ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Scattered Speech Points

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 9, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Some thoughts:

— Personally, I sort of liked Rep Joe Wilson’s idea of introducing British-style heckling to the halls of congress; totally disrespectful and out of step with American tradition, true, but their tradition is better. Unfortunately, Wilson was also lying about the point at issue and will thereby set back the cause of heckling by decades.

— Obama’s pledge to refuse to sign a bill that increases the deficit by so much as “one dime” may be politically savvy, but it’s substantively insane. For one thing, there’s a margin of error around these medium-term budget projections. For another thing, it’s ten cents! That’s nothing worth vetoing anything over! Common sense!

— Speaking of common sense, Rep Boustany’s repeated invocation of the phrase seems like a transparent effort to cover up the fact that he has no real ideas. Totally gutting all regulation of the insurance industry is “common sense”? really?

— POTUS did a great job of breaking down what’s actually in the bill, and both making the case for the public option and also putting it in perspective.

— Straw-mannish attack on single-payer supporters was annoying, but I think politically necessary; if you’re going to put forward a very moderate plan you’ve got to remind people that there really are all these liberals out there who want a real liberal plan.

Top Chef watching now.

Politics

GOP Lawmakers Treat President Obama’s Joint Address To Congress Like A Town Hall Protest

By ThinkProgress on Sep 9, 2009 at 9:34 pm

Tonight during his joint address to Congress, President Obama attempted to set the record straight on some of the “key controversies” surrounding the health care debate. While it’s normal for members of the opposition party to occasionally not clap at statements with which they disagree, congressional Republicans went further tonight, being outright rude at times.

At one point, President Obama addressed the myth that his health care proposals would insure undocumented immigrants: “This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

In response, Republicans not only began booing him, but Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted out, “LIE!” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) shot an angry look in his direction, and Vice President Biden shook his head. The rudeness shocked even veteran political observers such as NBC’s Chuck Todd, who wrote on Twitter, “Wow. What’s next a duel?” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough also wrote, “Whoever shouted out that the president was lying is a dumbass who should show the President respect.” On MSNBC after the speech, Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman said, “The Republicans were mostly stage props in this speech tonight and they behaved like it.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) could also be seen wearing holding a homemade sign — similar to the ones seen at town hall protests — around his neck, which read, “What bill?” Watch it:

Various Republican lawmakers were also holding up draft GOP bills during the speech:

fnc090909204439

Transcript: Read more

Justice

SCOTUS Poised To End Meaningful Campaign Finance Regulation

By Ian Millhiser on Sep 9, 2009 at 8:00 pm

bribeLast Term, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of leaving a case on its docket undecided.  Rather than answer the narrow question presented in Citizens United v. FEC – whether a 90 minute film attacking former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is subject to campaign finance laws — the justices instead ordered the parties to brief whether longstanding restrictions on corporate money in politics should be declared unconstitutional.  Today, the Court reheard Citizens United in a rare September sitting.

Early reports suggest that, true to form, the Court’s five conservatives are now poised to open the floodgates to unlimited corporate money in U.S. politics.  Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas are already on record claiming that campaign finance reform violates the Constitution; and while Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have not previously weighed in on this specific question, both of the Court’s newest conservatives towed predictably pro-corporate lines at today’s argument.  Although it’s likely that the Court will not completely eliminate all campaign regulation, the system that they leave in place will probably do little to keep United Health and AETNA, for example, from spending billions to defeat supporters of health reform in 2010 and 2012.

Presently, campaign finance law draws a distinction between “independent” campaign expenditures — such as money which funds attack ads that aren’t authorized by or coordinated with a campaign — and direct donations to a candidate.  Significantly, in its order asking the parties to rebrief Citizens United, the Court asked whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a case upholding bans on “independent” corporate expenditures, should be overruled, but it did not mention the century-old ban on direct campaign donations by corporations.  Accordingly, it is most likely that the Court will overrule Austin but leave the longstanding ban on direct contributions in place.

The intellectual framework  for this distinction rests on a frankly naive understanding of independent contributions as incapable of influencing politicians’ actions.  Historically, campaign finance regulation has been justified under the First Amendment because of the government’s compelling need to prevent either the reality or the appearance that politicians’ votes are driven solely by which interests are willing to write them the biggest check.  Conservatives have long maintained that independent contributions do not raise the specter of bribery, however, because the donor never actually interacts with the candidate or the campaign.  Apparently, in Justice Kennedy’s America, George W. Bush was incapable of figuring out who funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Moreover, preventing bribery is only one small part of an effective campaign finance scheme.  In 2005, for example, a Bush DOJ political appointee saved the tobacco industry $120 billion by secretly altering a court document to reduce the award the federal government was seeking in a lawsuit, but there is no indication that the industry bribed anyone to get the document altered.  Rather, Bush Administration officials sincerely believed that corporations should not be accountable for their actions, and their governed with these values in mind.  In 2010, and 2012, it should be easy for the tobacco industry to find similarly-minded candidates to throw their massive treasuries behind.

Ultimately, these massive treasuries are the problem with the Roberts Court’s likely decision in Citizens United.  Unlike actual human beings, corporations can exist forever and amass hundreds of billions of dollars in the process.  With such awesome resources at their hands, the record-breaking $745 million President Obama raised in his election campaign becomes quaint.  Indeed, if the Court opens the flood-gates on independent corporate campaign expenditures, actual spending by campaigns (and small donations by ordinary Americans) could become irrelevant, drowned out by a sea of corporate cash.

Security

Afghanistan And The Legitimacy Question

By Guest Blogger on Sep 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Our guest blogger is Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

karzai-poster1A relatively minor quote by Bruce Riedel, respected Brookings scholar and former head of Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review earlier this year, in this article in the New York Times caught my attention. Riedel said that “Even if we get a second round of voting, the odds are still high that Karzai will win. We have a fundamental interest in building up the legitimacy of the Karzai government.”

My worry comes from the second half of the quote and the use of the terms “fundamental interest” and the sharp focus on “the Karzai government” when Riedel talks about legitimacy.

First, on the “fundamental interest” part — can we declare a new rule among national security think tank wonks? When one uses phrases like “national interest” or “fundamental interest,” can that expert please explain what is meant by this word, “interest?”

With sugar on it and for the sake of the country, can we please explain what we’re talking about when national security experts invoke “interests?” (You know what happens when one assumes…)

Second, on Riedel’s point on “building up the legitimacy of the Karzai government,” I think he must have made a slight mistake here in offering this quote. I’m pretty sure he meant to make the case that the world has an interest in ensuring that Afghanistan’s governing institutions are legitimate. That’s different than narrowly focusing on “the legitimacy of the Karzai government.”

Sorry to be the stickler here, but it’s an important point. Neither the United States, nor any outside actor, can enhance the legitimacy of any Afghan political actor unilaterally or through our own actions. It’s foolhardy to think so, and I think is tied up with notions like American exceptionalism and how we view ourselves in the world.

It’s going to require those Afghan leaders to take the initiative. Frankly, as Hardin Lang from CSIS and I argue in an article for Foreign Policy.com this week, the Obama administration would do well to require Afghanistan’s next leader to meet certain standards before we pour more resources in there. Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm

Am I the only one who’s insane?

— The anti-czar movement may be dumb but you’ve got to respect a recursive acronym.

— These guys must be anti-semites.

— New Republic Editor in Chief Martin Peretz thinks the Financial Times is anti-semitic.

— One school district won’t let kids hear Barack Obama, will bus them to see George W. Bush.

— Is it really the Cato Institute’s view that we should abolish the Federal Reserve System?

Very excited for the Ladyhawke / Ida Maria show on Saturday; here’s Ladyhawke’s “My Delirium”.

Politics

Exploiting 9/11, Glenn Beck, Extremists And Corporate-Backed Groups Plan Anti-Obama March

By Lee Fang on Sep 9, 2009 at 6:05 pm

This Saturday, right-wing protesters will gather in Washington DC for a march to oppose health reform and President Obama. The event, scheduled intentionally on September 12 to coincide with the anniversary of the day following the September 11 terrorist attacks, was conceived largely by Fox News’ Glenn Beck. However, most of the day-to-day organizing has been orchestrated by a now familiar set of lobbyists and Republican operatives who helped plan anti-Obama “grassroots” tea party events since February. In addition, a set of far-right groups are supporting the event, bringing along their members to join in on the Obama-bashing.

In the past, Beck has said he “hates” the families of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Nonetheless, Beck hosted a special program earlier this year announcing his initiative called the “9/12 Project” — an effort to ostensibly recreate the patriotic unity after the September 11 attacks. But far from calls for common ground, Beck explained that the purpose was to demonize his political opponents, declaring that his movement would “surround them.” He has also implored listeners to attend the rally because they “may be the only thing that stands between freedom and slavery.” The 9/12 project website, owned by Beck’s media company Mercury Radio Arts, directs readers to Beck’s radio newsletter.

While Beck and his allies in right-wing media have provided a platform of constant publicity and coverage for the march, FreedomWorks, led by former corporate lobbyist and Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), has turned the gears to make the event possible. The official website for the protest, 912dc.org, is owned and operated by FreedomWorks and most of the logistical work for the march is being coordinated from its offices in DC. Starting in August, Beck began directing viewers to the FreedomWorks website at the end of his Fox News show. Billed as a “grassroots” rally, the event is actually sponsored by organizations run by partisan GOP operatives and corporate front groups:

– Gold Sponsor Tea Party Patriots is a website run by FreedomWorks staffers. When Tea Party Patriots list serv members objected to the 9/12 march symbol, they were rebuffed and told that all final decisions were made by FreedomWorks.

– Gold Sponsor Our Country Deserves Better is a Republican PAC that also operates the Tea Party Express, a bus tour arriving in DC for the 9/12 march. Our Country Deserves Better/Tea Party Express, which has ran an advertisement comparing Obama to Hitler, is managed by the GOP consulting firm Russo, Marsh & Rogers.

– Bronze Sponsors The Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute are phony think-tanks dedicated to churning out academic-appearing reports to discredit global warming. Like FreedomWorks, both organizations are funded by David and Charles Koch of the Koch Industries oil empire, one of the largest privately held companies in the world.

– Bronze Sponsor American Conservative Union is run by David Keene, a lobbyist for a firm that represents private health care companies, including the insurer HealthFirst.

– Bronze Sponsor The Senate Conservatives Fund is a Republican Party PAC run by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Many of these groups — each of which paid up to $10,000 to FreedomWorks to participate as sponsors — were pivotal in providing assistance (talking points, event lists, signs) to attendees of rowdy town halls in August and anti-Obama tea party protests. Encouraging anger and intimidation against lawmakers supporting health care reform was part of the strategy.

But for the 9/12 march, there appears to be a shift towards a more radical coalition. The official sponsorship list reveals a subterranean, extreme element of the American right in attendance. The National Association for Rural Landowners, a bronze sponsor, references the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge to call for attacks on “government entities” and liberals. In a YouTube video posted in July, the group makes the case for a secession, followed by a violent civil war. Similarly, another 9/12 cosponsor, FreeRepublic, is a forum for various radical right causes. As ThinkProgress reported, the shooter at the Holocaust museum found a welcome audience for his writings on the website.

Despite the inclusion of such anti-government extremists, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) plan to attend and speak.

Update

Koch Industries’ Melissa Cohlmia sent ThinkProgress an e-mail, taking issue with some facts in our post:

–Regarding FreedomWorks – Koch Industries, the Koch foundations, and Charles and David Koch have no ties to and have never given money to FreedomWorks.
–Regarding The Heartland Institute – Koch Industries’ last donation to this organization was in 1994, 15 years ago; the Koch foundations’ last donation occurred a decade ago, in 1999. In terms of personal giving, neither Charles Koch or David Koch have ever given money to Heartland Institute.
–Also, by way of clarification, you are correct in stating that David Koch supports Competitive Enterprise Institute. However, Charles Koch has never given money to this organization. Further, the last donation to this organization from a Koch foundation was in 2004, and the last donation from Koch Industries was in 2003.

Although Koch funded FreedomWorks’ predecessor Citizens for A Sound Economy, Cohlmia informed us that they no longer fund FreedomWorks. However, Cohlmia confirmed that Koch still finances Americans for Prosperity, another group that helped to publicize and support the 9/12 anti-Obama rally. Here are pictures of the Americans for Prosperity bus and its leader Tim Phillips at the rally.

Health

What You Need To Know About The New Lewin Report…And How The GOP Will Misuse It

By Igor Volsky on Sep 9, 2009 at 5:45 pm

Over at the Atlantic, Chris Good points to a troubling new Lewin study that the GOP will undoubtedly incorporate into its talking points. The new report for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, concludes that the House legislation as amended by the Energy and Commerce Committee “would incur a $1.01 trillion net cost to the federal government from 2020-2029 “due to rapid growth in health care costs that will outpace the growth in incomes and revenues over the longer-term.’” After 10 years, the bill will add only Here are some of the ugliest numbers:

- The net federal cost of the Act over the following ten years (2020 through 2029) would be $1.01 trillion (excluding debt service costs) due to rapid growth in health care costs that will outpace the growth in incomes and revenues over the longer-term.

- Families in which all members currently have insurance would save an average of about $176 under the Act, while families with one or more uninsured members would, on average, see an increase in family health spending of $1,410 per family.

- Overall, employer health spending would increase by an average of $305 per worker. Employers that currently offer insurance would see an increase in health spending of $123 per worker, while employers that do not now offer coverage would see an increase in health spending by an average of about $813 per worker.

- The study assumes that employers would eventually pass their higher benefit or tax costs through to workers in the form of lower wage growth. As a result, average after-tax wages would decline by $180 per family. Those effects are captured in the impact on families and individuals. On average, families would see health care spending increase by about $120 in 2011 as more people gain coverage and some people obtain better coverage.

At first glance, the study — while certainly troubling twenty years out — undermines the GOP’s doomsday predictions. The public plan does not crowd out private coverage. The employer mandate doesn’t result in large job losses. The plan is almost deficit neutral after 10 years, 30 million Americans obtain health insurance, states and small businesses save money, Americans with health insurance save money and small businesses “would save up to $813 per worker.”

But scoring something 20 years out is always tricky (and the report’s ability to predict the increase in cost per family to a dollar amount is almost laughable.) As Congressional Budget Office head Douglas Elmendorf has repeatedly pointed out, “it is very hard to look out over a very long term and say very accurate things about growth rates.” “We have very little evidence about interlocking changes in the complex health-care system, and I don’t think that our numbers should be the ultimate determinant of the policies that you and your colleagues will vote for and against,” Elmdenorf said.

Indeed, the CBO has certainly made its share of mistakes in estimating the budgetary effects of policy 10 years out — and it doesn’t help that Lewin, like the CBO, is going for 20, while dismissing system savings.

Like the CBO, Lewin does not calculate the savings from implementing electronic medical records, health information technology and reforming the way Medicare and Medicaid reimburse providers (so-called modernization policies). As Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin and David Cutler pointed out in a recent analysis, these savings can total to some $2 trillion. In fact, even the industry is on record as saying we can reduce the growth rate in annual health spending by 1.5 percentage points a year over the next 10 years, lowering spending overall health care spending by $2 trillion (this represents a 20 percent reduction in projected growth.)

In other words, a $1.01 trillion cost is an inference that ignores system-wide savings — savings that policy makers can guarantee by including a so-called fail-safe option. In other words, a commission would monitor health care spending and implement a series of measures to address the problematic areas.

Climate Progress

Sure Obama ended the Bush depression, cut taxes for 98% of working families, and jumpstarted the shift to a clean energy economy with a $100 billion in stimulus funds — but what has the green FDR done lately?

By Joe Romm on Sep 9, 2009 at 5:42 pm

The Washington Post has yet another dubious spin on Obama today, “Environmental Groups Wait to See Definitive Action From Obama“:

The abrupt resignation Saturday of White House “green jobs” adviser Van Jones has focused new attention on one of the Obama administration’s top priorities: the environment.

While Jones was criticized as a left-wing zealot, the Obama team’s record so far on the environment has been far from radical.

The White House’s main effort has been to undo several Bush-era policies on climate control, air pollution and the regulation of roadless forests. Those actions, combined with court decisions that have struck down other rules, have given President Obama a relatively blank canvas on which to redraw U.S. environmental policy. But the administration has been cautious, leaving key issues in limbo and questions unanswered about the way it would balance environmentalism and the economy.

Uhh, no, no, and no.  Van Jones was the green jobs advisor.  He was an ardent advocate for reducing pollution and poverty together with clean energy.  So a media story that starts with his resignation can’t utterly ignore the staggering achievements in both clean energy and greenhouse gas emissions that Obama has already attained — gains that exceed his four predecessors combined.  Well I should said a story “shouldn’t utterly ignore” since this story does.

Obama’s record so far on clean energy and the most important environmental issue — global warming — may not be politically radical, but it is unparalleled in U.S. history.

Let’s remember, for instance, that Obama will raise new car fuel efficiency standard to 39 mpg by 2016 “” The biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken to cut CO2. And the Obama EPA declared carbon pollution a serious danger to Americans’ health and welfare requiring regulation.  The final EPA announcement should come this month, leading to the first ever national global warming regulations (at least for new power plants) — no matter what Congress does.  Of course Obama helped get through the House of Representatives its first ever climate bill, which is also the first clean air bill in two decades — see The U.S. House of Representatives approves landmark (bipartisan!) climate bill, 219 – 212. Waxman-Markey would complete America’s transition to a clean energy economy, which started with the stimulus bill.

And then we have that amazing stimulus.  Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, in his post “Obama Has Cut Taxes for 98.6 Percent of Working* Households**” asserts, “One thing I don’t quite get has been the White House’s reluctance to highlight the non-infrastructure parts of the stimulus package.”  In fact, the White House hasn’t done a very good job of touting the $100 billion in clean energy benefits of the infrastructure or most of its other energy and environmental achievements.  Since the media, among others, seems to have forgotten, let me excerpt from my April 26 post, “The Green FDR: Obama’s first 100 days make “” and may remake “” history“:

Read more

Politics

Rep. Broun walks away from man asking for plan to lower health care costs: ‘If you have a suggestion, send it.’

By Zaid Jilani on Sep 9, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Yesterday, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) held a town hall in Watkinsville, GA, where he fielded questions about health care legislation before Congress. At the conclusion of the town hall, Ryan Lewis, an Athens, GA, resident, approached the congressman and politely explained to him about how his health insurance company refuses to pay for his treatment. In response, Broun told Lewis, “We need to make insurance affordable.” Lewis then asked, “How do we do that?” Rather than offering a GOP solution to skyrocketing health care costs, Broun simply told him, “If you have a suggestion, send it to me” and quickly walked away. Watch it:

Related Posts

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up