ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Biden angrily responds to Barton: It’s not a ‘shakedown’ to insist BP takes care of people who are ‘drowning.’

By Amanda Terkel on Jun 17, 2010 at 10:47 pm

Vice President Biden stopped by today’s White House press briefing to talk about the Recovery Act. While there, however, reporters encouraged him address Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-TX) apology to BP for the fact that the Obama administration is making the company set up a fund to pay individuals and businesses that are suffering because of the oil spill. Biden angrily responded to Barton, calling his comments “astonishing” and “outrageous”:

BIDEN: There’s an entire way of life in jeopardy. This is just not about jobs. This is just not about whether or not the waterfowl is polluted and you can’t — this is an entire way of life that’s in jeopardy. And to sit there and say that we’re being — in effect, as I understood the statement — that he was ashamed we’re being tough on an oil company who caused the problem — I mean, I — look, I just think that it’s pretty important to the people of Louisiana all the way through Florida and even in his home state of Texas that people disassociate themselves from that.

That’s not the role — there’s no shakedown. It’s insisting on responsible conduct and a responsible response to something they caused. And I find it outrageous to suggest that if, in fact, we insisted that BP demonstrate their preparedness, to put aside billions of dollars — in this case, $20 billion — to take care of the immediate needs of people who are drowning — these guys don’t have deep pockets. The guy who runs the local marina, the guy who has one shrimping boat, the guy who has one small business — he can’t afford to lose $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, $30,000 a month. [...]

What is wrong with that? How is that a shakedown? I mean, I just — I don’t know, I find it pretty astounding, the comment.

Watch it:

Transcript: Read more

Economy

62 House Democrats Call Exempting Auto Dealers From Consumer Protection Law An ‘Appropriate Compromise’

By Pat Garofalo on Jun 17, 2010 at 7:45 pm

This week, the conference committee reconciling the House and Senate versions of financial regulatory reform has been slowly chipping away at its long list of provisions to consider. Still on the list is consumer protection, and one aspect of that is hashing out whether the proposed consumer protection regulator will be able to police auto lending.

Both the House and the Senate bills create a new regulator solely geared towards protecting consumers, but the House bill exempts auto financiers from the new agency’s oversight. The Senate bill does not include a similar exemption, but the upper chamber did pass a “motion to instruct,” sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), directing the committee to defer to the House’s language.

The Obama administration, as well as the Department of Defense (due to shabby treatment of military personnel at the hands of auto dealers) are staunchly opposed to the exemption. But today, 62 House Democrats voiced their support for the auto dealer exemption, calling the House bill an “appropriate compromise“:

The House bill recognized that auto dealers are retailers who do not service, fund, or underwrite auto loans, but merely facilitate financing to help their customers purchase a vehicle…We believe the balance achieved in the House bill is an appropriate compromise that will ensure auto dealers can still offer optional dealer-assisted financing while maintaining strong consumer protections.

For starters, the notion that the House bill is a “compromise” is absurd. There is no middle ground here. Auto dealers either have to follow the consumer regulator’s rules or they don’t, and the House language makes the latter the standard.

There are plenty of good reasons for including auto dealers within the new consumer protection regime. First, exempting them creates an uneven playing field, giving auto dealers an advantage over lenders such as credit unions and community banks. Leaving part of the market unregulated makes regulatory arbitrage (shifting financial products to unregulated parts of the market) far more likely.

But more importantly, auto finance is a market ripe for deceptive and abusive practices. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, “consumers spend more than $20 billion a year in excess interest by borrowing through a dealership instead of through a bank or credit union.” The situation is particularly bad for women, senior citizens, and minority borrowers, all of whom, according to the Federal Reserve, are consistently charged higher interest rates on auto loans. The National Consumer Law Center also found that auto financiers routinely charge higher mark-ups on loans to minority borrowers.

Of course, auto dealers have significant clout on Capitol Hill, since there are 18,000 of them scattered across the country. Since 2007, trade groups for auto dealers have spent $12 million lobbying, and auto dealers, their employees, and political action committees donated $9.3 million to candidates during the 2008 election cycle. But consumer protection only succeeds if there is a level playing field and every entity — be it bank, payday lender, auto dealer, or anything else — has to play by the same rules.

Related Posts

Security

Senator DeMint Thinks Cold War Still On, Wants Missile Defense To Protect Against Soviet Union

By Max Bergmann on Jun 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) in a hearing this week exposed the logic behind Senate Republican opposition to the START treaty — the Soviet Union is out to get us. DeMint during the hearing not once, but twice referred to Russia as the Soviet Union in a line of questioning about needing to protect the US against a Soviet missile attacks:

DEMINT: When the Russians speak of missile defense, they feel the START treaty is a clear limitation of the US ability to develop any strategic defense system against multiple missiles such as those that could be fired by the Soviet Union. When we speak of having flexibility with missile defense we mean it is a nominal defense system that could shoot down isolated missile that was fired by a rogue nation or one that was fired accidentally by a super power…is it your understanding that the START treaty is an agreement that the United States will not attempt to develop a missile defense system capable of shooting down multiple missiles fired by the Soviet Union.

Watch it:

DeMint’s Freudian reference to the Soviet Union, is reflective of the right’s continued Cold War outlook toward Russia that still fundamentally sees it as an enemy. Heritage Foundation in its missile defense propaganda movie, 33 minutes, in fact even depicted Russia’s leadership, along with Iran and North Korea as enemy threats.

The right’s Russia paranoia is also a fundamental driver of its opposition to the New START treaty. DeMint and the Heritage Foundation want to develop a fanciful missile shield that is technologically impossible to build for the foreseeable future and would be astronomically expensive in order to insulate the US from a potential attack from Russia, thereby eliminating the current strategic reality of mutually assured destruction. The ultimate problem with this vision is that all that would happen is the Russians would massively build up their nuclear arsenal to overwhelm any new missile defenses. Thus, a massively dangerous and expensive nuclear arms race would be instigated that would in the end still leave us with the current strategic situation of mutually assured destruction.

Yet, even if you are in favor of a new Cold War like DeMint and believe a new arms race is a price worth paying for this mythical star wars type system, it still doesn’t make any sense for the far right to oppose the START treaty.

Importantly, the right is not objecting to the limitations on nuclear warheads included within the treaty – in other words, they aren’t saying the nuclear cuts are too much. Instead, they are saying that because Obama really wants this treaty the Russians will be able to constrain our missile defense development by threatening to withdraw from the treaty. But no matter what, this administration is not going to change 20 years of US policy and go in the direction advocated by Senator DeMint where the US explicitly targets Russia.

But even if the START treaty were ratified that would not limit a future president, such as Jim DeMint for example, from being able to develop his mythical system, since there is nothing in the START treaty that would prevent such future developments. If the treaty did limit the US, it would be in the treaty, not in some non-binding unilateral statement expressed by the Russians after the treaty was signed. Yes, the Russians would probably withdraw from the treaty, as they said they would, if the US did what President DeMint wanted, but why would DeMint care – he was thinking about voting against the treaty anyway!

But it is not just that START does not inhibit missile defense, it also has strategic benefits that even a President DeMint would think are important. For instance, as a DeMint administration was preparing to push the US into a new Cold War the US would possess real tangible intelligence of Russian nuclear forces as a result START’s verification measures (something that our military finds very valuable) and, since he believes Russia is a threat, with the START treaty in place tangible limits would have been placed on Russia’s nuclear forces. Therefore, if you are a right winger and want a new Cold War with Russia, it makes sense to have the START treaty in place until DeMint can be elected President.

This is why this treaty should be so uncontroversial. It doesn’t prevent us from doing anything we could conceivably want to do.

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Jun 17, 2010 at 6:14 pm

Stimulate the conversation:

— Odd story: “The Ashkenazi parents insist they aren’t racist, but want to keep the classrooms segregated, as they have been for years, arguing that the families of the Sephardi girls aren’t religious enough.”

— Joe Barton has some more apologies.

— How sloppy language re-enforces the cult of the presidency.

— French jerks organize sausage-fest to demonstrate that Muslims (and, by accident, Jews) aren’t welcome in their country.

— Dads like to lie about the amount of childcare they do.

Gossip, “Pop Goes The World”.

Economy

BP Executive To Gulf Residents: You Need Us, So Don’t ‘Shoot The Dog Who Is Trying To Bring Home The Bone’

By Ben Armbruster on Jun 17, 2010 at 6:10 pm

Last night during an interview with BP executive Bob Dudley on Fox News, host Greta Van Susteren noted that the oil giant has been taking some heat because of its Gulf oil spill. “Your company has taken quite a beating,” she said. Dudley agreed but said his company’s critics should be careful because Gulf coast residents are dependent on BP:

DUDLEY: Well, Greta, I know that oil companies are not popular. It has been that way for sometime in the U.S. It’s a company made up of people, many of which live along the Gulf coast, that are integrated into the fabric of the communities there.

We have 23,000 people in the U.S., many of which are around the Gulf coast. I think — and everyone is devastated by what has happened today. I think I would look at some of the process today as just making sure that through that sentiment we don’t actually shoot the dog who is trying to bring home the bone and meet its obligations all across the Gulf, and we are going to be there a long time.

Watch it:

Unfortunately, some lawmakers and the conservative media argue that the Obama administration is being too harsh and have come to BP’s defense with similar arguments. Oil money beneficiary Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) recently expressed concern that BP’s financial liabilities as a result of the spill would cut into its profits and therefore somehow prevent it from meeting those liabilities.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) deflected attacks on BP last week saying that the Gulf region needs BP now more than ever:

“First of all, the last company that people in the Gulf want to see go bankrupt is BP because we’re depending on them to clean up our environment and make our people whole,” Lousiana Sen. Mary Landrieu told “Good Morning America” today in an exclusive interview. “One of the more important issues… [is] half of our families make their living fishing, the other half of our families make their living in the Gulf drilling for oil and gas that this country desperately needs.”

Dependency on Big Oil is exactly the reason the Gulf faces the situation it is currently in. While sustaining BP’s viability is in both the company’s and the public’s interest, long term reliance on dirty fossil fuels like BP’s main commodity is not sustainable.

Health

Support For Health Reform Increasing, As GOP Gears Up For Repeal Campaign

By Igor Volsky on Jun 17, 2010 at 5:55 pm

A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that voters are coming around in favor of the new health care law, with support for the measure at its highest point. Forty five percent of Americans support the measure and just 42% oppose it:

The poll found support increased since May among men (from 36 percent to 46 percent), people in their prime working years (from 35 percent to 49 percent among 30-49 year-olds) and Republicans (from 8 percent to 17 percent.) The uptick among Republicans comes even as party leaders are calling for the law’s repeal.

The changes coincide with a concerted effort by the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and their allies to sell the immediate benefits of the law. Those include coverage for young adults on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, a $250 rebate check for seniors with high prescription costs, tax credits for some small businesses that cover their employees and federal funding to train more primary care doctors and nurses.

It’s not clear — since voters always liked those separate elements of the health care law — that the administration’s campaign has helped turn around public opinion or if voters have just moved on to different issues and stopped listening to the Republican misinformation on the issue. The administration’s focus on all of the separate pieces could have re-framed the bill in voters’ minds as a patchwork of all the things they really liked in the first place: the new market regulations, closing the doughnut hole, kids on parents’ coverage.

But what’s clear, I think, is that polls like this will take the wind out of the GOP’s “repeal and replace” now sails. They’ve been arguing that we should set public policy in accordance with opinion polls and as these polls change, we should hold them to it.

Yglesias

When Laws Are Just “Laws”

By ThinkProgress on Jun 17, 2010 at 5:31 pm

marijuana-leafBy Ryan McNeely

Last night on the Fox Business Network, Sarah Palin sounded extremely reasonable when she called marijuana a “minimal problem” facing the country. So can we count her as among the supporters of the increasing number of marijuana decriminalization laws around the country? Unfortunately, no:

“If we’re talking about pot, I’m not for the legalization of pot,” Palin said. “I think that would just encourage our young people to think that it was OK to go ahead and use it.”

“However I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts,” Palin added. “If somebody’s gonna to smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society.”

First, study after study has shown that decriminalization would not lead to increased usage. Now, there are significant differences between limited decriminalization and outright legalization; as Matthew has written previously, there’s “a broad range of options between the status quo and a true libertarian approach” to our drug policy.

But what I think what we’re seeing here is the wrong-headed notion that an appropriate way to express disapproval of a behavior is to simply make it illegal but then wink and nod on enforcement, as if this is some sort of middle ground (this is also the Obama administration position on federal marijuana law). Another good example of this phenomenon is abortion rights. Gallup finds that an increasing number of people identify as  “pro-life,” but start asking if women or doctors should go to prison – i.e., that an anti-abortion law should be enforced – and they immediately start hedging on their support for such laws.

If you don’t think a law should be enforced, you should support repeal of the law. All this “compromise” accomplishes is granting police almost unfettered discretion. If smoking pot is still technically illegal, police can enforce the law when they choose, targeting certain people for arrest while turning a blind eye to others engaging in the exact same activity. If you don’t want children to smoke pot, start a public awareness campaign and encourage parents to discuss drug use with their kids. Don’t keep marijuana use illegal in a confused attempt to conflate moral objection with criminal sanction.

Politics

Labor Board Hobbled By Senate Obstruction Has Hundreds Of Cases Invalidated By Supreme Court

By Pat Garofalo on Jun 17, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated more than 500 cases decided by the National Labor Relations Board. For more than two years, the five person board only had two sitting members, due to Congressional obstruction of its nominees, and the Court decided that the two-person board did not have legal authority to issue rulings.

The Board, which is responsible for overseeing labor-management relations under the National Labor Relations Act, realized in late 2007 that it was not going to have a full complement of members for the upcoming year, so delegated its authority to three members, of which two constitute a quorum. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said this procedural move doesn’t grant a two-person board the ability to do anything:

If Congress wishes to allow the Board to decide cases with only two members, it can easily do so. But until it does, Congress’ decision to require that the Board’s full power be delegated to no fewer than three members,and to provide for a Board quorum of three, must be given practical effect rather than swept aside in the face of admittedly difficult circumstances. Section 3(b), as it currently exists, does not authorize the Board to create a tail that would not only wag the dog, but would continue to wag after the dog died.

In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that “the Court’s revisions leave the Board defunct for extended periods of time, a result that Congress surely did not intend.”

Legal questions aside, this whole episode clearly illustrates the problem with Congressional obstructionism. Now, thanks to the unwillingness of Congress to consider and vote on nominations, giving the board its full complement of members, literally years of decisions may have to be relitigated. As Kimberly Freeman Brown, Executive Director of American Rights at Work, said, “hundreds of decisions in cases already decided by the NLRB will have to be re-opened, needlessly delaying finality for workers who were led to believe they already had it.”

And this isn’t solely a Republican or Democratic problem. Both parties are duly guilty of blocking NLRB nominations, under Presidents Bush and Obama. But Republicans in the 111th Congress have taken obstruction to a new level. Earlier this month, the Las Vegas Sun blasted the GOP for blocking 120 of Obama’s nominees:

[T]here are crucial vacancies in the Homeland Security, Defense and Justice departments, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, among others, because of the holds. As well, there are five ambassadors and 29 judges who have yet to be confirmed…The Republican holds and filibusters are doing more than hindering the Senate’s work. When the president can’t fill jobs, it blocks the administration from governing. That may score points for Republicans with their base, but it harms the country.

The Supreme Court’s decision shows that Obama was absolutely right to give two NLRB nominees recess appointments, rendering the Board functional once again. Remember, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who advocated that the administration get around Congressional inaction by using the recess appointment power.

Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.

Security

Meg Whitman Takes A Page From The John McCain Playbook In New Spanish Language Ad

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Jun 17, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Today, Ben Smith of Politico reported that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R) reminded California Latino voters of her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law in an ad set to air on the Spanish-language broadcast of today’s Mexico-France World Cup game. “The ad marks a dramatic tack a way from a primary in which Whitman was at times visibly uncomfortable with her campaign’s hard line, denying at one point — mistakenly — that her campaign was airing ads with images of a boarder fence,” writes Smith. Whitman is also taking a two-faced approach that’s straight from pages of the failed McCain-Palin playbook: say one thing in English and then turn around tell Latino voters something completely different in Spanish.

Given the fact that she co-chaired the national presidential campaign for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, Whitman should be pretty familiar with the McCain campaign’s disastrous Latino voter outreach strategy. However, her repetition of his mistakes suggests maybe she forgot. Before launching his presidential bid, McCain was highly regarded by the Latino community as a level-headed champion of comprehensive immigration reform. However, once McCain started running for President, his rhetoric changed. By January 2008, he was saying he wouldn’t even vote for his own immigration bill again if given the chance. However, once McCain got through the primaries he started saying something very different to the Spanish language media. In a Spanish-language ad released in September 2008, McCain suggested that then Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Democrats were not on the side of Latino voters and were responsible for killing immigration reform in 2007. However, besides referring to a piece of legislation that McCain had previously stated he would no longer support, the bill actually died when it failed to get key Republican votes. McCain left the door wide open for Obama to come back at him with an ad that highlighted the “two faces” of the Republican Party. In November, Latinos voted for Obama over McCain by a margin of more than two-to-one.

Whitman may find herself in a similar predicament. Before her race against her Republican opponent, Steve Poizner, got tight, Whitman supported immigration reform and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. When Poizner began portraying Whitman as soft on immigration, Whitman toughened up and told voters that she only supports a temporary worker program and more border security. And while her new ad boasts of her opposition to California’s Proposition 187 — an Arizona type law that was ultimately deemed unconstitutional — in a radio spot just a few weeks ago, she featured one of the ballot initiatives biggest proponents: former Gov. Pete Wilson (R-CA). In the ad, Wilson affirmed that Whitman will be “as tough as nails” on immigration. The ad was such a turnaround for Whitman that the California Nurses Association launched an ad on Spanish-language radio to let Latino voters know what Whitman didn’t “want you to hear.”

As Wonk Room pointed out last week, Whitman will have a hard time winning the general election without significant Latino support. While it makes sense for her to soften her stance on immigration again, she probably should’ve thought of that during the Republican primary. Whitman may not realize it, but most Latino voters in California understand Spanish and English. In fact, 33.4 to 73.5% of California’s foreign born Latino population is proficient in English.

Watch Whitman’s Spanish Language Ad:

Older

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

Sign Up