This morning, the Labor Department released its employment data for December, showing that the U.S. economy ended the year by adding 113,000 private sector jobs, knocking the unemployment rate down sharply from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent — its lowest rate since July 2009. The “surprising drop — which was far better than the modest step-down economists had forecast — was the steepest one-month fall since 1998.” October and November’s jobs numbers were also revised upward by almost 80,000 each. Still, 14.5 million Americans remain unemployed, and jobs will have to be created much faster in coming months for the country to pull itself out of the economic doldrums.
Responding the jobs report, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created “more jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.”
Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by Pelosi’s office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs:
As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,” the Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained. “On every major measurement” of income and employment, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.
One of the first orders of business in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a move to repeal the landmark health care reform law that was passed last March. However, following Rep. Andy Harris’s (R-MD) infamous rant about the delay in his congressional health care coverage, the media is beginning to question whether the GOP is hypocritical for decrying the specter of “government-run health care,” yet accepting government-sponsored health care plans for themselves.
For instance, yesterday, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) justified accepting government-subsidized health care for himself because, “God forbid I get into an accident and I can’t afford the operation…That can happen to anyone.” In an interview with ThinkProgress, Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) said that he supported congressmen receiving government-sponsored health coverage because “it’s not unreasonable to offer those benefits.” Seven Republican congressmen, however, are trying to remain consistent by opting out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.
This week, ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) to ask whether he would be joining his colleagues in rejecting government-sponsored health care for himself, given his push to repeal health care reform for the nation. Schock told us the “only” reason he would stay on the congressional health care plan because he was “a 27-year-old single male” who was “actually lowering” the premiums of his older colleagues. He also brushed off the notion that this was hypocritical on his part, calling them “completely separate issues,” despite the numerous similarities including taxpayer subsidies and a highly-regulated exchange:
SCHOCK: It is, yeah. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield when I came here as a 27-year-old single male. I paid about $80 a month. And now, because I’m in a risk pool with a bunch of older seniors, my health care costs me $170 a month now for the same Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage. So I think it’s kind of interesting how people make such a big deal out of the health care coverage we have, which is not bad by any means. But I haven’t given it much thought because quite frankly I think I’m helping out the institution by lowering the risk pool for some of my older guys.
TP: I just know there are a lot of people who have made the hypocrisy charge, that there’s an average of $700 per month in taxpayer subsidies on these employee government health care plans, yet saying that the general public is not getting the same types of subsidies and help in buying health insurance for themselves.
SCHOCK: No, I get that argument. The only thing I would submit is because I’m an outlier in the group, I’m actually lowering the…(crosstalk)…When you’re under 30 in a body of…but, so.
TP2: Sir, you receive taxpayer subsidies even though you do have a lower rate. And you’re within a pool that’s highly regulated, as health reform does for the rest of the nation. Don’t you think it’s fair if you’re going to repeal health reform for everyone else, you should at least reject this subsidized, highly-regulated plan that members of Congress and their staff benefit from?
SCHOCK: No, I really actually think they’re completely separate issues.
TP2: Why’s that?
SCHOCK: Because I don’t think what we do with the health care bill has anything to do with what kind of health insurance programs members of Congress pay for.
TP2: No, it’s quite similar. There’s an exchange, there’s subsidies, just like you benefit from an exchange and subsidies, that are paid for by taxpayers.
SCHOCK: Well, I think the bill we voted on is completely different.
Watch it:
The Kentucky state Senate passed a law yesterday mandating that women seeking an abortion must wait 24 hours before the procedure is performed, and also must be shown an ultrasound of the fetus. The measure, which passed 32-5, requires that women receive an ultrasound and see the results, and if she chooses to avert her eyes, the “doctor still would have to describe to her the image.” Cases of rape or incest are not exempted from this requirement, and doctors face fines as high as $250,000 for disobeying the law.
Forced ultrasounds are becoming an increasingly popular tool for the anti-choice movement; 20 states have laws encouraging or requiring ultrasounds be performed before an abortion. Kentucky would be the first state to mandate the ultrasound information be impressed upon the woman if this measure is enacted. The bill must be passed by the state House and then signed by Gov. Steve Beshear (D).
Women’s rights groups have long maintained that ultrasound requirements interfere with the doctor-patient relationship by forcing providers to give unnecessary information to patients. “The laws don’t work. … [A]nd they don’t respect women’s ability to make informed choices,” Vicki A. Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, has said. Oklahoma had a similar requirement for six days before a court struck it down, and providers in the area reported that it inflicted serious emotional pain on patients but did not result in any abortion procedures being canceled:
During the six days the law was in effect, all of the patients at the Reproductive Services abortion clinic in Tulsa averted their eyes from the ultrasound screen, said Linda S. Meek, the clinic’s director. But they could not avoid hearing descriptions of fetal length and heart activity, she said. Many left in tears, but none changed course.
“It’s very intrusive, and very cruel,” Ms. Meek said.
Women in other states, interviewed this summer by the New York Times, echoed the view that ultrasound information inflicted needless emotional pain:
Laura, who asked that her last name not be used, had come to the New Woman All Women Health Care clinic in Birmingham with her mind set on having an abortion. And she felt that seeing the image of her bean-size fetus would only unleash her already hormonal emotions, without changing her mind.
“It just would have added to the pain of what is already a difficult decision,” she said later. [...]
Laura, who has a 17-year-old son, said she took offense at the state’s implicit suggestion that she had not fully considered her choice.
“You don’t just walk into one of these places like you’re getting your nails done,” she said. “I think we’re armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured.”
The bill is clearly required to limit, as much as possible, the right of women in Kentucky to receive abortions. Aside from purposely inflicting emotional pain on patients, the 24-hour waiting period would be “harmful for poor or working women in rural areas who have to travel to get an abortion,” since the state’s two abortion clinics are in Lexington and Louisville. Anti-choicers in the state Senate actually attached an amendment to this bill that would ban all abortions in the state outright, so they could “take care of this in one fell swoop.” The amendment failed for one rather ironic reason: it was ruled out of order because it was not filed 24 hours before consideration by the full Senate.
This is Part 2 of a three-part installment of ThinkProgress’ interview with David Koch. Watch Part 1 here.
This week, ThinkProgress conducted an impromptu interview with David Koch — one of the richest men in America, co-owner of the conglomerate Koch Industries, and a top financier of right-wing front groups — after we found him leaving the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In the first part of the interview, Koch said that he “admire[s]” the Tea Party movement, and that “the rank and file are just normal people like us.” As ThinkProgress has detailed, Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.
When we tried to speak to Koch — who never said he did not want to talk to us — his employee Tim Phillips, president of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, tried to push ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes away and yelled into the camera Keyes was holding. Phillips is a prolific “astroturf” lobbyist who has worked for Jack Abramoff’s forced-abortion sweatshop clients, Enron, and had a hand in an anti-Semitic campaign against Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) first bid for Congress. Despite Phillips’ distractions, Koch answered several of our questions about climate science and global warming.
Asked why Koch’s Americans for Prosperity focuses so much on denying climate change, Koch said it was because “regulating CO2 excessively … really damage[s] the economy.” Koch however was hesitant to answer if he himself believes in climate change. He eventually denied anthropogenic global warming by giving a standard climate denier response: “Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.” However, he simply shrugged when asked if carbon pollution — like the carbon pollution Koch Industries heavily contributes to — affects climate change:
FANG: Why does Americans for Prosperity focus so much on the science of climate change? I’m just curious why they spread so much information that denies the existence of climate, of global warming?
KOCH: Well… I think it’s uh, regulating CO2 excessively is going to put — uh really damage the economy.
FANG: Do you believe in climate change yourself? [...] Do you believe in climate change yourself, Mr. Koch?
KOCH: Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.
FANG: But do you believe carbon pollution affects climate change? [Koch shrugs]
Watch it:
It is doubtful that Koch, who was educated at MIT, seriously believes that climate simply “fluctuate[s]” from “hot to cold” (although the exhibit Koch funded at the Smithsonian perpetuates this lie). Rather, Koch understands that his entire business model depends on denying the greatest threat facing the planet.
Koch Industries — the largest private corporation in America — thrives on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.
To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.
Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests. Koch’s assistance to then-Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) resulted in special legislation to exempt Koch from prosecution regarding an oil spill, and Koch’s efforts to elect President Bush were rewarded with a virtual pardon of charges related to Koch’s release of carcinogenic chemicals in Texas. Koch groups also worked to derail international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and Koch-funded groups helped spread the myth that hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit somehow disputed the scientific consensus on climate change.
Of course, Koch’s current war on climate science is not new. As we first reported, Koch’s current campaign to distort the public’s understanding of global warming is a continuation of its campaign in 1990 to spread skepticism about acid rain. However, Koch’s hidden role in the climate denying machine is beginning to unravel.
Yesterday, Reps. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) failed to take the oath of office on the House floor along with the other 433 members of Congress which caused the GOP caucus to scurry, worrying that some of the congressional actions Sessions and Fitzpatrick took yesterday may not have been valid. This morning, the House passed a resolution to fix this problem by a vote of 257-159 — with 27 Democrats voting in favor, three House members voting “present” (including Sessions and Fitzpatrick), and 16 others not voting. The resolution invalidated any votes Sessions and Fitzpatrick had taken yesterday, but also said that “all other actions the members took would count as if the two representatives were sworn in on the floor.”
After the resolution was introduced, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) took to the House floor to criticize the new Majority for violating its own newly-instituted parliamentary rules. “A new section was created…that required at least three days notice to consider legislation,” he said, adding, “It is particularly important in this case since we’re dealing with a constitutional issue, one that is without precedent.”
While the presiding speaker said the new GOP rules only apply to bills and joint resolutions, Weiner noted that by failing to take the oath of office and then conducting House business, Sessions and Fitzpatrick violated a provision of the Constitution (which is ironic considering Republicans led a reading of the founding document on the House floor yesterday in a pledge to uphold the document):
WEINER: To the great credit of the maker of this resolution…it stipulates right in the first couple of sections, “We violated the Constitution on our very first day.” The constitutional requirement for oath was violated and I give you great credit for recognizing that in the resolution.
Weiner then complained that the House received a grand total of 4 minutes to debate a legislative fix to a violation of the Constitution:
WEINER: They were violating a very important part of these proceedings and yet we have a grand total of two minutes on each side Mr. Drier and to my colleagues in which to debate how to fix that infirmity. Mr. Sessions presided over the Rules Committee during a large portion of which he was not even a duly sworn Member of the United States Congress. Yet we’re doing nothing to go back and see, does that participation influence proceedings at all? … For the first time in the history of this body we are going to pass a fix of a constitutional infirmity with, wait for it, four minutes of debate when we didn’t have the bill until just now!
Watch it:
Indeed, Weiner is correct. By failing to properly take the oath of office, Sessions and Fitzpatrick violated Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution, which states: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
Moreover, as the Sunlight Foundation notes, Fitzpatrick, who missed the official swearing-in to attend a fundraiser, may have violated House ethics rules.
Just as House Republicans gear up to repeal the “job killing” Affordable Care Act, the Department of Labor is reporting that the U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs last month, pushing the jobless rate down to a 19-month low of 9.4 percent.
In fact, since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, 2010, the economy has created approximately a total of 1.1 million new jobs in the private sector. One-fifth of the new jobs — over 200,000 — have been in the health care industry. Nevertheless, Republicans have spent the week decrying health reform as “job killing” legislation. Watch a compilation:
Aside from the fact that increasing access to health services will create thousands of jobs in the health care sector, Harvard economist David Cutler argues in new paper released this morning that repealing the health law would reverse these gains and could destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. Eliminating the law would increase health care costs and cause employers to reduce wages and cut jobs for those employees who already receive minimum wage or are in fixed contracts. From the report:
Figure 3 shows the net impact of repealing health reform on total employment. The baseline estimates show that 250,000 jobs will be lost annually if health reform is repealed. Annual job losses would average 400,000 using the greater estimate of 1.5 percentage point cost increases annually resulting from repeal.
Employers may be anxious about some of the new requirements, but many are already benefiting from the law. A growing number of employers are taking advantage of the tax credit that allows businesses with fewer than 25 workers and average wages under $50,000 to deduct up to 35% of the cost of the premiums they provide for their employees and many are receiving money from the law’s reinsurance program, which assists employers with retiree health costs. In 2014, small businesses will be able to use the new health insurance exchanges to pool resources and lower costs by covering their workers through a larger risk pool. All this would free up dollars that could then be used for job creation.
As Steve Pearlstein points out, “what’s particularly noteworthy about this fixation with ‘job killing’ is that it stands in such contrast to the complete lack of concern about policies that kill people rather than jobs.” “Repealing health-care reform, for instance, would inevitably lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths each year because of an inability to get medical care,” he says. “There is an unmistakable redbaiting quality to the “job-killing” rhetoric, a throwback to the McCarthy era.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
As ThinkProgress previously reported, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) advocated for and passed budget cuts last year that cut off urgent transplant funding that was previously promised to 98 Arizonans. In late November, Mark Price, an Arizona father who had been battling leukemia for a year, died due to complications related to chemotherapy treatment he was receiving. Price was awaiting an organ transplant that could’ve saved his life, but he was unable to receive one in time due to Brewer’s budget cuts.
Now, the University of Arizona Medical Center has told the press that another patient passed away in late December because they were unable to get their organ transplant funded. Although the attending physicians declined to release the name of the patient out of respect for the family’s privacy, they confirmed that the patient that passed away was one of the 98 Arizonans cut off from organ transplants by Brewer and the GOP-controlled state legislature. He “was our patient. He was on our list,” said surgery department spokeswoman Jo Marie Gellerman.
Local news station KGUN reported the second death and tracked down two patients who are still waiting for transplants. They interviewed 48-year old David Hernandez, who has a terminal lung disease and will die without a transplant. They also highlighted the case of 27-year old Tiffany Tate, who also needs a lung transplant to save her life. Despite placing three phone calls and an e-mail, the station was unable to receive any response from Brewer’s office.
KGUN was able to interview Sen. Frank Antenori (R) — a Brewer ally who has long fought for provisions to prevent abortions, based on his supposed belief in the sanctity of human life — who told them that he wishes the legislature “had the money and it was flowing from the hills to fund everything we want to fund. Tough decisions are being made because we’re in a budget crisis right now.” Interestingly, the station found out that all state employees are entitled to medical benefits subsidized by taxpayers, and that “yes, they do cover organ transplants.” Watch it:
After learning about the plight of the 98 Arizonan patients, Steven Daglas, an Illinois State GOP Central Committeeman, worked with several others to analyze the Arizona state budget and finances to develop funding solutions that would allow the state to fully fund the transplants for all of the remaining patients without actually raising any new revenue. The possible solutions included using $2 million from an AIG settlement that the state of Arizona will receive or “transferring $1.2 million in funds that Arizona once planned to use to build bridges for endangered squirrels.” Yet even after repeatedly sending his proposal to Brewer since December, Daglas has received zero response from the governor. He told The Arizona Republic that she may be ignoring his proposal out of the fear that he’s trying to politically damage her, but he explained, “I’m a Republican guy from Illinois…We’re just concerned about these transplant patients and want to help“:
Since early last month, Daglas and those with whom he is working have been reaching out to the governor and her staff with the ideas. Among other things, they sent a letter that required a signature confirmation so they knew the information was getting through. But they haven’t heard back.
“We’re worried that maybe her office is thinking that we’re offering these ideas as a way to attack her or make her look bad, and that isn’t it at all,” Daglas said. “I’m a Republican guy from Illinois. We have plenty of problems up here. We’re just concerned about these transplant patients and want to help. We have provided detailed information about the suggestions, the statutes, the original sources and so on.”
The failure of Brewer to respond to the funding proposal has frustrated Daglas, and this morning he joined with five of the patients in need of transplants and launched a website, Arizona98.com. The website lists 26 possible ways that Arizona can shift funding in order to pay for the transplant procedures without having to raise any additional revenue. As the Arizona Republic notes, the savings Arizona is supposed to have by not funding the transplants amount to $1.36 million. As Arizona98.com notes, “The fact our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters (hard-working citizens and good people) have been deemed expendable at a price of $13,877.56 per human life still does not make sense.”
Newly-elected Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) campaigned for Congress on a promise to repeal health reform. This week, Hurt granted ThinkProgress a short interview outside of the Capitol, where he doubled down on his pledge to remove health reform. However, Hurt said he would not opt-out of the government health care granted to him and his staff as a member of Congress:
HURT: I’ll support the repeal. Okay, what else?
TP: After you vote to repeal health care, will you also reject government-sponsored, government-subsidized health care given to members of Congress?
HURT: Uhm, well obviously we’ve got — I’ve got a health insurance policy that I pay for through the government so I don’t really–
TP: Well there’s $700 a month in taxpayer money on average that goes to a member of Congress’s health care plan given by you know the taxpayer.
HURT: It’s a policy that’s issued by Anthem and it’s a policy that any– it’s open to the public.
TP: But my tax dollars and everyone’s tax dollars subsidize your plan as a member of Congress. And all of your staff members. You’ve got what, thirty members of your staff? Do you think they should have government-sponsored health care if you’re going to repeal it for everyone else?
HURT: If you’re going to pay members of Congress anything, if they’re going to have a salary and they’re going to have benefits, like so many people who are employed do, then I think it’s not unreasonable to offer those benefits. So I support that.
Watch it:
Hurt tried to initially deny that he received any special health care and that his plan is available to the public. In fact, the regulated private insurance that Hurt and his staff receive is not open to the general public because the general public does not have access to a regulate exchange or to taxpayer subsidies.
Members of Congress on average receive a $700 a month taxpayer subsidy for their private health insurance plan, which they can choose through a highly regulated exchange offered by the government. The federal system mirrors the reforms enacted by Democrats and President Obama, which end health insurance abuses by regulating coverage through an exchange, while offering subsidies to individuals and small businesses to make coverage more affordable.
The Labor Department’s monthly jobs report states that the unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in December, a 0.4 percentage point drop. The U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs, slightly less than the 145,000 jobs that some economists predicted. The employment data for October and November was revised upwards to reflect 80,000 more jobs gained.
“A group of Republican lawmakers demanded the repeal of the financial regulatory law” yesterday, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Asked whether the Republican Party as a whole would endorse repeal, a spokesman for RNC chairman Michael Steele said, “That’s something we’ll look at going forward.”
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is considering another run for the presidency in 2012. A source told the New York Post that Giuliani “thinks the Republican race will be populated with far-right candidates like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, and there’s opportunity for a moderate candidate with a background in national security.”
President Obama will appoint progressive economist Gene Sperling to be director of the National Economic Council today, where he “will advise on fiscal policy, including issues related to the annual budget, taxes and the domestic entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — whose growth is driving projections of long-term deficits.” Sperling is a former Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.
House GOP worked to “stifle action on climate change” by introducing three different bills that limit the powers of the EPA and disbanding a committee on Global Warming. The three bills will delay EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and methane, block funding for agencies dealing with cap-and-trade, and would overturn a Supreme Court ruling submitting greenhouse gases to Clean Air Act regulation.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced yesterday that the Pentagon will cut U.S. ground forces by up to 47,000 troops in 2015. Citing the country’s “dire fiscal situation,” Gates said the military plans to save $150 billion over 5 years, yet, the money saved “will be transferred to other programs, such as buying more drones” and to pay for fuel costs, health care and other bills.
NPR’s top news editor resigned yesterday after an internal review found that the news organization mishandled the firing of news analyst Juan Williams last October. NPR’s board also voted to cancel the annual bonus of NPR’s CEO, Vivian Schiller, who supported Williams’ firing and “made some ill-timed comments about it” at the time.
Today, 33 Republican governors will send a letter to the White House and congressional leaders to overturn the health care law rule to “make it easier for states to cut Medicaid enrollment.” Dubbing the rule preventing states from dropping poor people to receive federal funds “unconscionable,” the governors complained the rule would “force governors to cut other critical state programs.”
And finally: Republicans proudly led a reading of the entire Constitution on the House floor yesterday — except not quite. “During the reading of the Constitution, because of an inadvertent double page turn, Section 4 of Article IV was skipped, as was a part of Article V. (It was entered into the record later.)”
ThinkProgress is hiring! Details here.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced today that the United States will hit its $14.3 trillion debt limit on March 31 of this year. If Congress does not move to increase the national debt ceiling by that time, “disastrous consequences” for the nation’s economy will result, according to a report from the Center for American Progress.
Despite the real danger, many Republicans in Congress are trying to use the debt ceiling as a political chip in order to impose draconian spending cuts or demagogue to the right-wing fringe. Leading candidates for RNC Chairman, including Michael Steele and Ann Wagner, have also expressed their unequivocal opposition to raising the debt ceiling. At least seven Republicans also want to go so far as to shut down the federal government rather than see the debt ceiling increased.
The ignorance of the anti-debt ceiling wing of the GOP were encapsulated by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC). Speaking with The Hill, Mulvaney declared that he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling because he had “yet to meet someone who can articulate the negative consequences.”
Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) articulated those negative consequences. Speaking with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Graham described what would happen if the debt ceiling weren’t raised: “financial collapse and calamity throughout the world. That’s not lost on me”:
BLITZER: You said on Sunday something that has raised a lot of eyebrows. As you know, in the coming weeks, next few months, the U.S. is going to have to raise the debt ceiling, otherwise America’s creditworthiness is going to go down the drain. You said you’d be willing to vote to do that, but only – I’m paraphrasing now – if there’s a deal in place to deal with Social Security and unless we go back to the 2008 spending limits. Those are your two conditions. How realistic are those conditions? Because you know what’s involved if the U.S. creditworthiness is evaporated.
GRAHAM: Let me tell you what’s involved if we don’t lift the debt ceiling: financial collapse and calamity throughout the world. That’s not lost upon me. But we’ve done this 93 times. And if we keep doing the same old thing, then that is insanity to the nth degree. We’re going to have calamity of a different fashion if we don’t get our spending under control. So what I said is the House is going to go back to 2008 spending levels. I would like to see the Senate mirror what the House does. Now that means tightening our belt, but name somebody in America who hasn’t had to tighten their belt.
Watch it:
However, despite the fact that Graham is fully cognizant of the dangers posed by not raising the debt ceiling, that’s not stopping him from holding the vote hostage until Congress passes regressive Social Security and spending cuts.
Ever since President Obama took office, Republicans have waged an unprecedented campaign of obstruction against the president’s judges. As a result, nearly one in nine federal judgeships are vacant and federal judges are now retiring faster than new judges are being confirmed. Yet Senate Republicans Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor yesterday to make the astounding claim that he has always been a champion against filibusters of judicial nominees:
Some have also suggested that one’s view of the filibuster depends on where one sits. And it’s true that when I was in the majority I opposed filibustering judicial nominees. But I opposed doing so when I was in the minority too, and I opposed doing so regardless of who was in the White House. In short, I was against expanding the use of the filibuster into an area in which it traditionally had not been used—period.
Watch it:
McConnell is simply not telling the truth about his record on judicial filibusters. While McConnell certainly joined his caucus in claiming that such filibusters were unacceptable when President Bush was nominating judges, McConnell literally filibustered the very first nominee named by President Obama. McConnell was one of 29 Republicans who joined a failed filibuster attempt against Judge David Hamilton, the first person nominated to a federal judgeship after Republicans lost the White House.
And judicial nominees are hardly the only victims of McConnell’s single-minded campaign to prevent the Senate from functioning. Indeed, the minute McConnell became Minority Leader, the number of filibusters spiked massively:
So while McConnell’s claim to consistency on judicial filibusters is obviously false, he has been consistent on one thing: doing everything in his power to make sure only conservatives are allowed to govern.
Campaigning before the recent midterm elections, House Republicans were adamant that, if given power, they would cut government spending. However, when pressed for specifics, many were unable to list even one single item they would cut from the budget. “The line-item will be across-the-board,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) embarrassingly responded when asked for specific cuts.
Speaker of the House John Boehner was no stranger to the promise to cut government spending. In fact, he promised over and over for months to do everything he could to reduce the budget:
“We need to cut spending. That’s what the American people want. That’s what the economy needs.” [12/17/10]
“Let’s be clear, if we actually want to help our economy get back on track and to begin creating jobs, we need to end the job-killing spending binge. We need to cut spending significantly.” [12/17/10]
“Our new majority will prepare to do things differently, to take a new approach that hasn’t been tried in Washington before by either party. It starts with cutting spending instead of increasing it.” [11/3/10]
“We will not solve our fiscal challenges until we cut spending.” [8/25/10]
“If we want to solve the budget problem, we’ve got to have a healthy economy and we have to get our arms around the runaway spending that’s going on in Washington, D.C.” [8/9/10]
“And if in fact we’re elected to the majority you’re going to see us cut spending. You’re going to see us revive the economy and reform the way Congress does it job.” [10/5/10]
“If the lame-duck Congress is unwilling to cut spending and permanently stop all the tax hikes, the new House majority will act in January.” [12/1/10]
“Republicans have been consistently focused on offering better solutions to cut spending now.” [6/21/10]
“We will never get our economy out of the ditch until we cut spending and have real economic growth.” [8/30/10]
However, now that he holds the speaker’s gavel, it seems that Boehner is no better than his colleagues at actually identifying specifics in the budget that he would like to see eliminated. In an interview set to air tonight, NBC’s Brian Williams asked Boehner to name a specific item he’d cut, and Boehner couldn’t deliver:
WILLIAMS: Name a program right now that we could do without.
BOEHNER: I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.
Watch it:
During just their first couple of days in control of the House, Republicans have voided loads of promises when it comes to the budget, including halving their promised budget cuts for the current year (cuts which they now say were “hypothetical”) and exempting their first bill from their own budget rules.
ThinkProgress intern Paul Breer contributed research to this post. Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
House Republicans are eager to make good on their campaign promise to hold a pointless vote on repealing President Obama’s health care law, but they’ll have to wait a little longer thanks to an embarrassing blunder by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX). Sessions failed to take his oath of office on the House floor alongside the other 430 congressmen yesterday, pretending to take it in the Capitol Visitors Center instead. However, Sessions was the (not quite) Member who offered the health care repeal motion today in the House Rules Committee forcing Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) to “abruptly adjourn” a hearing on the bill:
Dreier is consulting with the parliamentarian about how to best craft a unanimous consent agreement to rectify the situation, [committee spokeswoman Jo] Maney said.
“We should have an agreement shortly,” she said.
Democratic aides pounced on the Republicans’ blunder.
“Despite the fact that they read the Constitution today, they should have read it yesterday, actually,” one senior Democratic aide said. “I guess swearing in their Members wasn’t part of their pledge.”
In response, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) joked that Sessions “didn’t look as congressional as usual this morning.” Sessions was finally sworn in this afternoon by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), but freshman Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) also missed the official swearing in yesterday, taking part in the faux swearing in with Sessions. Fitzpatrick read a portion of the Constitution and took a vote on the House floor, despite not, officially, being a member of Congress. In response to the fiasco, “House officials were searching for a precedent to follow but had not yet found a previous instance of members-elect voting without having taken the constitutionally required oath of office.” ThinkProgress placed calls, which were not immediately returned, to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Sessions’ offices and will update with responses.
Yesterday, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) gaveled in the GOP takeover of the House. Christening his rein in tears, the self-proclaimed “most transparent person in this town” promised an era of more “honest” and “accountable” government with a set of new House rules to match. But that was yesterday afternoon. By nightfall, the House GOP leadership had already broken key pledges of transparency and accountability. Republicans have already walked back three key promises they touted up through the end of 111th Congress:
– Open Amendment Process Now Closed: Republicans have long complained that Democrats “abused their power in bypassing regular debate” by ignoring “the open rule” which “allows for nearly unlimited amendments and debate.” After a victorious November election, GOP leaders promised “to treat the Democratic minority far differently” by ensuring an open rules process. After all, they had included it in their “Pledge to America.” But now, with their first legislation to repeal the health care law, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is suggesting the GOP will skip the open rule to avoid potentially embarrassing Democratic amendments. The excuse? It’s a “straightforward document” of a “two-page, straight repeal” so “there’s nothing to amend.” According to Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), “there’s no ability” to have open rules because “if you want to have an up-or-down vote, this is how you have to do it. And that is what our pledge was: an up-or-down vote.” Despite demanding the same of the Democrats last year, Republicans now think “some things you don’t need a hearing on.” In response to backlash over his backtrack, Boehner said, “I promised a more open process. I didn’t promise that every single bill was going to be an open bill.”
– $100 Billion Spending Cuts Now “Hypothetical”: Confidently touting their “Pledge to America,” Boehner and his Young Gun squadron reiterated the promise that they’d “save $100 billion dollars in the first year.” Just yesterday, Cantor told reporters that Republicans will soon “spell out” the cuts to obtain that number. But, according to Republican aides, that promise is more “hypothetical” than literal and the actual number “is about HALF the original estimate.” When asked by how much, Ryan said “I can’t tell you by what amount.” When Fox News pressed Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) about GOP waffling, Pence said anyone who focuses on the $100 billion figure is just “number crunching” and trying to “parse words.”
– Public Access Committee Attendance Now Unfair: In the name of transparency, the initial rule package the House GOP proposed included a provision to make committee attendance public. But (fittingly) “behind closed doors” in the House GOP conference meeting yesterday night, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stripped the provision. The excuse? Committees have to stop scheduling hearings at the same time first. Also, “some GOP lawmakers were concerned about getting slammed for missing hearings when they may have extenuating circumstances.” “That’s not a matter of transparency. It’s a matter of inherent unfairness,” Gohmert said.
On top of closing the amendment process, the GOP also will exempt the health care repeal bill from their own requirement that all bills be fully paid for. Because the health care law would reduce the deficit by $143 billion through 2019, not only are they backtracking on their own rules, but also their promise to reduce the deficit. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the repeal will increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next ten years. Of course — as Republicans prove time and time again — if any policy benefits the wealthy, that lower-deficit banner gets shredded.
But the GOP shows no sign of stopping its self-imposed hypocrisy. The visceral hatred of federal health care has only compelled a few Republicans to match rhetoric with action by forgoing federal health care, while members like Rep. Steve King (R-IA) leave it to others to “stand on principle.” The GOP instead voted down the idea to disclose whether members accept federal health care plan. And despite pledges of greater transparency and fewer backroom deals, House Republicans avowed Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, with the power to implement spending levels without ever having them voted upon. Another rule allows Republicans to reallocate the spending cuts that Republicans intend to make (whatever the amount) rather than pay down the deficit, a move some GOP members lambasted as “Washington-style gimmicks.”
The GOP is even undermining its own distorted understanding of the Constitution. Despite promising to include clauses citing the constitutional authority of each bill, not one of the three bills the GOP plans to introduce this week — health care repeal, congressional budget cuts, and instruction for new health care legislation — currently include the constitutional citation. Whether the citations will be available when the bills hit the floor remains to be seen.
While remarkably brazen, the hypocritical actions of the House GOP are not surprising. “That’s what they were going to do. Wasn’t it?” said former House Rules Committee Chair Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). “It’s the first day, and they’ve violated everything they said they were going to do.” Who knows what day two will bring.
During an interview with the New York Times last month, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) — who has made no secret of his disdain for President Obama — said that the President should put himself in harm’s way with U.S. troops when he travels to war zones just to show that he is a true leader. “[I]f I’m asking my young men and women to go out there and put their lives on the line, I should be willing and able to do the exact same thing,” he said.
On MSNBC last night, host Lawrence O’Donnell asked West if he really believes that the President should risk his life on the battlefield. “If you disagree with the fact that I believe that leadership’s about leading from the front, then you can do that,” West said. O’Donnell noted that no President in West’s lifetime has ever done what he is asking Obama to do and offered the new GOP congressman a chance to retract his statement. However, West refused:
O’DONNELL: In your lifetime, you’ve never once had the opportunity to vote for a president who would, as you put it, put himself in harm’s way as president. You want to retract that. I’m going to give you a chance to retract that suggestion that the president of the United States should put his life in harm’s way while president when visiting war zones. This is a chance to just apologize for it and move on.
WEST: Lawrence, I’m not going to retract that statement, because I will tell you this — if I was sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I would fly into a combat theater and I would get out there and visit those troops wherever they are. That’s just the type of leader that I am.
“I’m sticking with my guns,” West said later, still refusing to apologize, although he acknowledged that “no one is going to allow the president of the United States to be in a dangerous situation.” Watch it:
West is correct — no one is going to allow Obama, or any other future president or high ranking government official, to be placed in a dangerous situation. So it seems that this is just another one of West’s baseless and gratuitous attacks on Obama. Perhaps we can look forward to seeing West join the troops on the front lines during an upcoming congressional delegation visit to Afghanistan?
This is Part 1 of a three-part installment of ThinkProgress’ interview with David Koch.
Yesterday, David Koch — one of the richest men in America, co-owner of the conglomerate Koch Industries, and a top financier of right-wing front groups — attended the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and also hosted a party for the new Republican majority he helped bankroll.
Perhaps no one has been more aggressive in exposing Koch’s activities than ThinkProgress. We first reported in April 2009 that Americans for Prosperity, the front group founded and chaired by Koch since 1984, helped orchestrate many of the first Tea Party rallies and anti-Obama protests. ThinkProgess also unearthed a memo detailing how Koch convened a meeting of executives from Wall Street and the oil industry — along with hate talker Glenn Beck and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — to plan how to win the November elections for Republicans in 2010.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress came face-to-face with David Koch, so we seized the opportunity to conduct an impromptu interview. We ran into him outside of the Capitol, where he was chatting with one of the freshmen lawmakers he helped elect, Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH), as well as Tim Phillips, a longtime “astroturf” lobbyist and former Jack Abramoff associate now hired by Koch to lead his Americans for Prosperity front group. Koch told ThinkProgress that he expects the new Republican Congress to “cut the hell out of spending, balance the budget, reduce regulations, and support business.” Asked about the Tea Party movement, Koch cautioned that there are some extremists (indeed, Koch-funded Tea Party events have featured signs comparing health reform to the Holocaust). However, Koch said he “admire[s]” the Tea Party movement, saying that “the rank and file are just normal people like us”:
TP: Hi sir, I’m Lee Fang. I’m with the blog ThinkProgress. I’m just asking what you’re expecting from the new Congress under Speaker Boehner?
KOCH: Well, cut the hell out of spending, balance the budget, reduce regulations, and uh, support business.
PHILLIPS: Hey David, Lee here is a good blogger on the left, we’re glad to have him–
TP: Just a quick interview. Are you proud of what Americans for Prosperity has achieved this year?
KOCH: You bet I am, man oh’ man. We’re going to do more too in the next couple of years, you know.
TP: What are you planning on doing. What are your goals?
KOCH: I just told you what we hope the Congress will do and AFP is going to support that.
[...]
TP: I’m curious to know, Mr. Koch, are you proud of what the Tea Party movement and what they’ve achieved in the past years–
KOCH: Yeah. There are some extremists there, but the rank and file are just normal people like us. And I admire them. It’s probably the best grassroots uprising since 1776 in my opinion.
Watch it:
It’s interesting that Koch, who inherited his wealth from his father’s oil company and is now worth $21.5 billion dollars, considers himself just another “normal” Tea Party member. Despite the myth that the Tea Party represents some kind of “spontaneous” uprising of middle class voters, many of the drivers of the movement come from America’s wealthy elite. Millionaire Steve Forbes and corporate lobbyist Dick Armey own the other significant Tea Party organizing group, FreedomWorks. Cliff Asness, a wealthy hedge fund manager who attended several Republican planning meetings and Koch’s secret meeting last June, considers himself a card-carrying member of the Tea Party movement.
Despite the Tea Party veneer, Koch and other wealthy businessmen have a self-interested reason to invest in anti-government movements and Republican politicians. Koch funneled large amounts of donations into electing George Bush in 2000 (even sending Koch-linked lobbyists to help disrupt the Florida recount). At the time, Koch Industries faced 97-count federal indictment charging it with concealing illegal releases of 91 metric tons of benzene, known to cause leukemia, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. When Bush took office, his Justice Department dropped 88 of the charges and settled the case for a small amount of money. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Koch front groups largely dictated Bush’s environmental regulatory policy and Koch lobbyists gained appointments to key environmental regulatory position in the administration.
Although Bush is gone, Koch still flexes his muscle over major policy issues in the Obama era. Americans for Prosperity, leveraging its large budget and over 80 campaign operatives, coordinated Tea Party protests to kill clean energy reform (Koch Industries is a major oil company and is still one of the worst polluters in America), pass tax cuts for the rich, and to slow down financial reform (Koch Industries is also very active in the unregulated derivatives market). Koch’s vast network of front groups are also credited with successfully distorting the public’s understanding of climate change.
One of the rallying cries of Republicans as they campaigned during the last election cycle was their call to rein in the budget deficit and lower U.S. debt. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the incoming House Budget Committee chairman, has long claimed that his goal is to battle the federal budget’s “large and chronic deficits.”
Yet this stated goal of reducing the deficit has been hypocritically undermined not only by the GOP’s pledge to repeal health care, but also by the majority’s adoption of new rules for the chamber — passed along party lines yesterday — that featured a major change in how budgeting is done. The rules replaced the former “pay-go” rules (which require all spending increases to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases) with a new rule that Republicans are referring to as “cut-go” (which would require that new spending be offset by spending cuts but not by tax increases). Attempting to justify these rules, Ryan told Bloomberg, “We didn’t come here to raise taxes. We came here to cut spending and the rules should reflect that.”
The Republicans certainly have a right to have ideological opposition to raising taxes, but their rules undermine their stated goal of battling the budget deficit. In fact, the new rules would largely benefit some of the richest Americans and biggest corporations who benefit from tax havens, loopholes, and cuts found in the federal tax code. Here are some of the people that will benefit at the expense of the deficit:
– Rich People And Corporations Who Benefit From Offshore Tax Havens: As U.S. PIRG’s Nichole Tichon notes, under the new rules, “attempts to shut down off-shore tax havens cannot be considered in discussions of deficit reduction. These havens cost taxpayers an estimated $100 billion per year and go to those who benefit from access to American markets, workforce, security and infrastructure but pay little or nothing as they ship profits overseas.” According to the GAO, over 80 percent of “of the biggest U.S corporations maintain revenues in offshore tax haven countries. The names on the list are familiar: American Express, A.I.G, Boeing, Cisco, Dow, Hewlett-Packard, J.P. Morgan Chase and Pfizer – among others.”
– Big Corporations That Benefit From Tax Expenditures: Under the new rules, “tax expenditures that flow to BP, Exxon and others in the oil and gas industry are off the table.” The government has currently set up a network of tax expenditures and other subsidies to Big Oil that cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars every year. Ending these subsidies would save an estimated $45 billion over ten years. The CAP paper “Cracking the Code: A Closer Look at Tax Expenditure Spending” notes that “special credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and preferential tax rates provide more than $1 trillion in subsidies intended to support public objectives,” yet are ineffective and should be reduced or eliminated.
– Rich People That Benefit From Loopholes In The Tax Code: Under the new rules, “ill-advised loopholes carved out of the tax code that let multi-millionaire hedge fund managers pay dramatically reduced tax rates – far less than the average American – are exempt from discussions on solving our deficit problem.” In 2008, these loopholes “that largely benefit rich taxpayers and companies cost the government $20 billion a year even as the pay gap between chief executives and employees has widened.”
– Rich People That Benefit From Huge Tax Cuts: The new rules direct “lawmakers to ignore the budgetary impact of making permanent the income-tax cuts that Congress extended for two years in a compromise with President Barack Obama last month.” The Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent are expected to cost $690 billion over the next ten years.
It is increasingly clear that the Republicans are more concerned about reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and slashing spending on crucial programs that invest in America and protect the most vulnerable than they are about reducing the deficit. But if the Republicans truly want to “listen to the American people,” as they claim, they would not rely on rules rigged in favor of the ultra-wealthy. A new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll finds that 61 percent “of Americans said that increasing taxes to the wealthy should be the first step toward balancing the budget.”
House Republicans yesterday found themselves in a bit of trouble when they tried to explain that the $100 billion in spending cuts that they have been promising was only “hypothetical,” and they intend to actually cut about half of that from the budget. But for weeks, the GOP has been repeating over and over that it intended to lop $100 billion from the budget once it came into power, in line with the plan laid out in the much-hyped “Pledge to America.” Watch a compilation:
But last night, House Republicans made a concerted effort to move the goalposts. For instance, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said that “it’s a matter of looking at it in a calendar year,” while Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that everyone really should be looking at the cuts the GOP will make in 2012. “When the fiscal 2012 budget comes up, we’re going to be cutting,” Ryan asserted. Watch a compilation:
Republicans are arguing that since the continuing resolution passed by the House in December covers government spending until March, they only have half of the fiscal year to work with, thus they can only achieve half their promised savings. However, Republicans knew full-well that a continuing resolution was in place, but still consistently promised to cut $100 billion all the way into the new year. Cantor himself repeated the $100 billion number one day before Republicans were sworn in and adjusted their estimates.
Even the conservative Daily Caller noted the GOP’s budget flub, writing, “Republicans would have known this would happen way back in the fall when they first started using the $100 billion figure. That raises the question of why GOP communications shops did not start using a different figure weeks ago, at the very least, and explaining why it had changed. Instead, it popped up on the day that the national spotlight on them was brightest.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Moments ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its cost estimate for the GOP’s health care repeal bill — H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, introduced yesterday in the House by the new Republican majority:
– 32 million Americans will lose coverage compared to current law: “Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).” (p. 8-9)
– Increases deficit by $230 billion over 10 years: “Consequently, over the 2012–2021 period, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections for that period.” (p. 5)
– Huge deficit increases over next decade: “Correspondingly, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger.” (p. 7)
– Individuals would pay more for health insurance: “Although premiums in the individual market would be lower, on average, under H.R. 2 than under current law, many people would end up paying more for health insurance— because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and H.R. 2 would eliminate those subsidies.” (p. 9-10)
– Average health care benefits would be worse: “In particular, if H.R. 2 was enacted… the average insurance policy in this market would cover a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for health care and a slightly narrower range of benefits.” (p.9)
– Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance would increase: “Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher under H.R. 2 than under current law, reflecting the net impact of many relatively small changes.” (p. 10)
The GOP is excluding the vote from its new cut-go rule — under which increases in mandatory spending would have to be paid for but tax cuts would not — and dismissing the CBO’s estimates of savings in the health law by claiming that the initial savings from reform are largely imaginary. But this now places the new majority at odds with the ‘gods’ at the CBO — who they’ve routinely cited to bolster their own proposals — and its repeated pledges to lower spending in the new Congress.
Last month, then-congressman-elect Andy Harris (R-MD) set off a firestorm when he demanded to know why his government-sponsored health care would not kick in until four weeks after taking office. Harris, who ran on a platform of repealing health care reform, was roundly criticized for decrying government playing a role in delivering health care to the American public, then demanding his own government-subsidized coverage once he took office.
Following this episode, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) sent a letter to his colleagues calling on Harris and other congressmen who want to repeal health care reform to also forgo their own government-sponsored health care plans. Over the next month, five Republicans stepped up to the challenge: Reps. Joe Walsh (R-IL), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Bobby Schilling (R-IL), and Mike Kelly (R-PA).
The most recent congressman to say he will forgo government-sponsored health care is Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH). In an interview today, Guinta told ThinkProgress that he is “not taking the health care portion of the benefits”:
TP: Do you think you’ll be voting to repeal that [health care reform]?
GUINTA: Yeah, I am going to vote to repeal. I don’t believe the legislation is constitutional, first of all. Secondly, I think what the people of our country are looking for is a different alternative to making health care more affordable. So that will be the goal and certainly want to work with every member of Congress to make that happen?
TP: Do you think you’ll also be rejecting government-sponsored health care for yourself? I know a few members of Congress like Mike Kelly, Adam Kinzinger [editor's note: Kinzinger has note made this promise. Illinois congressmen Bobby Schilling and Joe Walsh have], some others have said ‘I’m against government-sponsored health care, government-subsidized health care, and so I’m going to lead the way and not take it myself.
TP2: He’s referring to the Federal Employees Benefits Plan that all members receive.
GUINTA: Well, I think there’s a difference between the benefit package and dictating to every American that they have to purchase health care. That being said, I am not taking the health care portion of the benefits.
TP: You won’t be taking the health care portion?
GUINTA: No.
Watch it:
It is worth noting that all six GOPers who are opting out of government-sponsored health care are freshmen, many of whom enjoyed significant Tea Party support. No previous Republican incumbents have stepped forward and offered to give up their own government-subsidized health care coverage, despite the fact that 172 of the 180 GOPers in the 111th Congress signed a petition to repeal health care reform in its entirety, including government subsidies for those who can’t afford it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
