ThinkProgress Logo

Election

Romney Embraces ‘Grandfather Of Obamacare’ Title: ‘I’ll Take It’

By Igor Volsky on Sep 19, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Mitt Romney pledged to repeal Obamacare in its entirety on Wednesday evening, but joked that he would be happy to be known as the grandfather of the federal law. “Now and then the president says I’m the grandfather of Obamacare. I don’t think he meant that as a compliment, but I’ll take it,” Romney said at a Univision forum, adding, “this was during my primary we thought it might not be helpful.” Watch it:

Romney went on to praise the success of reform in Massachusetts, noting that almost every child now has access to health insurance. The former governor recently raised the ire of conservatives for saying, during an appearance on Meet The Press, that he would maintain some parts of the federal law. He steered clear of that tonight.

NEWS FLASH

Asked 4 Times, Romney Won’t Say If He’ll Maintain Obama’s Immigration Directive | During Wednesday evening’s Univision forum, Mitt Romney was asked four times if he would maintain President Obama’s directive allowing young undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States on a temporary basis — but refused to offer a clear answer. Instead, Romney attacked President Obama for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform and vowed to develop a permanent immigration solution. Romney did say that he opposes deporting the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. Watch it:

Economy

Study: Bailed Out Banks Kept Making Risky Loans After Receiving Taxpayer Dollars

By Pat Garofalo on Sep 19, 2012 at 6:45 pm

According to a new report from the Bank of International Settlements — which provides research to the world’s central bankers — bailed out banks in both the U.S. and around the world continued to be riskier than non-bailed out banks, even after they received taxpayer dollars during the financial crisis of 2008:

We find no evidence that rescued banks reduced the riskiness of their new lending more than non-rescued banks in response to the crisis and the public rescues. Even as lending volumes decreased across the board in 2009, rescued banks continued to write riskier syndicated loans, as reflected by their involvement in the leveraged loan segment and in the spreads charged on the facilities that they originated. We also find, unsurprisingly, that the syndicated lending of banks that later received a bailout was riskier before the crisis than that of non-rescued institutions. [...]

During the crisis, rescued banks did not reduce the riskiness of their new syndicated lending compared to their non-rescued peers. In fact, our results suggest that the relative riskiness of their lending increased.

As Reuters columnist James Saft noted, “This is both astounding and totally predictable. Astounding because it was so clear that those risks were not just foolish but destructive. Predictable because of course the banks realized that they had not been just lucky but had been given a special exemption from death which will be very hard to revoke.”

Despite this and other clear evidence that the banks are totally uninterested in learning any lessons from the financial crisis, Republicans are attempting to bog down or repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. But several prominent banking executives have said that the size and complexity of today’s mega-banks makes them unmanageable. A recent report found that the financial crisis cost the U.S. economy $12.8 trillion.

NEWS FLASH

Senate Introduces ‘Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’ | Sens. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to the Senate today. The bill would offer workplace protections for pregnant women, requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees. Such accommodations include providing a stool or water bottle to a pregnant worker, or allowing her not to carry heavy boxes — measures that ensure pregnant workers don’t have to put their health at risk, or leave their jobs before they need to. The legislation was introduced in the House in May, but has since made no advancements.

Security

Anti-Muslim Group Re-Ups Islamophobic Ad Campaign In NY Subway

By Guest Blogger on Sep 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm

The American Freedom Defense League's ad campaign.

An anti-Muslim ad campaign is about to start a new run in the New York City subway, in spite of protests from Metropolitan Transit Authority officials. The ads, which also ran in San Francisco last month, have garnered much criticism from community activists.

The MTA refused to approve the ad campaign earlier this year, but, citing the First Amendment, a federal court ruled that the MTA must run the ads. Now, in the wake of tensions over mocking depictions of the Prophet Mohammad, 10 more NYC subway cars will soon have to display the ad posters, which imply that Muslims are “uncivilized” and call upon commuters to “Support Israel…Defeat Jihad.”

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), founded by Pamela Geller of the group Stop Islamization of America, created the ads. (Geller is featured prominently in CAP’s recent report on the Islamophobia network in the United States.) AFDI celebrates their new campaign on its website, calling MTA “craven quislings.”

AFDI bought ad-space in Washington, DC to run the same campaign, but the the DC metro transit authority delayed running the ads ads “out of a concern for public safety, given current world events.” In New York, the MTA is looking at changes to their advertisement policy to allow for similar protections. For now, spokesman Aaron Donovan says “our hands are tied.” The ads are due to appear next week.

– Nate Niemann

Health

Obamacare Strengthened Medicare Advantage To Provide More Low-Income Americans With Affordable Coverage

By Sy Mukherjee on Sep 19, 2012 at 5:52 pm

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a news release today announcing that President Obama’s health reform law has successfully increased enrollment and decreased premiums in Medicare Advantage over the last two years. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that the program has seen a nearly 30 percent increase in enrollment and a 10 percent decrease in premiums since Obamacare’s passage, and projected that the positive trends will continue over the next year:

“Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug programs have been strengthened and continue to improve for beneficiaries,” said Secretary Sebelius. “Since the law was enacted in 2010, average premiums have gone down, enrollment has gone up, and new benefits and lower drug costs continue to help millions of seniors and people with disabilities.”

For the third year in a row, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) used authority provided by the Affordable Care Act to protect beneficiaries from significant increases in costs or cuts in benefits. Access to supplemental benefits remains steady and beneficiaries’ average out-of-pocket spending remains constant.

Obamacare’s cost-containment provisions include phased payment cuts to providers in Medicare Advantage, part of a cost-saving strategy that Republicans mischaracterize as “robbing Medicare” despite the fact that it is intended to slow the program’s growth to prolong its solvency. Since the landmark health reform law’s passage, increased enrollment in Medicare Advantage and Administration officials’ stronger bargaining position with insurance providers have also helped lower the program’s costs.

HHS’s assessment of Obamacare’s impact on Medicare Advantage is confimed by health policy organizations like the Kaiser Family Foundation, whose June report found that the program’s enrollment rate rose by 10 percent while the average premium dropped by $4 during the first half of this year. Thanks to the ongoing implementation of the health reform law, low-income Americans should continue to see their Medicare Advantage premiums decrease over time, and they will soon have a wider array of quality-rated plans to choose from.

Justice

Conservative Court Considers Illegal Law Banning Undocumented Immigrants From Renting Homes

By Ian Millhiser on Sep 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm

One of the backbones of American immigration law is, in the words of the Supreme Court’s most recent immigration decision, a state or local government is not allowed to “achieve its own immigra­tion policy.” As the Court explained more than 70 years ago, immigration policy is inexorably tied to foreign policy, and it matters of foreign policy the United States must speak with one voice — not fifty.

There are signs, however, that one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country does not get this. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit previously blocked a Dallas suburb’s ordinance prohibiting undocumented immigrants from renting housing, but the full court met today to reconsider that decision:

Farmers Branch was sued four years ago after it passed an ordinance allowing the city building inspector to evict any illegal immigrant renters. Its case will now go before the full membership of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with 10 of its judges appointed by Republican presidents and just five by Democrats. . . .

So far, no court has allowed Farmers Branch to enforce any form of the ordinance. But the appeals court’s rare move to hear the case a second time, months after a different three-judge panel ruled against the city, could be a sign that the town might finally get a victory.

The current ordinance, which replaced an earlier 2006 version, would require all renters to obtain a $5 city license and fill out an application that asks about their legal status. Then, the city’s building inspector would have to check whether any immigrant applying for a license was in the United States legally. Illegal immigrants would be denied a permit, and landlords who knowingly allow illegal immigrants to stay as tenants could be fined or have their renters’ license barred.

Just last term, the Supreme Court struck down much of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law SB 1070, including a provision authorizing state law enforcement officers to “arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe . . . [the person] has committed any public offense that makes [him] removable from the United States.” The Court deemed this provision to intrude too far upon the rule forbidding separate state immigration policies, noting that the Arizona law would effectively authorize state officials to target undocumented immigrants without any authorization whatsoever from the federal government. Because “[f]ederal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform the functions of an immigration officer,” Arizona cannot authorize police to round up immigrants and a Texas town cannot authorize building inspectors to drive immigrants from their home.

So if the Fifth Circuit follows this established law, there is little doubt that they will strike down the Farmers Branch ordinance. There is reason to doubt, however, whether this very conservative court will do so. The Fifth Circuit recently suggested that undocumented immigrants have no rights whatsoever to be free from illegal searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. A Fifth Circuit panel sanctioned a former high school cheerleader because she brought a lawsuit claiming that she shouldn’t be required to cheer for her alleged rapist. Multiple Fifth Circuit judges attended expense-paid “junkets for judges” sponsored by an organization funded by the oil industry. One member of the Fifth Circuit recently tried to force a Justice Department attorney to write a letter attacking President Obama. The Court’s chief judge once yelled at one of her few progressive colleagues to “shut up” during a court hearing.

So the law is fairly clear in this case, but so is the Fifth Circuit’s ideology. The court will inform the country soon which one of these wins out.

Economy

Florida Governor Blows Off Questions About His State’s Lackluster Job Creation

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Sep 19, 2012 at 5:30 pm

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) has been touting his state’s dropping unemployment rate, which is down to 8.8 percent from a high of 11.1 percent in December 2010. The Romney campaign even asked Scott to “tone down” his positive message about Florida’s improving economy because it clashed with Mitt Romney’s message that President Obama has made the economy worse. But according to Florida’s top economist, the outlook isn’t quite so sunny.

Amy Baker, the Florida Legislature’s chief economist, found that the two-point drop in the state’s unemployment rate is almost entirely attributable to people dropping out of the workforce while job creation has been sluggish. Only a week ago, Scott said that “every economic indicator we have is good,” but when Bloomberg reporter Michael Bender tried to question Scott about the report, the governor dismissed the scrutiny, according to the Miami Herald:

Reporter: “Are you saying those numbers from the state economist are wrong, Governor?”

Scott: “I’m saying we generated 130,000 jobs.”

Reporter: “But that’s not all of the—“

Scott: “Mike, I’ve answered all your questions on that.”

Reporter: “But, no, my question is about the unemployment rate drop—“

Scott: “Mike! I said I’ve answered all your questions.”

Scott ran for governor on the slogan “Let’s get to work,” promising to create 700,000 jobs in addition to normal job growth. Last year, he walked back that campaign pledge after killing thousands of jobs in the state. “I don’t know who said that,” Scott said when asked about the promise.

Labor participation in Florida has fallen to 60 percent, the lowest rate since 1986, and Baker reported that Florida’s unemployment rate would be closer to 10.1 percent if workforce participation had not shrunk. But as Scott dodged reporters’ questions about the number of unemployed workers, he stuck by his lines that the state’s economy is doing fine. “Indicators are very good in our state,” he said. “Biggest drop in unemployment in our state. Tourism is up, exports are up, home prices are up, home sales are up, new home construction is up.”

LGBT

Pressure Continues To Mount Against Boy Scouts Of America And Its Donors

By Zack Ford on Sep 19, 2012 at 5:30 pm

Scout leader Greg Bourke was fired this week for being gay.

Since the Boy Scouts of America announced it was sticking with its anti-gay policy in July, without any explanation as to why it was the “best policy for the organization,” pressure has increased against the group as well as its donors. In addition to a new steady stream of Eagle Scouts returning their badges, churches and charities have begun to pull their funding. This week, another Boy Scout Leader was fired for being gay in Kentucky and is petitioning for reinstatement.

The American Independent has published a new report identifying the BSA’s largest corporate donors, many of which continue to give despite having policies against giving to organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation. In particular, the Intel corporation gave about $700,000 to the Boy Scouts in 2010, almost half of which went to troops and councils directly connected to the Mormon Church. The Church of Latter Day Saints sponsors nearly 38,000 scouting units — 34 percent of all units nationwide — and has said it would abandon that support if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve as scout leaders. The intrepid son-of-two-moms advocate Zach Wahls has launched a petition calling on Intel, which has a 100% rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, to end its anti-gay giving.

Other companies that have given to BSA include Verizon ($318,000 in 2010) as well as big banks Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, and Bank of America, each of which gave more than $100,000:

Election

Sponsor Of Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Defends Romney, Says ‘Lazy’ People Also Shouldn’t Vote

By Aviva Shen on Sep 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm

As Pennsylvania’s strict voter ID law returns to the lower court for reconsideration, its original sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), told KDKA Radio Wednesday morning that his law will only disenfranchise “lazy” people, like the ones Mitt Romney was talking about in the leaked video of a private fundraiser.

When asked about the voter ID law’s disenfranchisement of the 750,000 Pennsylvanians who cannot get IDs, Metcalfe cited Romney’s offhand dismissal of the 47% of the country who will never “take personal responsibility and care for their lives” as proof that those people don’t deserve the right to vote:

HOST: Are you absolutely convinced…that the methods to implement this law are effective and will in fact make sure no legitimate voter will be disenfranchised?

METCALFE: I don’t believe any legitimate voter that actually wants to exercise that right and takes on the according responsiblity that goes with that right to secure their photo ID will be disenfranchised. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people that are living off the public dole, living off their neighbors’ hard work, and we have a lot of people out there that are too lazy to get up and get out there and get the ID they need. If individuals are too lazy, the state can’t fix that.

Listen:

Though Romney has claimed his remark was simply “inelegant,” the message seemed to hit home with Metcalfe. Metcalfe’s colleague, Rep. Mike Turzai (R-PA) admitted earlier this year that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law would “allow Governor Romney to win.” Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s DMVs and Social Security offices have been overrun with so-called “lazy” people navigating a maze of bureaucracy in order to get the ID that will allow them to cast their vote.

Older

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

Sign Up