ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Republicans Routinely Cut Off, Speak Over Sebelius At Committee Hearing

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius received an icy and at times confrontational reception from Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning, as she testified about the administration’s budget request for FY 2012. Despite accusing Sesbelius of avoiding the committee, the GOP proceeded to ignore the Secretary’s answers or cut her off mid sentence if she began to contradict their opposition to the law.

In the example below, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) charged the federal government of trying to “increase centralization” by granting states waivers from certain requirements of the Affordable Care Act. When Sebelius clarified that the waivers are actually designed by the states, Blackburn — who by then had accomplished her soundbite — quickly moved on:

BLACKBURN: [The American people] do not want the federal government, who cannot tend to the items on their plate making the decisions for their health care and we hear it from them every day …

SEBELIUS: Congresswoman, that is not at all, first of all we don’t design any waivers. The state comes to us.

BLACKBURN: I’ve seen the applications from my state and I respect that and I understand that. I want to move on.

SEBELIUS: The rules aren’t even developed for the program that you’re…

BLACKBURN: I do want to move on.

SEBELIUS: …referencing.

Watch it:

Republicans also lectured Sebelius on the political ramifications of the law, arguing that HHS’ ‘power grab’ led the Democrats to lose their majorities in the House.

Politics

10 Things Newt Gingrich Doesn’t Want You To Know About Him

Today, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced that he is taking steps to consider becoming the GOP nominee for president in 2012.

As Gingrich begins the long process of possibly running for President, he is likely to take every effort to mold his image to make himself palatable to American voters. Yet the public deserves to know every important detail about the history of the man who may seek to be their leader. ThinkProgress has assembled a list of ten things Gingrich probably doesn’t want you to know about him:

1. DESPITE BATTLING THE “SECULAR SOCIALIST” AGENDA, GINGRICH CHEATED ON HIS WIVES SEVERAL TIMES: One of Gingrich’s main themes in his columns and speeches over the past few years has been the need to stop the “secular socialist” takeover of America, which he blames for the demise of the family. Yet he had several of these affairs while attacking President Bill Clinton for his own. He justified his hypocrisy to his second wife once, telling her, “It doesn’t matter what I do.”

2. WHILE DEMONIZING GOVERNMENT LARGESS, GINGRICH POURED MORE FEDERAL MONEY INTO HIS DISTRICT THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER: The politics of the mid-1990′s was marked by the right’s attempt to decimate the social safety net. As Gingrich waged his campaign to destroy unemployment insurance and aid for needy families, he made his own district the recipient of huge amounts of federal aid. Under Gingrich, his district in Cobb County, GA received more “federal subsidies than any suburban county in the country, with two exceptions: Arlington Virginia, effectively part of the Federal Government, and Brevard County Florida, the home of the Kennedy Space Center.”

3. IN 2007, GINGRICH BACKED CAP-AND-TRADE, THEN FLIP-FLOPPED TWO YEARS LATER: Talking to PBS just four years ago, Gingrich said, “I think if you have mandatory caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, then there’s a package that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” He even cut an ad with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) warning of the dangers of climate change. Just two years later, Gingrich ended all of his green advocacy in favor pandering to far-right views on the environment. “Imposing stunningly high taxes on an economy in the middle of a recession is fundamentally wrong. … [A]rtificially capping their economy is the wrong approach,” he said in testimony before Congress.

4. GINGRICH BLAMED THE MASSACRES AT COLUMBINE AND VIRGINIA TECH ON “LIBERALISM”: Showing that his cynicism knows no bounds, Gingrich blamed “the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite” for the Columbine shootings in Littleton, CO. He followed the same script after the massacre at Virginia Tech, saying liberalism is responsible for the “dehumanization” that led to the killings.

5. GINGRICH WANTED THE RICH TO DECIDE WHEN THEIR OWN TAX CUTS WOULD END: During last winter’s debate over extending the Bush tax cuts, Gingrich said that we should “have the business leadership of the country describe the number” of months that the cuts for the wealthiest should last.

6. DESPITE RAILING AGAINST THE “PARTY OF FOOD STAMPS,” GINGRICH PROPOSED EXPANDING THEM: One of the memes Gingrich has pushed over the past year is that Democrats are the “party of food stamps” because they believe in federal food assistance for the indigent. Yet in 2002, when President George W. Bush proposed expanding some food stamp programs, Gingrich backed him, saying that the “welfare reform” law he helped author in the 1990s went too far in cutting food assistance.

7. FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS, GINGRICH HAS FRONTED FOR THE HEALTH INDUSTRY: Gingrich helped found a number of major businesses, including a for-profit health care firm called the “Center for Health Transformation” (CHT) and a communications firm called the “Gingrich Group.” CHT serves approximately 94 health industry corporations and lobby groups. Despite many meetings with Republican lawmakers to shape health care legislation, Gingrich refuses to register as a lobbyist.

8. GINGRICH REFERRED TO JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR AS A “LATINA WOMAN RACIST”: During the debate over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor, Gingrich took to his Twitter account to say that Sotomayor, who is a “latina woman racist” should withdraw from the nomination.

9. GINGRICH FLIP-FLOPPED ON THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: In 2008, Gingrich suggested “insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year.” Yet by 2010, he was blasting the mandate as unconstitutional.

10. GINGRICH SAID WE SHOULD ALLOW SOME TERRORIST ATTACKS TO REMIND US OF THE DANGER: During a book tour, Gingrich told an audience in a speech that was televised on C-SPAN that the Bush administration had been very successful at intercepting terrorists, but had not gotten credit for it, explaining that maybe we should’ve “allowed an attack to get through to remind” Americans about the danger of terrorism.

Throughout his career, Gingrich has devoted himself to constantly changing his views on a whim and trying to position himself relative to the political climate of the moment . While he claims to have changed, the facts haven’t, and ThinkProgress will keep you informed about his latest flip flops and turnarounds in the coming months.

Politics

Committee From Koch’s Upton Calls Carbon Health Threat A ‘Myth’

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) today introduced legislation with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to block the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing Clean Air Act protections against global warming pollution, rejecting the counsel of America’s public health advocates. A boon to Koch Industries and the other polluters who supported his campaign, Upton’s legislation would nullify the EPA’s Supreme Court-mandated scientific finding that burning fossil fuels is damaging our climate system. At a climate hearing on this week Upton justified his legislation by claiming the threat greenhouse gases pose to air quality and public health is a “myth”:

So let’s dispel a myth: air quality and public health will not be harmed or affected in any way by efforts to slow and then stop EPA’s expansive global warming agenda under the Clean Air Act. . . . . So we can stop the EPA from imposing cap and tax and the Clean Air Act will continue to make our families and communities healthier places. So let’s listen to the facts: this issue is not about air quality and public health, it’s about jobs.

Watch it:

By rejecting the clean energy economy, the only job Upton seems interested in saving is his own. Moreover, Upton’s denial of reality comes just days after the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association warned policymakers of the grave threat global warming poses to the health our families and communities. Based on scientific studies, experts agree that the following are key health risks from carbon pollution:

– More than doubled asthma rates and lengthened asthma season
– Threatened access to clean drinking water
– Increases in airborne and insect borne illnesses
– Increases in morbidity and mortality due to heat waves and other extreme weather
– Increases in diarrheal, respiratory, and heart disease
– Increased risk of salmonella spread as average temperatures rise

The health risks of climate pollution are particularly severe among low-income communities, children, and the elderly. With this attempt to rewrite the Clean Air Act, Upton is protecting polluter profits at the expense of his own constituents. And that’s no myth.

Climate Progress

Ignoring America’s Doctors, Upton Calls Carbon Health Threat A ‘Myth’

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) today introduced legislation with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to block the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing Clean Air Act protections against global warming pollution, rejecting the counsel of America’s public health advocates. A boon to Koch Industries and the other polluters who supported his campaign, Upton’s legislation would nullify the EPA’s Supreme Court-mandated scientific finding that burning fossil fuels is damaging our climate system. At a climate hearing on this week Upton justified his legislation by claiming the threat greenhouse gases pose to air quality and public health is a “myth”:

So let’s dispel a myth: air quality and public health will not be harmed or affected in any way by efforts to slow and then stop EPA’s expansive global warming agenda under the Clean Air Act. . . . . So we can stop the EPA from imposing cap and tax and the Clean Air Act will continue to make our families and communities healthier places. So let’s listen to the facts: this issue is not about air quality and public health, it’s about jobs.

Watch it:

By rejecting the clean energy economy, the only job Upton seems interested in saving is his own. Moreover, Upton’s denial of reality comes just days after the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association warned policymakers of the grave threat global warming poses to the health our families and communities. Based on scientific studies, experts agree that the following are key health risks from carbon pollution:

– More than doubled asthma rates and lengthened asthma season
– Threatened access to clean drinking water
– Increases in airborne and insect borne illnesses
– Increases in morbidity and mortality due to heat waves and other extreme weather
– Increases in diarrheal, respiratory, and heart disease
– Increased risk of salmonella spread as average temperatures rise

The health risks of climate pollution are particularly severe among low-income communities, children, and the elderly. With this attempt to rewrite the Clean Air Act, Upton is protecting polluter profits at the expense of his own constituents. And that’s no myth.

Update

A statement from the American Lung Association:

The American Lung Association strongly opposes Chairman Fred Upton, Senator James Inhofe, and Representative Ed Whitfield’s bill that would block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) authority to update clean air standards. If passed by Congress, this legislation would interfere with EPA’s ability to implement the Clean Air Act; a law that prevent tens of thousands of adverse health effects caused by air pollution, including asthma attacks, heart attacks and even premature death each year.

Yglesias

Endgame

Like an open book:

— Atmospheric C02 concentrations, an animated history.

— Arne Duncan on collective bargaining and class size.

— Affordable Care Act care is only moderately generous (and rightly so, I might add, better to spend more on other things).

— Medicaid boosts health outcomes.

— Corporate America apparently feels threatened by firms’ owners having a say in their management.

— Worth remembering every once in a while that the governor of Florida is a criminal.

Metric does a special iTunes version of “Gimme Sympathy”.

LGBT

Maryland Delegate Considering Dropping Support For Marriage Bill In Favor Of Civil Unions

MD Del. Tiffany Alston (D)

On Tuesday, Maryland Del. Tiffany Alston (D), a co-sponsor of a bill to expand marriage to the state’s gays and lesbians, walked out of the House Judiciary Committee’s scheduled vote on the measure because she needed “a little more time to weigh my final decision.” The following day she announced her intention to vote for the bill saying, “I believe all people should be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. … I have resolved that if and when the chairman calls the vote I will be ready to vote based on what I believe to be right.”

But now WTOP is reporting that Alston has had another change of heart and is considering substituting the marriage bill with a measure that would legalize civil unions in the state:

Alston says the change she is considering would allow Maryland residents to get civil union licenses if they wished to be married, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

She says she believes the change would be “a good balance,” but does not know if it would receive support from other committee members.

“I have what I believe to be a solution,” she says. “I don’t know if it will garner any political will or favor.”

Proponents of marriage equality are against the change, even as the bill struggles to make its way out of Committee and on to the House floor. Alston is the necessary 12th vote to move the bill forward, but a vote won’t come before tomorrow since Del. Jill Carter (D), the other lawmaker who boycotted the measure on Tuesday, is out sick.

Meanwhile, Del. Sam Arora (D), who promised to co-sponsor the bill, is also having second thoughts and has reportedly told some constituents that he will now vote against it. Some donors are now asking Arora for their money back. Last month, the bill suffered another setback after Del. Melvin Stukes (D), a co-sponsor of the measure for the past four years, withdrew his sponsorship. He claimed that he thought the bill, which is titled the Civil Marriage Protection Act, “would have given same-sex couples the right to obtain civil unions rather than marriage.”

Update

Metro Weekly reports Arora will vote against the marriage bill on the floor.

Politics

Rep. Austin Scott Warns The EPA Employs ‘Gestapo Tactics’ In Enforcing Lead Paint Regulations

Freshman Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) took GOP EPA-bashing to another level Wednesday when he accused the environmental agency of using “Gestapo tactics” in its dealings with a landlord who used lead-based paint on his property, but failed to obtain his tenants’ consent:

Freshman Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) was angered by a story he heard in his district last week. The constituent, who owns five rental properties, was fined $10,000 by EPA for each property for failing to have his tenants sign lead-based paint disclosure forms.

Scott might be thinking about the agency’s threat to triple those fines if he’s faced with a vote on rolling back EPA’s climate regulations.

“They told him essentially that if he wanted to argue with them that they’d fine him $30,000 per house,” Scott said yesterday. “Those are Gestapo tactics.”

While such rhetoric is outlandish, the underlying beliefs are increasingly common among hard-right conservatives. Eliminating the EPA has become a favorite target for some on the right, including GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, along with Reps. Joe Walsh (R-IL), Pete Olson (R-TX), and Rich Nugent (R-FL).

Many other conservatives want to drastically reduce the EPA’s ability to protect the environment. Last month, 236 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted for legislation that would effectively prevent any effort “to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of greenhouse gases.” Despite this, conservative efforts to undermine the EPA are deeply unpopular with the American public, according to recent surveys:

- Two of every three Americans oppose Gingrich’s plan to abolish the EPA.

- 63 percent of Americans across party lines “want the government to be doing more than it’s currently doing” to hold polluters accountable.

- Nearly seven in 10 “believe that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards.”

To be fair, Scott is not the first politician to see similarities between the EPA and Nazis. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay once called the Agency “the Gestapo of Government.” More recently, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) deemed the EPA a “Gestapo bureaucracy” (and compared then-Administrator Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose).

CAPAF Intern Cody McClelland

Yglesias

Ralph Reeded Confuses Supply and Demand

For the lulz:

Former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed, who is chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, confidently predicted that the GOP field would end up reflecting the preferences of social conservatives.

“I’m a supply-sider when it comes to politics,” Reed said. “Once they see where the supply of voters is and what they care about, they’re going to find that they have to have a broad, comprehensive message that encompasses both the cultural agenda and the economic agenda.”

This is, of course, a demand-side story.

Climate Progress

Yes, “human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events” over much of the NH

Do climate scientists have to caveat every attribution? Not until reporters do.

Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.

This statement is, according to NYT opinion blogger Andy Revkin, so unacceptably definitive as to warrant a whole blog post:  “In scientific literature you rarely see statements so streamlined and definitive. For climate science, this is the equivalent of a smoking gun.”

Actually, the statement isn’t a terribly strong one for the scientific literature, particularly given the use of the phrase “have contributed,” and most especially for a study about the trend in increased heavy precipitation, which is a trend many other studies have identified and is a very basic prediction of climate science.

A key reason Revkin’s piece (which cites a blog post by Roger Pielke, Jr.)  — and one by Time‘s Bryan Walsh (which cites Pielke and a blog post by Judith Curry) — are picking the wrong fight is that this particular climate impact is very basic physics.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of NCAR’s Climate Analysis Section, has explained the connection between human-caused global warming and extreme deluges:  “There is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future.”

Trenberth has further said, “It’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”

I asked Trenberth for this opinion on these critiques.  His reply gets to the heart of the matter:

Read more

Economy

REPORT: Six Ways Conservatives Encourage And Abet Corporate Tax Dodging

Last weekend, Americans across the country organized protests as part of a growing Main Street Movement to stand with organized labor and demand that the burden of deficit reduction not be placed solely on the backs of the middle class and public employees. US Uncut, modeled on UK-inspired demonstrations against tax dodgers, protested outside of multiple Bank of America branches, noting that BofA paid nothing in federal taxes in 2009.

BofA is hardly alone in this regard. Many companies — such as Boeing, General Electric, and Wells Fargo — have paid nothing to the federal treasury in recent years. Others — such as Google and Pfizer — have dramatically lowered their tax rate. Though the U.S. has a high statutory corporate tax rate, the effective tax rate that corporations actually pay is far lower, due to the myriad loopholes and credits in the corporate tax code, as well as the widespread sheltering of income in tax havens. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found, “corporate tax revenues are now at historical lows as a share of the economy.”

Of course, corporations could not get away with this behavior if policymakers actually set and enforced rules that prevented it. But conservatives in Congress have gone to great lengths to allow tax avoidance to continue. Here are six ways in which conservatives aid and abet corporate tax avoidance:

PROTECTING OFFSHORE DEFERRAL: The Obama administration and Senate Democrats last year proposed ending the practice of allowing corporations to claim domestic tax credits for profits they earn overseas while deferring tax payments on those profits. Republicans blocked the bill in the Senate. Corporations use offshore deferral to lower their effective tax rate by 20 points or more.

SLASHING THE IRS BUDGET: In their proposed spending plan for the rest of the fiscal year, House Republicans suggested cutting the Internal Revenue Services’s budget by $600 million, even though “every dollar the Internal Revenue Service spends for audits, liens and seizing property from tax cheats brings in more than $10.” IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said that a $600 million cut in this year’s budget “would result in the IRS collecting $4 billion less” through tax enforcement programs.

PUSHING FREE TRADE WITH TAX HAVENS: Republicans in Congress have been pushing for rapid, uncritical ratifying of a free-trade pact with Panama, even though Panama has a notorious reputation as a tax haven. Before advancing the agreement, the Obama administration is pushing for “implementation of a tax information exchange agreement the two countries signed last year to address tax haven concerns.”

ENACTING REPATRIATION HOLIDAYS: When corporations bring money they earn overseas back to the United States, they are required to pay the full statutory corporate tax rate. But in 2005, they were allowed to bring money back at a drastically lower rate (delivering a windfall to executives and none of the expected economic benefits). Both Republicans in Congress and conservative activists are pushing for yet another repatriation holiday.

ENDORSING TAXPAYER GIVEAWAYS: House Republicans (joined by 13 Democrats) voted unanimously this week to preserve big oil subsidies worth billions of dollars a year, even as Big Oil companies continue to reap record profits. In fact, Republicans have continually protected billions in annual giveaways to Big Oil, allowing those corporate giants to pay nothing into the federal treasury.

PUBLICLY DEFENDING THE DODGERS: Both House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have said that widespread corporate tax evasion is a good reason to lower the statutory corporate tax rate. When asked by ThinkProgress if it was fair that Bank of America pays no federal corporate taxes, former governor and 2012 GOP presidential contender Tim Pawlenty replied “the corporate tax rate in America is too high.”

For more information, read today’s Progress Report, “Making Corporations Pay Their Fair Share.”

Older

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

Sign Up