoma Republican delegation, and counts them as “rock solid.” Brogdon, whose states’ rights resolution was drafted by corporate lobbyists opposed to health reform, has been endorsed by the lobbyist-run Tea Party Express and has appeared on on Fox News, Alex Jones’ radio show, and at a Glenn Beck rally.
Last year, after Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement, speculation mounted about whether President Obama could potentially appoint the first openly gay Justice. Conservatives were unsure of how to respond to that possibility. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, initially indicated that he was open to the idea, but later backtracked, declaring that an openly gay nominee would be “a big concern.” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said such an appointment “would be a bridge too far right now.” With Justice John Paul Stevens now retiring, the question has been raised again. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) says he has to “think about” it before deciding:
Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, was initially reluctant when asked if he would support an openly gay nominee — as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said last year he might.
“I’d have to think about that,” he said. “As long as it doesn’t interfere with their job, it’s not a particular issue.”
Cornyn, who has advocated for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, once prepared a speech that argued against gay marriage by comparing gay men and women to box turtles.
The Dow Jones industrial average yesterday closed above 11,000 for the first time since the beginning of the financial crisis in September 2008. Analysts say the milestone is a “confidence booster” and “reinforces the growing belief on Wall Street that the recovery in the economy and markets remains on track.”
In a 60-34 vote, the Senate yesterday advanced critical legislation extending critical unemployment benefits. GOP Sens. Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH) joined all Democrats present in voting for the bill. A final vote on the measure “could happen Tuesday, but is more likely toward the end of the week.”
“The federal deficit is running significantly lower than it did last year, with the budget gap for the first half of fiscal 2010 down 8 percent over the same period a year ago,” according to senior Obama administration officials. “If the trend continues for the rest of the year, it would mean the annual deficit would be $1.3 trillion — about $300 billion less than the administration’s projection two months ago for 2010.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in a radio interview yesterday that “repealing” health care reform has to be the “No. 1 priority” for Republicans. “They got everything else in the entire bureaucracy that they need to control our healthcare system … with the signing of this bill,” said Boehner.
In a meeting with President Obama yesterday, Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed “to pursue new economic sanctions against Iran, but stopped short of committing his government’s support for the additional strictures aimed at persuading Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.” A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said the U.S. and China “share the same overall goal on the Iranian nuclear issue.”
Posting on a message board for Texas A&M students and alumni, a user named “dermdoc” wrote last week that he “laid off my first Obama voting employee today.” “Our reimbursement rates are spiraling downward, taxes are projected to go up with Obamacare, so I did it,” the poster wrote, adding: “I made this decision because I can.” CBSNews.com’s Brian Montopoli reports that he tried to contact “the person who we believe to have been responsible for the posting, but our requests for comment went unanswered.” “It is kind of interesting watching their face as you explain to them the economic consequences of the policies of the guy they voted for,” wrote dermdoc. “That is the way business works,” he added. “If that makes me an ahole, so be it.” Here’s a screenshot of one of dermdoc’s messages:
These purported concerns over burdensome costs on physicians is pure fear-mongering. The new health law actually “includes an increase in Medicaid payment rates,” which is “expected to be pretty helpful” for most doctors. That is one of the reasons why the American Medical Association endorsed the Affordable Care Act. The American College of Physicians called the law “an extraordinary achievement.”
there was no layoff of anyone at my office. ... I was merely making a hypothetical because of frustration with decreased reimbursements and future increased taxes.
Last week, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who is running for the Senate, visited with health care professionals in Springfield, MO to hear their take on health care reform. On Friday, KSPR, an ABC affiliate in Missouri, aired footage from the meeting, capturing Blunt saying that unlike children, adults shouldn’t be protected from being discriminated against for insurance because of pre-existing conditions:
BLUNT: Access for kids who have pre-existing conditions, who would be against that? But access for adults, who have done nothing to take care of themselves, who actually will have as I’ve just described every incentive not to get insurance until the day that you know that you’re going to have medical expenses, that’s, that’s a very different kind of story.
Watch it:
In its report, KSPR notes that “Blunt says his plan offers protections for pre-existing conditions, but a check of his website shows his proposal would not stop insurance companies from denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.” This isn’t the first far-right health care position Blunt has taken. In July 2009, he suggested that the “government should have never” started Medicare and Medicaid.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
