ThinkProgress Logo

Justice

National Gay Military Group Rolls Out Plan To Repeal DADT Before The End OF The Year

By Igor Volsky on Feb 10, 2010 at 8:15 pm

soldier2Eager to capitalize on the recent momentum for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and weary of the military’s ability to derail the process with a year-long review, a national organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans has proposed a plan that would lock in a date for full Congressional repeal and give the military 18 months to “do its studies, work through its issues, and plan for successful implementation.” “After the hearing, I think there’s been an expectation that we would have a study process in 2010 and a legislative process in 2011,” said Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United told the Advocate. “But a lot of us in the military community feel like that’s a grave political mistake and we’re potentially risking the entire issue by proceeding that way.”

The group’s Set End-date / Delayed Implementation (SEDI) model would proceed in the following way:

- Immediately: Pentagon Working Group begins work; Legislation introduced to lock in repeal

- After 3 months: Deadline for interim changes to policy enforcement; First report to Congress

- After 6 months: Second report to Congress on progress of repeal implementation planning

- After 9 months: Third report to Congress on progress of repeal implementation panning

- After 12 months: [Repeal passed]; Repeal implementation begins according to plan established by Pentagon

- After 18 months: Full repeal completed; Final report to Congress

The model places Congress and the Pentagon on two separate tracks: the former repeals the policy, the latter studies “how we best prepare for it.” There is no endless delay or year-long review to tell us what numerous studies and real world experiences in other countries have unanimously concluded: on the whole, straight soldiers don’t really care about the sexual orientation of their colleagues. As one headline in Foreign Policy magazine put it about gays in the Israeli military: ‘They’re Here, They’re Queer, It’s No Big Deal.’

The ‘big deal’ is the threat of a manufactured controversy that could arise from a drawn out process. “Even if all parties involved have the best of intentions, the DADT issue does not exist in a vacuum. Many other forces can intervene between now and the future point at which the Pentagon finishes its planning and study that can derail the intended trajectory, including a year’s worth of time for reactionary opposition to organize and wage a serious campaign, the midterm elections, and the outcomes of other volatile political issues,” the report notes.

After all, if the health debate taught Democrats anything, it’s this: “Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.”

Climate Progress

Q: What do public support for clean energy and global temperatures have in common?

By Climate Guest Blogger on Feb 10, 2010 at 8:13 pm

A: They both keep going up despite the anti-science, pro-polluter echo chamber.

This is a guest post by Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow at American Progress.

Climate progress auteur Dr. Joseph Romm recently noted the Earth is stuck in a “Groundhog Decade”¦where it’s always the hottest decade on record.”  Temperature data from NOAA demonstrates that the ’00′s were warmer than the ’90′s, which were warmer than the ’80′s, and so on.  The data points in one direction: the Earth continues to warm.

Analogously, public opinion data on global warming also points in one direction:  Americans support investments in clean energy, and want action to reduce global warming pollution.  Poll after poll finds majorities support these measures, despite the worst economy in eighty years, and $100 million and growing of big oil and coal advocacy to defeat clean energy and global warming legislation.

Two just-released polls reiterate public support for clean energy and global warming pollution reductions.   One is a nationwide poll by Yale University and George Mason University.  The other is a poll of Massachusetts voters taken immediately after Republican Scott Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate to replace the late Democrat Edward Kennedy.  This poll found that a majority Brown voters support reductions in global warming pollution.

Read more

Health

Paul Ryan: Democrats Can Achieve Bipartisanship On Health Care By Scrapping Their Reform Ideas

By Igor Volsky on Feb 10, 2010 at 7:30 pm

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) appeared on MSNBC this afternoon to argue that “the party in power has to be willing to legitimately collaborate with the minority party.” In other words, Democrats should “scrap” the existing “fiscal train wreck” of a bill and accept the GOP’s incoherent incremental approach to reform:

RYAN: And we really do have a huge problem with this health care bill they’re trying to jam through. The architecture of this health care bill, which we believe, represents a government take over of the health care system—we ought to scrap that, start over, and let’s go down the list of fixing the problems that need fixing—uninsurables, people who have preexisting conditions, making health care more affordable.

Watch it:

But just because Republicans “believe” something, doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, Ryan’s entire rant is fairly inaccurate. The House health care bill would actually reduce the deficit by $138 over 10 years and allow private insurers to compete in a new regulated environment. The government would referee a broken market place that allows insurers to use the patchwork of state regulations to game the system to their advantage; it wouldn’t take anything over or “run” insurers. The government lays some ground rules for minimum creditable coverage and standard benefit packages and evens the playing field, forcing insurers to compete on quality of care rather than risk selection.

It’s a moderate approach that actually incorporates many Republican ideas. But if Ryan believes that these provisions don’t do enough to control health care spending or that Congress will never follow through on its promises to cut the identified waste, then he should fight to strengthen the language. Or, he can try and explain how his own rather radical health care reform proposal could compliment the existing bill.

There is no doubt that the two parties present two different ideologies to reform and the House and Senate health care bills already reflect this. If Republicans are hoping to tilt the final legislation in their favor, then they need to develop a more constructive way for presenting their ideas as improvements to the existing legislation, not as replacements for an entire years’ worth of hard work and compromise. Of course, that’s assuming that Democrats are still willing to pass comprehensive reform.

Politics

Sarah Palin calls global warming studies ‘snake oil science.’

By Brad Johnson on Feb 10, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Sarah PalinFox News contributor Sarah Palin has claimed that studies showing polar bears are threatened by global warming are “snake oil science.” Speaking in Redding, CA, at the Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference, Palin argued that the science of climate change is really just a plot to hurt oil companies. “Those promoting polar bear listing really want to shut down oil and gas leasing in Arctic coastal waters off Alaska,” Palin argued:

We knew the bottom line . . . was ultimately to shut down a lot of our development. And it didn’t make any sense because it was based on these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.

In reality, the 2006 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a “product of research by 300 scientists from northern countries, warned that the Arctic is warming at a rate much faster than the rest of the Earth.” Arctic ice is now at historically low levels. In 2008, George Bush’s Fish and Wildlife Service director Dale Hall testified that there was no significant scientific uncertainty in the endangerment posed by global warming to polar bears, based on numerous scientific studies. In contrast, when Palin petitioned to overturn the endangerment finding, she cited a paper funded by Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and Koch Industries. Now that’s snake oil science.

Economy

Duncan Slams Lenders Blocking Loan Reform: ‘Working Americans Pay While Bankers Get Rich’

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 10, 2010 at 6:30 pm

AP081216030221Earlier this week, the New York Times detailed how student loan companies are “using sit-downs with lawmakers, town-hall-style meetings and petition drives” as part of a multi-million lobbying campaign aimed at torpedoing the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which would cut the companies’ federal subsidies. SAFRA, which is an Obama administration priority, has bogged down in the Senate due to the loan companies’ efforts, particularly that of Sallie Mae, which last year spent $8 million lobbying.

So yesterday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan fired back:

“Working Americans pay while bankers get rich,” Duncan said in a prepared statement. “Sallie Mae executives have paid themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in the last decade while teachers, nurses, and scientists — the backbone of the new economy — face crushing debt because of runaway college tuition costs.”

“I think banks have had a sweet deal. They’re a powerful lobbying force, and working-class families don’t have lobbyists working for them,” said Duncan in an interview with the Huffington Post. “And so you have strong, entrenched interests that have lobbied and continue to lobby to this day, and they’re running ads in states. And you have, on the flip side, millions of working-class families trying to do the right thing and go to school.”

It’s nice to see Duncan inject some fire into the student loan reform debate, because adopting SAFRA makes complete sense in an era of rising tuition, record student debt, and long-term national deficits. The measure would save more than $80 billion over ten years, which the administration plans to redirect toward Pell Grants and other education initiatives.

SAFRA opponents are making two arguments against reform. The first is that the measure constitutes a “government takeover” of student lending, which is pretty silly considering that federal subsidies already keep the lenders afloat and the government guarantees them against losses.

The second argument is that the move will cause student loan companies to slash jobs, putting people out of work with the labor market still incredibly weak. But as the Scranton (PA) Times-Tribune noted, this doesn’t hold water:

Sallie Mae and three other lenders already have signed contracts with the government to service loans under the direct loan reform. In order to get that contract, Sallie Mae eliminated 2,000 overseas jobs and returned them to the United States. They are servicing jobs. Under the reforms, the servicing part of the industry will grow.

So as the Washington Monthly’s Daniel Luzer put it, “at least in Sallie Mae’s case, it looks like direct lending might actually bring more jobs to America.”

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) has said “it’s inconceivable to me that the Congress would continue unwarranted subsidies to these lenders,” but many senators are still hesitant to back the effort. Given the lengths that the student loan companies are putting into retaining the status quo, the administration needs to continue lending weight to the cause.

Yglesias

Engame

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm

She said she’s like it to snow the same way it did in Upstate New York:

— In my experience men are not actually that eager to shovel snow.

— Getting the Queen involved in financial panic prevention?

— It’s weird how most people think Obama’s doing a good job since everyone knows he’s an unpopular failure.

— On liberal condescension.

— Churchill statue stays resilient in the face of snow.

— Really looking forward to Hot Tub Time Machine.

Pretty Girls Make Graves’s “The Getaway” offers a reminder that some people like snow.

Politics

Joe Arpaio Slams McCain’s ‘Open Border’ Policies, Asks Voters To Support J.D. Hayworth

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Feb 10, 2010 at 5:33 pm

hayworthmccainLocal news outlets are reporting that last week, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio disseminated a stinging letter urging Republican primary voters to support right-wing shock jock and former Congressman J.D. Hayworth over Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in his bid for Arizona’s U.S. Senate seat. Arpaio wrote:

Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it’s time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D...I just wish Senator McCain had run as hard against Barack Obama as he is against a conservative like J.D. That could have prevented the harmful, liberal agenda we are all now suffering through…[W]e must stop Senator McCain’s policies to open up our borders.

Ironically, when it comes to immigration, neither Hayworth nor Arpaio have been the “consistent conservatives” they like to portray themselves as. During the 2006 and 2007 immigration debates, Hayworth dedicated a lot of time to lambasting immigration reform, particularly proposals for a temporary worker program. However, the website of NumbersUSA — the sort of immigration restrictionist group Hayworth is pandering to — shows that he repeatedly voted in favor of expanding temporary worker programs throughout the 1990s. Republican columnist and commentator Linda Chavez points out that Hayworth’s anti-immigrant flip flop in the proceeding decade likely cost him his House seat. Chavez writes that Hayworth switched positions as soon as he “sensed bashing immigrants was a surer ticket to re-election.” However, voters “wanted no part” in Hayworth’s hardline policies and voted him out of office in 2006.

Arpaio also is no steadfast conservative either. In 2005, Arpaio held that “being illegal is not a serious crime. You can’t go to jail for being an illegal alien.” At the time, Arpaio told the Arizona Republic’s Michael Kiefer, “I want the authority to lock up smugglers, but I am not going to lock up illegals hanging around street corners.” These days, Arpaio brags about locking up 32,000 “diseased” immigrants for smuggling themselves across the border, even though it created a $1.3 million deficit in just three months. However, polls show that Arpaio’s popularity may be waning partly due to the controversies surrounding his harsh immigration enforcement tactics.

For the past several years, McCain has been a conservative voice of reason in the immigration debate. Many speculate that he actually lost the critical support of the Latino community when he backed away from his immigration position during the 2008 presidential election. With Latinos comprising 11.7% of Arizona voters, McCain would be wise to resist the temptation of getting pushed farther to the right by a right-wing has-been and a mud-slinging Sheriff mired in controversy.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Yglesias

Trade Deficit Now Mostly Oil

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm

The trade deficit is back on the rise meaning it’ll be a while yet until we unbundle those global imbalances. But take note of the fact that imports of oil now constitute the majority of the trade deficit:

TradeDeficitDec 1

It seems unlikely that getting China to increase the value of its currency is going to do anything to fix this aspect of the problem. Higher taxes on gasoline to finance investments in clean energy infrastructure and reduce the medium-term budget deficit, on the other hand, would do the trick. If you’re looking for a politically appealing alternative to gas taxes, you could probably try to rework it as some kind of tax on the oil exporters themselves. Then tax opponents could be tarred as standing up for the interests of scary Arab-looking types.

Security

Even Out Of Power, Bush Administration Has A Problem With The Truth

By Guest Blogger on Feb 10, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Our guest blogger is Ken Gude, Associate Director of the International Rights and Responsibility Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

We are in day 47 of the conservative exploitation of a failed terrorist attack for partisan political purposes. The good news is that the public doesn’t appear to be buying it: A poll out today shows public support for President Obama’s handling of terrorism has increased since November. The support is merited because the Obama administration’s decisions are producing results, while the favored conservative alternative already failed when tried before.

Today’s installment is a diatribe from former Bush administration officials Dana Perino and Bill Bruck against John Brennan, which contains a number of misrepresentations and outright lies. Bear with me, it’s going to take a while to go through the whole thing.

First, Perino and Bruck attempt one of my favorite conservative attacks, going after the Obama administration for aiding the enemy by informing the public that the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is cooperating:

“The administration has spent the past two weeks telling anyone who will listen, including our enemies overseas (whom Abdulmutallab apparently is flipping on), that Abdulmutallab’s family convinced him to start cooperating six weeks after he was Mirandized.”

So, after weeks of partisan attacks by conservatives over its handling of Abdulmutallab specifically designed to scare the American people, when the Obama administration seeks to reassure the public that its chosen path is producing results, that too becomes grounds for more attacks. Essentially, Perino and Bruck are saying, “Its fine for us to attack you but you can’t defend yourself.” Right.

And notice the clumsy lie about when Abdulmutallab began cooperating:

“Abdulmutallab’s family convinced him to start cooperating six weeks after he was Mirandized.”

We know that Abdulmutallab’s family was instrumental in securing his complete cooperation with authorities beginning on January 17. That information was made public on February 2. So, the public learned of his cooperation six weeks after the attack but he had been in full cooperation with authorities for more than two weeks at that time. Perino and Bruck repeat this lie throughout the piece.

Perino and Bruck reveal their confusion about what it means to secure the cooperation from an individual being interrogated:

“Indeed, this is when Brennan himself writes that ‘[t]he most important breakthrough occurred.’ How, then, could Abdulmutallab have been ‘thoroughly interrogated’ immediately after he was arrested if ‘the most important breakthrough’ came six weeks later, and only after his family intervened? This glaring contradiction goes unaddressed.”

It’s not addressed because there is no contradiction. As soon as he was detained, and before he went into surgery for injuries he sustained during the failed attack, Abdulmutallab was questioned and apparently gave his interrogators useful information. When Abdulmutallab emerged from surgery he decided to stop cooperating and asked for a lawyer. He was then Mirandized. The breakthrough came when FBI agents gained the assistance of his family to persuade him to cooperate fully with the government. At least since mid-January, Abdulmutallab has been providing useful information that has already resulted in one terrorist cell being rolled up.

Perino and Bruck then suggest that Brennan was lying when he claimed that senior officials in the intelligence community and military were discussing the case before Abdulmutallab was Mirandized after he came out of surgery:

“Either the heads of the intelligence community lied to Congress several weeks ago when they all testified, under oath, they were not consulted, or Brennan is fibbing now.”

The “lack of consultation” canard has been a conservative favorite for weeks now. It rests on a faulty presumption, that Mirandzing Abdulmutallab was the cause of his decision to stop cooperating. We know that is false. We also know that not only did officials across the intelligence, military, and law enforcement communities discuss the case at an early stage, but that Republican Congressional leaders were also updated on Christmas night, and none of them raised any objections. A subsequent meeting of the National Security Council, including all of the principals, discussed in detail the issue of whether to proceed with criminal charges or chose military detention, and it was unanimously decided to follow the criminal route.

Perino and Bruck blast Brennan for stating the simple truth, that Mirandizing individuals seized in the United States has never before been considered controversial and is the law and longstanding policy of administrations of either party: Read more

Yglesias

Defense Spending

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm

The Project on Defense Alternatives has a nice item on the defense spending surge. This chart sums things up the best:

image007 1

The wave-like shape of the historical trajectory is what’s really noteworthy here. There’s been an effort underway to convince people that defense expenditures just naturally drift ever-upwards, but it’s not the case. There were specific spikes associated with the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s administration. The current spike, allegedly, is all about the need to fight al-Qaeda. But it’s not as if 9/11 happened because they outspent us.

Older

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

Sign Up