ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

LGBT Group That Received Assurances Ensign Would Support DADT Repeal Responds To His Backpedaling

By Igor Volsky on Nov 19, 2010 at 10:15 pm

Last night, the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson reported that Sen. John Ensign’s (R-NV) regional representative “on military issues” told the Stonewall Democratic Club of Nevada that the Senator intended “to vote for the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains repeal language.” According to Laura Martin, communications director for the club, Ensign’s staffer said he supports repeal. “We asked her to clarify three times and she said he will vote in the affirmative on the defense authorization with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal in it,” Martin said. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent confirmed the report this afternoon, noting that Ensign was “leaning towards” supporting repeal of the policy. In a letter to Martin obtained by Sargent, Ensign wrote, “It is my firm belief that Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be able to fight and risk their lives in defense of this great nation.”

But earlier today, Ensign’s office tried to walk back the comments, saying that Ensign was still “waiting on the report from the Pentagon and the testimony of the military chiefs to see if any changes to this policy can or should be done in a way so as not to harm the readiness or war fighting capabilities of our troops.” Tonight, on his program Face to Face, Nevada reporter Jon Ralston interviewed Derick Washington of the Stonewall Democrats of Nevada, who insisted that Ensign’s spokesperson reassured the group that he was on their side. Washington found a silver lining in Ensign’s backtracking, however, noting that the Senator didn’t say that he would filibuster the measure:

WASHINGTON: That is a politicians commitment, yes you are right. But on the other hand he did not say that he is opposed to the repeal. He did not say he would block the repeal. He did not offer any evidence that he is going to be an obstructionist and that is almost as good as we can hope for at this stage.

Watch it:

Ensign is the second Republican to backtrack on a commitment to repeal the policy. Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced that she would likely back the measure on local Alaska television, but later hinted to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that she didn’t know how she would vote on the issue.

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 19, 2010 at 6:16 pm

To defeat those evil machines:

— The American people know very little about American politics and public policy.

— In Helmand and Kandahar, 92% of men don’t know about 9/11.

— Better airport security.

— Bernanke endorses more fiscal stimulus.

— Further expanding the scope of patents is nuts.

— I’m going to say that cars, rather than ping pong “created the American suburb.”

Flaming Lips, “Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots”.

Health

New Exchange Guidance Says States Can’t Accept Every Health Insurer Into Exchanges

By Igor Volsky on Nov 19, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Washington and Lee law professor Timothy Jost adds one more important point to the federal governments’ initial guidance on how states can establish exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. It expands on this notion that so-called “red” states and “blue” states will likely adopt very different kinds of exchanges that will accomplish very different things:

In perhaps the most noteworthy paragraph of the Guidance, HHS clarifies that both an “active purchaser” (Massachusetts or California) or “open marketplace” (Utah) model are acceptable under the ACA. Many consumer advocates favor an active exchange that would demand value for money from health plans, while insurers favor an “any willing insurer” model. While the Guidance blesses both, it should be noted that, in the prior paragraph, the Guidance notes that the exchange must have “discretion to determine whether health plans offered through the Exchange are ‘in the best interests of qualified individuals and qualified employers” as Section 1311(e)(1) [of the ACA] requires.” A state statute that required an exchange to certify any health plan that met all other explicit statutory requirements could not, therefore, be in compliance with the ACA.

Progressive states want the exchange — likely governed by an independent authority — to act like an active purchaser of insurance: restrict inefficient and poor quality plans from entering and bargain with insurance companies on behalf of consumers. The so-called “open marketplace” model is very different. Here, consumers will compare a wide variety of plans sold by any insurers that want to participate, meaning that they may be overwhelmed by the choice and sold some not very good products.

The government’s guidance is important for two reasons. First, it confirms what Joel Ario, the Director of the Office of Insurance Exchanges at HHS, has been saying publicly for quite some time — states will have a great deal of flexibility in establishing their own exchanges. But — and this is the second point — they won’t, as Jost points out, be able to just invite anyone into the new market place. A certain floor of standards will be established.

It’s also worth reiterating that insurers are very obviously (and publicly) lobbying for the latter structure — touting out a whole series of poll testes phrases about enabling “competition” and promoting “consumer choice.” It will be interesting to see how they respond to this federal guidance.

Politics

Steve King Argues Undocumented Immigrants Aren’t Subject To The Jurisdiction Of U.S. Laws

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Nov 19, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Yesterday, the Miami Herald reported that “[a]s one of its first acts” next year, the GOP-controlled Congress will advance a bill by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) — the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration — that would modify the 14th amendment to deny “birthright citizenship” to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer this morning, King explained just how he plans to go about radically changing citizenship requirements. According to King, it doesn’t involve a Constitutional amendment, but rather, simply reinterpreting the 14th amendment in a way that would treat undocumented immigrants like foreign diplomats and exclude them from being subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. laws:

HEMMER: The critics are going to say “why deny citizenship to a child?” Your argument is what?

KING: Well it’s really pretty simple. There is an industry that has grown up out of this that pregnant woman come into the United States illegally so that they can have a family that’s anchored to their citizenship and anchored to American benefits.

HEMMER: You can find countless examples of that I’m certain. [...] But you would need a Constitutional amendment to do away with this. That is a huge mountain to climb.

KING: I don’t agree Bill. Let me say that when you look at the scholarship on this — and I don’t present myself as a lead scholar — but I listen to some of them however and I read the text of it: all persons born within the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof shall be American citizens. [...]

HEMMER: So you would argue that it’s the language and the interpretation of the amendment?

KING: I would say so. That clause is there. If it weren’t there, then I think they would have a case. But the proper way to go about this is: pass the law banning birthright citizenship and then certainly the people on the other side will litigate…and we’ll fight out on the other side of this what the will in the Supreme Court is.

Watch it:

King clearly doesn’t understand the dangerous implications of mandating that anyone who comes to the U.S. illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. King’s interpretation of the 14th amendment could create a situation in which, rather than being legally defined and treated as removable “illegal aliens,” undocumented immigrants could only be declared personae non grata — a legal term under international law used to refer to “unwelcome” foreigners, usually diplomats, who are inherently under the jurisdiction of their home governments.

The personae non grata designation is completely discretionary and “[e]xpulsion is not the automatic consequence of the declaration.” In other words, by reinterpreting the 14th amendment in the manner that King suggests, when undocumented immigrants (or their children under this new schema) commit a crime they are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts and legal authorities. It’s hard to imagine King — or anyone else for that matter — would be on board with that.

The WonkRoom has more on why King is wrong about “anchor babies” and how dangerous his legislation would be.

Yglesias

The Poor, Internationally

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm

A very interesting Lane Kenworthy post looks at the divergence between developed countries where the poor have shared in economic growth over the past 30 years and those in which they haven’t. He finds that before taxes and transfers, things look very similar:

In other words, large scale trends have turned against higher earnings for the bottom ten percent pretty much everywhere. Whatever the source of that—technological, economic, sociological—you see it very widely. What’s differed is the policy response. In some countries, as the pie has grown, the state has made sure to give more slices to the neediest. In others, the state hasn’t done so. There are a number of ideological implications of this, but I think this adds up to a very hard to assail case for “spreading the wealth around.”

Economy

House GOP Plans To Use Congressional Review Act To Hassle Regulators Implementing Financial Reform

By Pat Garofalo on Nov 19, 2010 at 4:50 pm

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)

House Republicans have made it clear that they intend to use their new majority to launch an assault on the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law. Of course, due to the Democratic Senate and President, outright repeal of the law is a pipe dream, but that won’t prevent the GOP from hassling regulators as they attempt to craft rules under Dodd-Frank.

Dodd-Frank delegates much of its rule authority to regulators, so Republicans have been targeting them in an attempt to politicize and delay their rule-making activities. To that end, Bloomberg is reporting that House Republicans plan to use the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to try and cow regulators into submission:

One procedure being considered by House Republicans is a little-used “resolution of disapproval,” through the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which can be deployed to target a specific regulation. “We are committed to conducting aggressive oversight to bring the Administration’s actions to light,” said Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus, the Republican in line to be chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “The Congressional Review Act should be a tool for Congress to use to demand greater efficiency and accountability throughout the federal bureaucracy.”

Such a move doesn’t have much chance of success, as under the Congressional Review Act, a regulation is only blunted if both congressional chambers pass a resolution of disapproval, which the President then signs. But “a threatened resolution of disapproval might force the agencies to rethink what they are doing,” said Jeffrey Lubbers, an administrative law professor at American University. “Just the fact that it hasn’t been used all that much, people notice it.”

Earlier this year, Republicans in the Senate tried the same tactic — led by Sen. Johnny Iskason (R-GA) — when the National Mediation Board approved a rule they didn’t like. Isakson couldn’t drum up 51 votes in the Senate for his resolution, but its easy to see how a resolution disapproving of a Dodd-Frank rule would sail through a Republican-controlled House.

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the potential House Financial Services Chairman, as well as likely House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-CA), have said that they will also “lean heavily on investigations and hearings to rein in parts of the new law they deem too restrictive on the banking industry.” So this is what regulators attempting to implement Dodd-Frank have to look forward to: resolutions of disapproval and constant hassling by House Republicans who, while powerless to actually change the law, can make life miserable for those trying to follow it.

Read more in yesterday’s Progress Report, “The Assault on Wall Street Reform.”

Related Posts

Alyssa

Magic At Work In the World

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Nov 19, 2010 at 4:37 pm

I can’t really rouse myself to be exceptionally excited about a modern-day Merlin. The legend isn’t exceptionally ripe for an update given current events as was the case with Sherlock Holmes. And we’re awash in magic-inflected pop-culture people these days. It’s a bit hard to remember what made Merlin unique other than advising King Arthur in the midst of all these vampires and wizards and werewolves and whatnot.

I always thought one of the great innovations of The Mists of Avalon was making the Merlin an office, rather than a person. It let Marion Zimmer Bradley switch aspects in and out, while making different characters accountable to a similar set of rules, and showing them succeeding or failing to meet those obligations to varying extents. I’d be curious, but doubtful, to see if a new adaptation places a similar emphasis on office and the conflict of office with personality. But if you don’t come up with a good concept, jumping Merlin into the future mostly means you get a wizard in board shorts:

Yglesias

Social Security Trust Fund

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 19, 2010 at 4:31 pm

I really hate this kind of rhetoric from Maya MacGuineas:

“They are nothing like any trust fund that any one of us would think of,” says Maya MacGuineas of the New America Foundation. “It conjures up an image of really holding savings, and it doesn’t do that at all.”

I think this is incredibly misleading. If your rich uncle wanted to set up a trust fund for you and chose to stipulate that the fund should be invested 100 percent in treasuries, that would be a conservative investment choice but it would very much entail really holding savings. The Social Security trust fund is a very real fund that really contains assets—bonds—that represent lending from Social Security to the rest of the government (ROTG).

The only issue with the Social Security Trust Fund is that if you assume ROTG will repay its debts, that means ROTG will need to obtain that many through tax hikes or spending cuts. Conversely, if ROTG avoids tax hikes or spending cuts, that will require additional hikes or cuts from Social Security. But it’s hardly as if the overall federal budget deficit is some kind of secret number that people don’t know about because trust fund accounting is confusing them. The point is that ROTG is facing a very large budget deficit over the next 30 years, and that insofar as you try to reduce ROTG’s deficit by rejecting obligations to Social Security then that merely increases Social Security’s actuarial deficit. By the same token, if we reduce federal spending by cutting aid to K-12 schools, then states and municipalities will have a bigger budget gap. The mere fact that the US public sector can be examined at different levels of comprehensiveness doesn’t mean that the distinctions are irrelevant somehow.

Politics

Ignoring Petition He Signed, Rep. Dreier Claims GOPers Have ‘Said All Along’ They’ll Keep Parts Of Health Care

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Nov 19, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Thanks to a coordinated propaganda campaign to smear President Obama’s health care law with misinformation, Republicans have found support on the right for their effort to repeal the law. But while Americans are divided on the law as a whole, “most parts of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, are actually quite popular and any attempt to repeal them could very well turn public sentiment against the repeal advocates.” These include items like tax credits for small business to offer health care coverage (supported by 78 percent of Americans) and a provision stopping insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (supported by 71 percent).

Asked about these popular provisions yesterday on NPR, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) — who will play a key role in the new GOP-controlled Congress next year as the likely chairman of the Rules Committee — said that the Republicans have “said all along” that they want to keep those parts:

INSKEEP: So given that the law is there, I mean, what do you do with it? What do you do with portions of the law that may seem beneficial to people that are probably Republicans.

DREIER: We have said all along that we want to make sure that provisions there that are in fact beneficial in ensuring that people have access, without a huge expansion of government, we don’t want to repeal. We want to make sure that we have these very very market driven provisions that I just went through and have those put in place.

Listen here:

This is, of course, flat out untrue. In fact, Republicans have been saying “all along” that they want to repeal the entirety of the law. This was one of the key drivers behind the tea party movement and the Republican campaigns they supported this fall. Congressional Republican leaders like future House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have vowed to “repeal and replace” the law with more right-wing reforms. Meanwhile, more extreme lawmakers led by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) have called for repealing the law “lock, stock, and barrel,” irrespective of replacement.

And Dreier should know about this, as he signed a petition circulated by King to repeal the entire bill. The text of the bill Dreier vowed to support — all one sentence of it — is unequivocal: the “Act is repealed…as if such Act had not been enacted.”

And King has been explicitly clear about his intentions. “Obamacare must be ripped out completely, lock, stock and barrel — root and branch — no vestige left behind, not a DNA particle of Obamacare retained,” he wrote in an op-ed. King even went so far as to demand a “blood oath” from Boehner to include a full repeal of health care reform in every appropriations bill next year, even if it results in a government shutdown. There is zero room in King’s pledge, which Dreier signed, to keep popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

ThinkProgress contacted King’s office for comment on Dreier’s apparent flip-flop, but an interview with the congressman was canceled without explanation hours after they agreed to it.

Security

Lugar Urges Senate Support For New START: ‘Please Do Your Duty For Your Country’

By Ben Armbruster on Nov 19, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has become the face of GOP obstruction regarding President Obama’s push for the Senate to ratify the New START nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. Without the treaty in place, the U.S. has no legal authority to monitor Russia’s nuclear arsenal. And if New START isn’t ratified, not only will U.S.-Russian relations suffer, but so will American credibility on issues such as Iran and nonproliferation. “The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to Senator Jon Kyl,” the New York Times editorialized this week, referring to Kyl’s obstruction.

Today on MSNBC, Sen. Rich Lugar (R-IN) urged Republicans such as Kyl to support the treaty and called on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to hold a vote on it in this lame-duck session of Congress:

LUGAR: Please do your duty for your country. We do not have verification of the Russian nuclear posture right now. We’re not going to have it until we sign the START treaty. We’re not going to be able to get rid of further missiles and warheads aimed at us. I state it candidly to my colleagues, one of those warheads…could demolish my city of Indianapolis — obliterate it! Now Americans may have forgotten that. I’ve not forgotten it and I think that most people who are concentrating on the START treaty want to move ahead to move down the ladder of the number of weapons aimed at us.

Watch it:

Cross posted at ThinkProgress.

Older

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

Sign Up