ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Former Bibi Adviser Launches Racist Attack

In a long, meandering, barely-coherent screed against the pro-Israel, pro-peace group J Street published in Pajamas Media, former AIPAC researcher, Netanyahu adviser, and current West Bank settler Lenny Ben-David attempts to raise suspicion about the group by noting that some of its supporters are Arab:

Take for example, the case of Rebecca Abou-Chedid. She appears in the federal elections records as contributing to J Street’s PAC. Her occupation is listed as “consultant” for “USUS LLC.” But until recently, she was also the national political director at the Arab American Institute where she “was responsible for formulating AAI’s positions on foreign policy … and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.” Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force.

Spencer Ackerman writes “You will notice that nowhere in Lenny Ben-David’s post is there any accusation that Rebecca has taken any sort of objectionable stand or made any sort of objectionable point. And that’s because it is impossible to do so.” Ben-David’s attack on is premised entirely on her Arab background, and on the presumption that it is impossible for those of Arab background to be both pro-Israel and pro-peace.

MJ Rosenberg, who worked with Ben-David when he was research director for AIPAC, writes that Ben-David “compiled files on everyone who criticized Israeli policies in any way and used the material he gathered to destroy careers.” Looks like Ben-David’s habits haven’t changed much — only now he’s going after people simply for the offense of having an Arab name. “The racist tribalism” behind Ben-David’s argument, writes Andrew Sullivan, “is surely part of the problem, not the solution.”

Even Jeffrey Goldberg, who regularly smears those with whom he disagrees on the issue of Israel, thinks Ben-David’s post was too much. That’s saying something.

Economy

GOP Warns Of 1970s Style ‘Gas Lines’ For Financial Products If CFPA Can Regulate Fees

Can't find a checking account?

Can't find a checking account?

The House Financial Services Committee continued to mark up legislation today creating a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), and it’s become increasingly clear that the Republicans’ aim is to find any way in which to render the agency toothless and incapable of actually influencing bank behavior.

After yesterday’s attempt to give all of the federal bank regulators complete veto power over the CFPA, the GOP today offered an amendment that would prevent regulators at the CFPA from imposing restrictions on bank fees or rates.

The justification was that such restrictions amount to “price controls,” which Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) said would result in rationing and lead to 1970s style gas lines for financial products. Instead, the GOP wants to leave responsibilities for regulating fees with the same banking regulators that didn’t (and still haven’t) reined them in. Watch it:

First, to think that fee restrictions would result in people lining up because they can’t find financial products strikes me as silly, since they’re not something with a finite supply. How would capping overdraft fees cut down on the number of checking accounts that exist, or could potentially exist in the future?

And it’s precisely because banks abuse things like overdraft fees that the CFPA needs to have power to impose and enforce restrictions. Banks are set to make $38.5 billion in overdraft fees this year, and as USA Today pointed out, overdraft fees are fine in theory, but banks have taken them to an extreme:

Bank of America, which announced changes in its program last week, has been charging up to 10 fees of $35 each in a single day. A majority of large banks — 54%, according to a government survey — reserve the right to process large transactions first, which empties accounts faster, squeezing more overdraft fees from customers.

Americans actually spend more on overdraft fees annually than they do on fresh vegetables. But it’s not just overdraft fees that the banks have abused. According to BankRate.com, this year “ATM fees and monthly service charges on interest-bearing checking accounts climbed to new highs, while bounced-check fees hovered near a high after adjusting for inflation.”

Some banks have even decided that they will charge customers fees for paying off their credit card on time or for not using their credit card enough. “You heard that right: You could be spanked for staying out of debt,” wrote Sandra Block. There are innumerable little ways in which the banks can unfairly take advantage of consumers, which makes it imperative that the banks be able to enforce restrictions. The committee will vote on the amendment when markup resumes tomorrow.

Politics

Bachmann Says Dole And Frist Represent A ‘Non-Pro-Freedom Agenda’ Because They Want Health Reform

Today on her radio program, Laura Ingraham interviewed guest Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and asked her about the ideological direction of the Republican Party. The pair discussed recent statements made by retired GOP Senate Majority Leaders Bill Frist (TN) and Bob Dole (KS) in support of some type of comprehensive health reform.

Dole has called for Republicans to become engaged in the process, stating “we’ve got to do something” to solve the current crisis. Frist has endorsed the Senate Finance health reform bill, and has called out “people on the extreme” in his own party for falsely labeling President Obama’s health reform as “socialized medicine.” Clearly incensed by these comments, Ingraham and Bachmann traded barbs trashing the former Republican leaders for daring to veer away from a “pro-freedom agenda”:

INGRAHAM: Of course. God bless Bob Dole he just came on our show, I have great respect for the man. And also for Frist. But Frist presided over a pretty disastrous situation in the Senate.

BACHMANN: They lost.

INGRAHAM: They lost. And Bob Dole lost how many times on a national level? I guess I’ve lost count. [...] That Republican ideology and that Republican outlook has been a losing outlook. That’s why President Obama wants more of us to be like them.

BACHMANN: Because we want a pro-freedom agenda. And he’s trying to throw people around who he believes will increase a non-pro-freedom agenda.

Listen here:

Bachmann and Ingraham’s vitriol wasn’t only reserved for Republicans who dared to express a willingness to support reform. Asked if the New York Times’ recent profile of her has generated a lot of “hate mail,” Bachmann replied that although she does receive a lot of mail, it is “because Nancy Pelosi has made me a top target.” Ingraham then began mocking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives and the highest-ranking female politician in American history — by making hissing and cat noises, then shrieking, “she doesn’t like powerful women.”

Listen here:

Yglesias

Endgame

Don’t let me die here:

— Whale penis leather is not just for weird Russian cars it’s also the subject of Chapter 95 of Moby Dick.

— Someone replaced Mickey Kaus with this fellow making smart points about Fox News.

— Innovative new forms of dishonesty in conservative climate bill opposition.

Tim Lee and Kerry Howley are both making sense, but the upshot is that the most persuasive form of libertarianism isn’t really libertarianism at all.

— What’s good for Goldman Sachs is not necessarily good for the rest of us.

If you want an actual example of a much-loathed song that’s actually pretty good, look not to Creed but instead to Evanescence and “Bring Me Too Life”.

Health

Reid Attacks GOP And AMA After Defeat Of ‘Doc Fix’ Bill

After the Senate failed to pass the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) patch to help doctors avert a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accused Republicans of deliberately voting against the bill to undermine health care reform. The amendment, which was not paid for, failed 47-53, “13 short of the 60 needed to advance the measure” to a final vote. Thirteen Democrats joined all Republicans to oppose the measure.

“One of the sponsors of this legislation, one of the Republican leaders is not supporting this legislation,” Reid said referring to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). “How do you like that? This is another effort of the Republicans to slow down, divert, and stop what we’re trying to do with health care and basically everything else.” Reid suggested that Republicans were keeping the issue alive to divert broader health reform and and accused them of hypocrisy:

I want everyone here to know, we’re going to take care of Medicare. If the Republicans here in the Senate don’t want to do it the way we’ve done it in the past by doing this doctors’ fix, then we will, when we finish the health care legislation, we’ll come back and we’ll take care of a multiple-year fix for the doctors and senior citizens….but I think it’s really too bad that suddenly they’ve gotten religion. They never worried in the past about all these tax cuts being paid for. They never worried about the drug manufacturers getting all this free stuff they got. They never worried about any of this. They now are suddenly being very frugal, very frugal when they find it’s a way that they can slow down what we do here.

Watch it:

The vote underlines the GOP’s duplicitous strategy and also reveals the diminishing power of the American Medical Association (AMA). “We were told by the American Medical Association and others, that we would get help by the Republicans to take care of senior citizens so they could have doctors to take care of them,” Reid lamented. The vote is a defeat for the AMA, which spent some $2 million dollars lobbying for the SGR fix in the last 2 weeks.

Media

Liberal Analyst Found Out Through ‘Google Alert’ That Fox News Fired Him

marclamonthillwebLast Friday, during a News Corp. shareholders meeting, Chairman Rupert Murdoch was asked why Fox News would hire liberal analyst Marc Lamont Hill, who, the questioner said, has a “reputation of defending cop killers and racists.” Murdoch reportedly replied that Hill had already been fired. While both Fox and Hill were initially tight-lipped about Murdoch’s reported comment, Mediaite later confirmed that Hill had indeed been fired by the network.

When asked “what happened” during a recent interview with conservative radio host Steve Malzberg, Hill said that he has no idea why he was fired. “I don’t have a lot of information because I wasn’t given a lot of information.” In fact, Hill said he found out from a “Google alert” that Fox let him go:

HILL: Yeah I mean it’s an interesting thing. I wish I could give you a great deal of information that I don’t have a lot of information because I wasn’t given a lot of information. To date, Fox News Channel hasn’t given me any information as to why. … I’m just a little puzzled. [...]

MALZBERG: First of all, you told me you found out when you got a Google alert, so I mean, did anybody eventually call you from Fox and tell you that you were fired?

HILL: Yeah I eventually – I got a Google alert at 11 o’clock [a.m.] that it had been announced that I’d been fired. After that, I guess someone followed up later in the day, you know because I was sort of trying to figure out what was going on. … I found out that it was true but other than that I don’t have any other information. … I haven’t had any thorough conversation with anyone.

Listen here:

Indeed, shortly after reports surfaced of Hill’s dismissal, he tweeted (which has since been deleted), “You ever had anyone break up with you by text?” So why did Fox News fire Hill? While Fox never responded to inquiries from ThinkProgress, Hill told Malzberg that “people can certainly look on the internet and Google and see all sorts of stories and information” as to why he was fired.

Right-wing propagandist Cliff Kincaid, who works for “Accuracy in Media,” has been on a crusade to try to get Hill fired from the network because, as Kincaid has said, Hill is a “left wing cop-killer apologist.” In a celebratory note after Murdoch’s announcement, Kincaid noted that he had in fact asked about Hill during last week’s News Corp. meeting and criticized Fox for not doing “elementary analysis” of Hill before they hired him. During his interview with Malzberg, Hill called Kincaid’s charges “unfair misrepresentations.”

In the segment, Hill also commented about the recent spat between the White House and Fox News. “Is Fox News a right-leaning organization? No doubt about it,” Hill said. But he later added that he doesn’t yet “feel comfortable” commenting on whether Fox News is an “arm” of the Republican Party.

Climate Progress

18 leading scientific organizations send letter to Senators affirming the climate is changing, “human activities are the primary driver,” impacts are projected to worsen “substantially” and “If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

Here is the letter from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

Well it’s a start (see “Publicize or perish: The scientific community is failing miserably in communicating the potential catastrophe of climate change“).  But I still prefer the Bali declaration by more than 200 of the world’s leading climate scientists, which embraces the 2°C target and specific emissions reductions targets.

The footnote reads:

Read more

Yglesias

What if they Gave a “War” …

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung

If American defense analysts want to make fun of German politicians for refusing to proclaim their engagement in Afghanistan to be a “war” that’s their right. But people should understand that they’re basically asking Germany to withdraw its 4,000+ troops from Afghanistan. The German government, for reasons that shouldn’t be too hard to understand, is absolutely committed to not fighting a “war” unless Germany is attacked by a foreign adversary. People should be familiar with this basic attitude from the case of Japan.

Nowadays, of course, both Germany and Japan are valuable American allies and the tendency is for American policymakers to want to coax both of them to play a bigger role in the world—to lighten the burden on us. But it’s a politically dicey process. In Germany, which has gone further than Japan in terms of being willing to send troops abroad, part of the process is that they’ll contribute forces to a UN-sponsored stabilization mission in Afghanistan but not to a “war.” The deployment, meanwhile, is quite unpopular in Germany but supported by a broad consensus of all the major political parties except for the marginalized Linke. But push on them far enough and this political consensus will break and they’ll go home.

I know a lot of American soldiers, and especially COIN enthusiasts, have a low opinion of the Bundeswehr’s effectiveness so maybe they don’t care. And if so, that’s fine. But just as a counterinsurgent needs to understand the local culture in Afghanistan he also has to understand the domestic politics of his allies. German hostility to aggressive military action is not a joke.

Climate Progress

Oops: Some comments accidentally went into spam folder

I just realized that a combination of a computer glitch and human error (mine) accidentally tightened the spam filter for about two days.  A couple dozen comments were caught.  I just went through and released them.

I hope I found them all amidst the staggering amount of real spam (e.g. “buy xanax cheap” — not that such offers wouldn’t come in handy somedays).

My apologies to new and old readers alike if you tried to post and failed.  Please keep those comments coming!

Health

Senators Offer Hypocritical Deficit Argument And Vote Down ‘Doc Fix’

This afternoon, Congress failed to protect physicians who treat Medicare patients from a scheduled 21% reduction in payments. The so-called Stabenow amendment would have reversed the cuts scheduled under the statutory Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and given doctors “$247 billion more than they would otherwise get for their Medicare services over the next 10 years.” The amendment was not paid for and failed 47-53, “13 short of the 60 needed to advance the measure” to a final vote. Thirteen Democrats joined all Republicans to oppose the measure.

Congress created the SGR in 1997 to check rising health care costs. According to the formula, “the amount Medicare pays doctors for an average Medicare patient can’t grow faster than the economy as a whole.” In 2002, medical inflation outpaced economic growth and Congress stepped in to avert the cuts. Between 1999 and 2008, Congress patched the SGR formula six different times.

This year, as Democrats attempted to patch the cut by offering a floor amendment outside of the major health care reform bills, Republicans and some conservative Democrats argued that “the $247 billion Medicare bill would violate Mr. Obama’s vow that health care legislation not add ‘one dime’ to the budget deficit. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) accused Obama of breaking his campaign pledge:

And now the Democrats in Congress are proposing that we put another quarter of a trillion dollars on the government charge card in order to prevent a cut in the reimbursements for doctors who treat Medicare patients. All of us want to keep this cut from happening, but the American people do not want us to barrow another cent to pay for it. And they don’t want Democrats to pretend that this quarter of a trillion dollars isn’t part of the cost of health care reform. Because it is. It is also a clear violation of the President’s pledge that health care reform wouldn’t add a single dime to the deficit over the next decade.

Watch it:

But McConnell supported paying for the SGR patch with deficit spending before he opposed it. Since Congress began fixing the formula in 1999, he — and the majority of the Republican party — rarely objected to barrowing “another cent to pay for it.” McConnell has voted to patch the SGR five different times, three of his votes resulted in increased deficits:


Year Name Of Bill Provisions Vote Did It Add To Deficit?
1999 Incorporated into an omnibus bill Eliminated Medicare reimbursement cuts for 2000 through 2002. Senate: 74-24

House: 216-210
NO
2003 The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 Eliminated Medicare reimbursement cuts for 2004 and 2005. Senate: 54-44

House: 220-215 Nays
YES, provision added 600M in 2004; $1.2B in 2005.
2005 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Averted a scheduled 4.4% cut. Senate: 51 – 50

House: 212-206
NO, generated $39B 2006-2010.
2006 Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 Averted a scheduled 5.0% cut. Senate: 79-9

House: 367-45
YES, added $29 billion.
2007 Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 Averted a scheduled 10.1% cut. Senate: Unanimous Consent

House: 411-3
YES, full bill added about $1.4B.
2008 Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 Averted a scheduled 11% cut. Senate: 70-26

House: 383-41
NO, Congress overrode Bush’s veto; Reduce deficits by $0.1B

Ultimately, the SGR fix has little to do with health care reform. After all, the patch is not adjusting unsustainable growth in health care spending or some other system imbalance. It is fixing a failed complex formula that Congress created to control health care spending.

The formula is ineffective in holding down physician expenditures because it “does little to counter the inherently inflationary nature of fee-for-service payment” (which encourages physicians to prescribe more care) and treats every physician in every region exactly the same. “It neither rewards physicians who restrain volume growth nor punishes those who prescribe unnecessary services.”

Congress should eliminate the scheduled pay cut and fix the formula, but physicians should not receive a blank check. Instead, they should be required to adopt efficiencies and delivery system reforms. After all, if the purpose of the SGR is to reduce health care spending, physicians should play their part.

Older

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

Sign Up