Justice John Roberts comment regarding President Obamas remarks about the Citizens United case which allows corporations to buy candidates:
”very troubling”
White House response:
“What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans,”
Nuff said
Have some members of the Republican party no shame? Sarah Palin, anti-government controlled health care advocate, admitted during a recent speech in Canada that her family took advantage of Canadian medical care while living in a small Alaskan town near Whitehorse ,Canada.
My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ‘60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada
Perhaps someone should explain to the former governor that no that is not “ironic” it is hypocritical. One can understand why she would confuse the two given her inability to grasp the bleeding obvious.
And how about those “good union jobs” her and Todd snatched up that paid for their health care?
This isn’t the first time Palin highlighted the difficulty of obtaining affordable health care in America. During the presidential campaign, Palin discussed how her and husband Todd had “gone though periods of our life here with paying out-of-pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs.“
Meanwhile in California, a staunch anti-gay rights Republican state senator admits that he is gay. State senator Roy Ashburn was arrested for drunk driving last week after leaving a gay club in California. Mr. Ashburn has spent 15 years blocking every piece of gay rights legislation offered in the state senate of California. We don’t give a hoot about your personal life Mr. Ashburn except when it is in direct contradiction to the policy positions you hold and push through the senate that affect all Californians gay and straight. Even more so when such hypocrisies prevent equal rights for every American citizen regardless of their sexual preference. Then its just blatant HYPOCRISY!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Anchor Management | ||||
|
||||
Elizabeth Warren, TARP watchdog, gives a few words of wisdom regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency so-called “compromise” currently being discussed in the Senate. In an recent interview Warren said the following: “[m]y first choice is a strong consumer agency,” the Harvard Law professor and federal bailout watchdog said “[m]y second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor…….’[m]y 99th choice is some mouthful of mush that doesn’t get the job done,” Warren said.
Warren listed the four things that the Consumer Finance Protection Agency MUST have to be effective:
“Those are the basic elements of an independent agency,” Warren said. “It’s not as if there’s some fifth thing that was left off that list — that is the list.” Warren also spoke about the CFPA that was included in the financial regulatory bill passed by the House last December: “It’s a muscular agency, and that’s what really matters,” Warren said. ”It’s not perfect — there’s no excuse for excluding used car dealers — but it’s strong,” she said. “The agency that passed the House will get the job done.”
The TARP watchdog believes that it does not matter where the new agency is located but that it has real independence. Some have disagreed with Warren and argued that housing such an agency in somewhere like the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve would make a difference in terms of its effectiveness. We agree. There is a reason that the bank lobbyists are pushing for a CFPA room rental instead of a house of its own…..proximity matters.
Take a look at the other argument being made by the banks and Sens. Bob Corker (R) and Richard Shelby(R) and a response to it by Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC):
The banks and Dodd’s chief negotiating partners, Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) argue that banking regulators must have veto power over consumer protections, because restricting some bank activities could harm the institutions and put at risk their “safety and soundness.”
But Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) wondered aloud how banks could argue that preventing them from ripping off consumers puts them in jeopardy.
“It would be one thing if they were saying, ‘They’re making us do things that will cause us to lose money.’ But they’re saying, ‘If you don’t let us do these things because they’re abusive to consumers, we won’t make enough money to survive,’” Miller said.
“The legislation doesn’t require the banks to offer anything. It would prohibit certain practices. So their argument is, they have to be able to cheat consumers to stay solvent. I’m not sure I’m persuaded by that argument, or that a bank that has to cheat consumers to stay solvent is one we should keep afloat. Maybe it’s time to send in the FDIC.”
Take a look at some other specs:
How do the banks fend off needed reform? Follow the money. A recent report by Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation shows that the 27 members of the House Financial Services Committee have received over one-fourth of their contributions from the FIRE (Finance, insurance and real estate sector). Ranking Republican Spencer Baucus from Alabama opposes the CFPA, arguing that we don’t need “more regulation,” we just need “smart regulation.” He received a staggering 71% of his contributions from the finance sector over the first six months of this year (and 45% of his total contributions over his career). Democrat Melissa Bean who leads the effort to gut state regulatory authority over the banks has received fully 42% of her contributions for the first six months from the banking sector. Not surprisingly, the champions of reform like Rep. Alan Grayson, Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Adam Putman, and Carolyn McCarthy all pull in the lowest percentage from the sector.
Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner are the two centrist Democratic senators of Virginia and their silence on the public option reflects it even though the majority of Virginia voters disapprove of such silence. The disapproval ratings for Sens. Webb and Warner’s handling of health care is 52 and50 percent respectively according to a new poll conducted by Research 2000.
Virginia voters were asked the following:
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of buying into a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
A whopping 61 percent of all Virginia voters want a public option in the health care reform bill. Yet Sen. Mark Warner and Sen. Jim Webb have not given their support for the measure even though the approval rating for the public option is higher than the job approval rating of both Webb and Warner. So one would think that it would be a no brainer for these two Virginia senators to push for the public option. Not so much. My question is WHY??? Please call or email Senators Warner and Webb and ask them why they are not pushing for the public option when the majority of the Virginia voters want it. Please be sure to press them to support including the public option in health reform through reconciliation. If you see our post here you will notice that the two Virginia Senators have not voiced their position.
Senator Jim Webb: Phone: 202-224-4024 Toll Free Number: 1-866-507-1570 Email
Senator Mark Warner: Phone: 202-224-2023 Toll Free Number: 1-877-676-2759 Email
Will someone please tell the Republican party that the Senate version of the Health Care Reform bill was passed on December 24, 2009. Reconciliation is only being used to amend a bill that has already been passed by the Senate with a 60 vote supermajority. So all of these end of the world proclamations by the right are hyperbolic, disengenious, falsehoods being perpetuated in the name of political strategy. The GOP has made a calculated decision that it is better to scare its constuents about this bill in an effort to prevent its passage because Republican members realize that if the health care reform does pass it will improve the health care market and Democrats will receive the benefit. This will then dramatically interfere with its efforts to win back the House and Senate in 2010.
Pure politics.
The GOP was out in full force on the Sunday talk shows pushing the same stale talking points that they have been pushing for the last year. This bill is too big, start over, increased premiums BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. We caught the recently annointed GOP fiscal wonder boy Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin on Fox News Sunday. Below we have deconstructed his claim that premiums will rise as a result of the health care reform bill as done by the Congressional Budget Office and the President.
REP. PAUL RYAN (WI) Wisconsin claim of Fox News Sunday 02/28/10: “No, it’s not true [that most Americans would be paying less in premiums]. The Congressional Budget Office says they will get higher premium increases 10 to 13 percent. Private actuaries put those premium increases in the double digit to triple digit territory. The Blue Cross plans are telling us you’re gonna see a massive spike in premiums for people…that’s the problem. What we’re hearing coming out of Washington and the rhetoric doesn”t match the actual facts that are underneath this legislation.”
What the CBO actually said:
According to the nonpartisan CBO, for those in large group policies there would be no increase or a up to a 3% decrease in premiums. For those in the individual market, premiums would increase 10% to 13% BECAUSE indivuals policy buyer would get better policies [actual coverage for routine procedures like mamograms, physicals, etc.] and over half of those in the individual market would get subsidies ‘that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.” In other words, people would receive better value for their money or ACTUAL INSURANCE COVERAGE and not junk insurance that doesn’t even cover a annual physical.
Two days later after Congressman Ryan had time to think about a response:
REP. PAUL RYAN: “Well if you had these…..if you had subsidies sure….but lets get this point clear, we’re not going to have more insurance competition under this new law we’re gonna have less insurance competition…that’s gonna increase prices and if you put more mandates on insurance as this does….this federalizes the regulation of health insurance…displacing states rights…that’s gonna make it more expensive. So what this bill attempts to do is…yes make health insurance much more expensive and then just have Washington subsidize more of it to try and limit people’s out of pocket cost..that’s a deficit nightmare its a cost nightmare. And so you will be putting more cost on to the backs of taxpayers at the end of the day here.”
President Obama’s reponse to Congressman Ryan’s argument two days prior to him making it:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won’t name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company — let’s call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I’d like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn’t serious insurance.
Now, it’s one thing if you’ve got an old beat-up car that you can’t get fixed. It’s another thing if your kid is sick, or you’ve got breast cancer.
So the general idea has been here that we should set up some minimum standards within the exchange, that a plan that people are buying into, whether it’s a small business or an individual, should be at least solid enough that if your kid got sick, they’re actually going to be treated; that if something happened that you weren’t left with a huge bunch of out-of-pocket costs. It is true that you can always get cheaper insurance if it has really high deductibles or really high co-payments or doesn’t cover as many things. And so there has to be a balance that’s struck there. [SNIP]
More from the President:
Now, let me respond to your question. We could set up a system where food was probably cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors and we eliminated any regulations in terms of how food is distributed and how it’s stored. I’ll bet in terms of drug prices, we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn’t have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don’t kill us.
But we don’t do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives. And we have bipartisan support for doing it, because what we don’t want is a situation in which suddenly people think they’re getting one thing and they’re getting something else — they’re harmed by a product. What Secretary Sebelius just referred to — which is not a Washington thing; in fact, state insurance standards in many states are higher than anything that’s done in Washington — is as a consequence of seeing consistent abuses by the insurance companies and people finding themselves helpless to deal with.
Just to go back to the original argument that Lamar and I had and we’ve now chased around for quite some time. Look, if I’m a self-employed person who right now can’t get coverage or can only buy the equivalent of Acme insurance that I had for my car — so I have some sort of high-deductible plan. It’s basically not health insurance; it’s house insurance. I’m going to — I’m buying that to protect me from some catastrophic situation; otherwise, I’m just paying out of pocket. I don’t go to the doctor. I don’t get preventive care. There are a whole bunch of things I just do without. But if I get hit by a truck, maybe I don’t go bankrupt. All right, so that’s what I’m purchasing right now.
What the Congressional Budget Office is saying is, is that if I now have the opportunity to actually buy a decent package inside the exchange that costs me about 10 to 13 percent more but is actually real insurance, then there are going to be a bunch of people who take advantage of that. So, yes, I’m paying 10 to 13 percent more, because instead of buying an apple, I’m getting an orange. They’re two different things.
Now, you can still — you still have an option of — no, no, let me finish. The way that this bill is structured uses a high-cost pool, a catastrophic pool, for people who can’t afford to buy that better insurance, but overall for a basic package — which, by the way, is a lot less generous than we give ourselves in Congress. So I’m amused when people say, let people have this not-so-good plan, let them have a high-deductible. But there would be a riot in Congress if we suddenly said, let’s have Congress have a high-deductible plan, because we all think it’s pretty important to provide coverage for our families. And the federal health insurance program has a minimum benefit that all of us take advantage of. And I haven’t seen any Republicans — or Democrats — in Congress suddenly say, “You know what, we should have more choices and not have to have this minimum benefit.”
So what we’re basically saying is we’re going to do the same thing for these other folks that we do for ourselves — on the taxpayers’ dime, by the way. [SNIP]
But again, the one difference, as I understand it, and the reason you’re not supporting the approach that we take, is what we say is there should be sort of a minimum baseline benefit, because if not, what ends up happening is you get a company set up in Nevada — let’s assume there were no rules there, there are no protections for the woman who’s got breast cancer; they go into New York, they offer pretty cheap insurance to everybody who’s healthy; they don’t offer the same insurance to people who aren’t so healthy or have preexisting conditions. They drain from New York all the healthy people who are getting cheaper rates, but now suddenly everybody left in New York who doesn’t qualify for that cheaper plan is in a pool that’s sicker, older, and their premiums go up.
So what we’ve said is, well, if we can set a baseline, then you can have interstate competition, but it’s not a race to the bottom; rather everybody has got some basic care. [SNIP]
NEXT?
The President exposed just how disconnected the Republican party is from the average American in the following exchange with Sen. John Barasso:
Obama: “Would you be satisfied if every member of Congress just had catastrophic care – you think we’d be better health care purchasers?”
Barrasso: “I think actually we would … We’d really focus on it. We’d have more, as you say, skin in the game. And especially if they had a savings account – a health savings account – they could put their money into that, and they’d be spending the money out of that.”
Obama: “Would you feel the same way if you were making $40,000. Or if that was your income? Because that’s the reality for a lot of folks.”
One of the better Congressmen on the hill Rep. Tom Perriello (VA – 5th) is responsible for has proposed the passage of a simple two page bill that would remove the antitrust exemption that allows health insurance companies to collude and prevent competitors from entering the the health insurance market. UPDATE: The bill passed with a vote of 406-19. CONGRATULATIONS Rep. Tom Perriello and Rep. Betsy Markey who are co-sponsors of this great bipartisan effort.
So the moral of this story. Even though the latest SCOTUS decision allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to defeat a candidate, Perriello and Markey are choosing the interest of their constituents and the nationover the health insurance industry by sponsoring this bill. No other industry except Major League Baseball enjoys such a free pass from anti-competition laws. Having this exemption allows the health insurance industry to charge exhorbitant premiums to its customers and get away with it by blocking and sabotaging start-up insurance companies that would provide competition and colluding with other health insurance companies to fix premium prices. In essence, the industry is allowed to legally price fix so that the consumer does not have the option of purchasing insurance elsewhere because all of the health insurance companies are alligned. It is also allowed to create monopolies within states thereby preventing consumer choice. In any other industry this is illegal because it prevents competition within the marketplace. Lack of competition ALWAYS translates to higher prices for the consumer and disasterous customer service because there is not incentive to take care of the customer when you’re the only game in town.
The operative language in Perriello’s bill is as follows:
“Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, impair, or supercede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to the business of health insurance.”
The bill will “restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.” Call your House member Senate member and tell him/her to support and vote for a Senate equivalent of the House bill HR 4626 The Health Insurance Fair Competition Act that will repeal the health insurance antitrust exemption and help bring accountability and competition to the health insurance industry. Write your House Senate member here.
Also, without repeal of the health insurance antitrust exemption the EXCHANGE/S being proposed in the current health care reform bill is/are pretty much useless. The health insurance industry will still be able to price fix and collude within the EXCHANGE thereby setting premium prices among themselves and preventing consumers from receiving real choice and competition.
I apologize for the hiccup with the site in the last 36 hours. Major issues with host company. This post is actually a day late due to administrative difficulties.
An outline of the President’s health care plan:
The proposal will make health care more affordable, make health insurers more accountable, expand health coverage to all Americans, and make the health system sustainable, stabilizing family budgets, the Federal budget, and the economy:
In this writers opin
New credit cardholder rules as affecting the consumer summarized by the Associated Press :
INTEREST RATES
THEN: Banks could raise the interest rate on an account at any time, including the rate on an existing balances, even if you weren’t late on payments.
NOW: The rate cannot be raised in the first year after an account is opened unless an introductory rate has come to an end. After that, cardholders must be notified 45 days in advance of any rate change.
For existing balances, rates can’t be raised unless the account is at least 60 days past due. If payments are made on time for six consecutive months, the original rate must be restored.
There’s still no cap on rates.
DISCLOSURES
THEN: The fine print on cardholder agreements was often difficult to understand. Rates, fees and penalties for other services such as cash advances, for example, could be hard to find. The impact of the interest rate on paying down a balance was hard to compute.
NOW: Cardholders will see how many months it will take to pay off a balance if only minimum payments are made. Statements will also indicate how much needs to be paid each month to pay off a balance within three years.
SERVICE FEES
THEN: Banks could charge as much as they wanted. They could assess annual fees, activation fees and other fees. This was mostly a problem for subprime cards marketed to those with poor credit scores. One popular card, for example, the Premier Bankcard, charged $256 in first-year fees for a $250 credit line.
NOW: Service fees, such as activation and annual fees, will be capped at 25 percent of the credit limit during the first year of use. After that, there is no cap.
GRACE PERIODS
THEN: Some card companies sent out statements not long before payments were due, and sometimes shifted payment due dates from month to month, meaning that payments would not always have enough time to arrive and get processed before being deemed late. As a result, some cardholders ended up getting charged interest or late fees even when they thought they were sending in payments on time.
NOW: The law requires that due dates remain consistent. Statements must be sent out 21 days before the payment due date, and finance charges and fees cannot be applied before that period is up. In practice, about half of card issuers have extended grace periods to as long as 25 days.
OVER-THE-LIMIT FEES
THEN: Banks set credit limits, then routinely allowed charges to exceed those limits. When that happened, though, the customer was charged an over-the-limit fee as high as $39. These fees were often triggered by interest charges or late-payment fees that pushed a balance over the credit limit. What’s more, multiple over-the-limit fees could get charged in a single billing cycle if the balance was paid down and another charge pushed the balance back over the limit.
NOW: The cardholder must specifically agree to permit transactions that exceed the credit limit. Only then can over-the-limit fees be charged. But the fees can’t be triggered by other fees or interest charges. Only one over-the-limit fee may be imposed during a billing cycle. No over-the-limit fees may be charged unless the cardholder has specifically agreed to permit transactions exceeding their authorized credit limit. These fees can no longer be triggered by other fees or interest charges imposed by the card issuer, and only one such fee may be imposed during a billing cycle.
In practice, several of the largest card companies have dropped these fees. Some banks are using pop-up boxes on their Web sites or other methods to obtain consumer authorization.
UNIVERSAL DEFAULT
THEN: If you made a late payment on one credit card or loan, or even late payments for obligations like utility bills, that could trigger interest rate hikes on other credit card accounts.
NOW: Card companies cannot raise interest rates on existing credit card balances. Interest rates can’t rise during the first year an account is open, unless the original agreement spelled out a promotional rate for a limited time.
Consumers with older accounts must be informed of any interest rate increase on new charges at least 45 days in advance. They must also be given a chance to opt out of the hike by canceling the account and paying down the balance at the old interest rate. If an interest rate is increased, the card company must review the account once every six months to assess whether the rate should be dropped.
STUDENTS
THEN: Students arriving on college campuses often confronted a gantlet of credit card marketers handing out T-shirts, pizza and other gifts in exchange for filling out card applications. Credit cards were frequently handed out without checking the applicant’s income sources. In 2008, 84 percent of undergraduates had at least one credit card. Average balances topped $3,100.
NOW: Credit cards may no longer be issued to anyone under age 21, unless the applicant has a co-signer, or can show independent means to repay the debt. Colleges must disclose any marketing deals they make with credit card companies. Banks are not allowed to hand out gifts on or near campuses or at college-related events.
Public option more popular in key states than the Senate bill:
* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.
* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.
* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.
* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.
* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.
* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.
* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.
* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.
* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.
* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.
* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.
* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.
Putting in a toothless regulator that changes in Washington whenever political control changes creates inconsistency and the likelihood that such regulator will become captured by the health insurance industry. A public option is the best way to create competition and keep the health insurance companies in line.
One Republican who is fed up with the Republican Party is long time conservative radio talk show host Michael Smerconish:
I’m not sure if I left the Republican Party or the party left me. All I know is that I no longer feel comfortable.
The national GOP is a party of exclusion and litmus tests, dominated on social issues by the religious right, with zero discernible outreach by the national party to anyone who doesn’t fit neatly within its parameters. Instead, the GOP has extended itself to its fringe while throwing under the bus long-standing members like New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, a McCain-Palin supporter in 2008 who told me she voted with her Republican leadership 90 percent of the time before running for Congress last fall.
Which is not to say I feel comfortable in the Democratic Party, either. Weeks before Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh’s announcement that he will not seek reelection, I noted the centrist former governor’s words to the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib. Too many Democrats, Bayh said in that interview, are “tone-deaf” to Americans’ belief that the party had “overreached rather than looking for consensus with moderates and independents.”
Where political parties once existed to create coalitions and win elections, now they seek to advance strict ideological agendas. In today’s terms, it’s hard to imagine the GOP tent once housing such disparate figures as conservative Barry Goldwater and liberal New Yorker Jacob Javits, while John Stennis of Mississippi and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts coexisted as Democratic contemporaries.
At its annual convention held this past weekend the standard bearer of the Republican party CPAC had GLENN BECK as its keynote speaker for goodness sake!
The majority of Americans want a public option so why is the the Senate determined not to give the public what it wants? Especially when it makes good fiscal sense, given the recent premium rate hikes of 39% CA and a proposed 54% in Michigan by Big Insurance, to do so? Senators and House members should take note of Rep. Tom Perriello’s example. Perriello is a Congressman in the very red fifth district in Virginia yet he voted his conscience when he voted in favor of including the public option in health care reform. After doing so he stated that he is willing to lose an election in the name of standing up for what he truly believes is best for his constituents and the nation. The result? At a time when many incumbents are retiring or are running a very weak reelection campaign Rep. Tom Perriello is tied or leading all the Republican candidates in his very red and conservative district. As voters we want strong leaders who stand up for what they believe in and do not sway as a result of an election loss in a state thousands of miles away. Voters do not vote for Democrats so that they will act like Republicans they vote for Republicans to be Republicans. One Senator who should really take note of this is Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. When Arkansians want a Republican senator they will not reelect a pseudo Republican senator. Therefore, pandering to the right does nothing more than expose such Senators as weak and willing to compromise their principles if it means getting reelected. Think about it.
We need an effective method of cost control in the health care reform bill and requiring an 85 percent medical loss ratio is not enough because Big Insurance will develop a new way of defining medical care. In other words, the insurance industry will find a way around the regulations similar to the way the credit card industry is doing to circumvent credit card company regulations. The only effective method of cost control for Big Insurance is to provide a public option to compete with it head to head.
The Senators below have signed a letter to Leader Harry Reid requesting a vote on the public option through reconciliation:
Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Diane Feinstein (D-CA); Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ); Bar;bara Mikulski (D-MD); Jack Reed (D-RI); Bernie Sanders (I-VT); Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH); Tom Udall (D-NM); Michael Bennet (D-CO); Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Al Franken (D-MN); Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY); John Kerry (D-MA); Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI); Dick Durbin (D-IL); Patty Murray (D-WA); Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Mark Udall (D-CO); Bob Casey (D-PA); Ted Kaufman (D-DE); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
The following Senators have not yet signed the letter….please call them and tell them to support the public option through reconciliation. Senate phone numbers and contact info.
Sen. Daniel Akaka HI
Sen. Max Baucus MT
Sen. Evan Bayh IN
Sen. Mark Begich AK
Sen. Jeff Bingaman NM
Sen. Robert Byrd WV
Sen. Maria Cantwell WA
Sen. Ben Cardin MD (Supporter)
Sen. Thomas Carper DE
Sen. Robert Casey PA
Sen. Kent Conrad ND
Sen. Christopher Dodd CT
Sen. Byron Dorgan ND
Sen. Richard Durbin IL
Sen. Russell Feingold WI (Supporter)
Sen. Kay Hagan NC
Sen. Tom Harkin IA
Sen. Daniel Inouye HI
Sen. Tim Johnson SD
Sen. Ted Kaufman DE
Sen. Amy Klobuchar MN (Supporter)
Sen. Herb Kohl WI
Sen. Mary Landrieu LA
Sen. Carl Levin MI (Supporter)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln AR
Sen. Claire McCaskill MO
Sen. Robert Menendez NJ
Sen. Patty Murray WA
Sen. Bill Nelson FL
Sen. Ben Nelson NE
Sen. Mark Pryor AR
Sen. Harry Reid NV
Sen. John Rockefeller WV
Sen. Arlen Specter PA
Sen. Debbie Stabenow MI
Sen. Jon Tester MT
Sen. Mark Udall CO
Sen. Mark Warner VA
Sen. James Webb VA
Sen. Ron Wyden OR
A crisp clean graphic that defeats every claim by the GOP that the Recovery Act did’t create jobs.
The GOP has been on parade in its opposition to the stimulus package passed a year ago but that didn’t stop Republicans from being first in line with their hand out. Republican Senators and House members alike has their hands out while at the same time yelling to anyone who would listen how the stimulus did not create any jobs. They did so while using such stimulus money to do what….create jobs in their districts and states. One of its own called out the Republicans on its blatant hypocrisy yesterday. Yes, the Rupert Murdoch owned conservative with a capital C Wall Street Journal listed some of the most egregious Republican offenders who have been begging for stimulus money while bashing it all over the airwaves.
More than a dozen Republican lawmakers supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service, in letters obtained by The Wall Street Journal through the Freedom of Information Act.
First up, Congressman Paul “wasteful spending spree” Ryan of Illinois:
Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a “wasteful spending spree” that “misses the mark on all counts,” wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, “intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs.” A spokeswoman for Mr. Ryan said the congressman felt it was his job to provide “the basic constituent service of lending his assistance for federal grant requests.”
Second, Representatives Sue Myrick (NC) and Jean Schmidt (OH):
Republican Reps. Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Jean Schmidt of Ohio sent letters in October asking for consideration of funding requests from local organizations training workers for energy-efficiency projects.
In November, Ms. Schmidt said in a statement, “It is time to recall the stimulus funds that have not been spent before the Chinese start charging us interest.”
Aaahh Sen. Cornyn of Texas:
The Environmental Protection Agency received two letters from Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asking for consideration of grants for clean diesel projects in San Antonio and Houston. Mr. Cornyn is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
One of the letters was signed jointly with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, also of Texas. The letter said that the Port of Houston Authority “has informed me of the positive impact this grant will have in the region by serving as a foundation for PHA’s Clean Air Strategy Plan, creating jobs, and significantly reducing diesel emissions.” Houston received millions of dollars in diesel funding.
The agency also appeared to have received eight identical letters from Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah recommending infrastructure projects in his state, seven of which were sent before stimulus legislation was passed by Congress.
You can read the full list of GOP hypocrites here. ThinkProgress has a much longer list here. Where’s the tea party at?
Sixty-six percent of terrorists tried in military tribunals have been released. Ninety percent of terrorist tried in federal courts have been convicted and remain behind bars. Please explain to us the logic for trying terrorist in military tribunals as opposed to civilian courts?
Sen. Lindsey Graham went to Rahm Emmanuel last week attempting to obtain a compromise from the White House in which it agrees to try all terrorists in military commissions and he agrees to support the closure of Guantanamo. ????????? We thought that decisions about where to hold trials were the Attorney General’s decision to make. Further, this appears to be trap that hopefully the Obama administration will not fall for. One terrorist released on this administration’s watch and the Republican party has its campaign issue for 2012.
Funny how the outrage is conveniently directed at the current administration when the last administration tried three hundred terrorists in federal courts without so much as a peep from the Lindsey Grahams of the world. All of sudden it is imperative that terrorists only be tried in military tribunals. Given the GOP’s track record for hypocrisy it would not be surprising to most that if Obama supported trying all terrorists in military commissions Republicans would be screaming that all terrorists must be tried in federal courts and trying them in military tribunals is jeopardizing our national security.
Terrorist trials conducted to date reveal that the federal court is a better forum and reaps better results. Over 300 terrorists were tried in federal courts and are still behind bars. Three terrorists tried in the non Supreme Court tested, opponents argue that it is a violation of the Constitution to use military tribunals without a declaration of war, military tribunals. You see George W. Bush only received an Authorization for Use of Military Force from Congress not an actual “declaration of war.” Simply calling it a “war” on terror for political gain does not count. Again, three terrorists tried in non Supreme Court tested military tribunals two of which have been released. Osama bin Laden’s driver got less than six years after being tried in a military tribunal. Nuff Said.
Dick Cheney recently criticized Vice President Biden for giving credit to the Obama administration for withdrawing troops from Iraq and reallocating troops to Afghanistan or in essence taking credit for success in Iraq. First, lets establish that the United States should never have gone to Iraq in the first place but thanks to you Mr. Cheney we are there. This is YOUR mess sir, the current administration is just cleaning it up. Now lets establish what success is in Iraq…getting out of Iraq as soon as possible and reallocating America’s resources to America for Americans. Now that we have established some facts take a look at what Cheney said yesterday on This Week regarding the role of the Bush administration in the success of the Iraq troop withdrawal:
Cheney: “Its being done in accordance to the timetable that we initiated (??? the Iraqi Prime Minister initiated) that we inau..that we negotiated with a…with the Iraqis…I mean that was our policy.”
Really Mr. Cheney? That was your policy? We respectfully disagree. In fact the Bush policy was exactly the opposite of a timetable for withdrawal as evidenced by Bush himself in 2008:
Bush Orders Halt in Iraq Withdrawals 4/2008: The president said that only as conditions in Iraq improve will he bring more troops home, a policy he calls “return on success.”
Bush Emphasizes His Opposition to Timetable for Iraq Withdrawal 7/16/2008: [Bush] reiterated his opposition to what he called “an artificial timetable for withdrawal.”
For those who see continuity between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on this issue it is because the Bush administration reactively changed its position at the tail end of 2008 due to a decision by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government and pressure from the American public then being informed and persuaded by presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. Candidate Obama campaigned on an Iraq timetable for American troop withdrawal from the genesis of his presidential campaign in 2007. At such time, George W. Bush repeatedly railed against an ”artificial timetable for withdrawal” and was intent on achieving “victory” before withdrawing troops. It was only when the Prime Minister of Iraq said that he endorsed a timetable for U.S withdrawal [then being advocated by Sen. Obama] that President Bush was forced to acquiesce to such a timetable three days after stating his strong opposition to the measure.
Bush, in a Shift, Accept concept of Iraq Timeline7/19/2008: “Under pressure from political parties wanting a diminishing American role, Mr. Maliki began demanding something in the agreement that would make it clear that American troops were on the way out. Iraq’s statement on Friday, reflecting those internal sensitivities, referred more specifically than the American version to ‘a time frame for the complete transfer of the security responsibilities to the hands of the Iraqi security as preface to decrease the number of the American forces and withdraw them later from Iraq.’ ”
“It came on the eve of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who has vowed to pursue a strict phased timetable for withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq over 16 months beginning next year. He has cited Iraq’s eagerness for a timetable as support for his strategy.”
So Mr. Cheney, withdrawing from Iraq was not the George W. Bush administration policy. The Bush administration simply co-opted the policy of candidate Barack Obama. In addition, it is the Obama administration that planned and is implementing the Iraq exit strategy from January 2009 to present day. All the Bush administration did was make stole the announcement. That dear sir is why the Obama administration deserves credit for withdrawing troops from Iraq and reallocating such resources to Afghanistan.
DEMOCRATS! REPUBLICANS ARE NOT GOING TO WORK WITH YOU! Why should they work with DEmocrats when they can oppose every single beneficial bill then blatantly and hypocritically take credit for such bills at the same time. Not to mention admit in private that such bills are good policy. Republicans will not vote for any legislation proposed by the Democrats or this President because opposing both is good politics for their party regardless of the help such legislation would provide to the American people. So Move it along Democrats and pass the much needed jobs bill, health care reform, and financial regulatory reform and stop pursuing the myth of bipartisanship!
