ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Chet Edwards: ‘If You Look At McCain’s Record On Veterans Issues, It’s A Failed One’

Sen. John McCain has proudly touted his record on veterans throughout this campaign. “I know the veterans. I know them well. And I know that they know that I’ll take care of them,” he said in last week’s debate. In May, McCain said he has the “judgment necessary to care for the veterans.”

In an interview with ThinkProgress today, Rep. Chet Edwards (D), who represents Crawford, TX and is a leader on veterans issues in Congress, ripped McCain’s record on veterans:

If you look at John McCain’s record on veterans issues, it’s a failed one. … Even the Vietnam Veterans of America, those who served with Sen. McCain in Vietnam, have given Sen. McCain a ‘D’ voting record when it comes to voting to improve veterans health care and benefits. … But I think America’s veterans and voters have a right to know before the election that his voting record in the Senate has been a failed one.

“If his voting record had prevailed over the last several years, veterans would have poorer health care and fewer benefits than they have today,” he said. Watch it:

Indeed, McCain’s voting record in the Senate on veterans issues is abysmal. He has received failing grades from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Disabled Veterans of America, and Vietnam Veterans of America. McCain has voted against money for VA outpatient care and treatment and against increasing VA funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate loopholes, to name a few.

“My message to veterans is that a vote for Sen. McCain is a vote to show respect for one veteran and his service in Vietnam,” Edwards said. He added that the mainstream media has “ignored the failed record of John McCain.” “You’ve got 25 million veterans in America, and again I bet the vast majority of them would be shocked and deeply disappointed to find out McCain has a failed voting record on veterans.”

Politics

National debt passes $10 trillion.

The Swamp reports today that “on the last day of September, the national debt hit $10 trillion plus,” as the “gross national debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product has, under the Bush Administration, hit a 50-year high. The debt grew the fastest under supply-siders Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush:

debt2.gif

The debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office; the bailout legislation passed by the Senate last night would raise the debt ceiling further to $11.315 trillion. The Wonk Room has more.

Economy

Six Years After Cheney Said ‘Deficits Don’t Matter,’ The National Debt Hits A 50-Year High

In 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Bush administration’s economic team met to discuss a second round of tax cuts, which would follow Bush’s 2001 cuts. At the meeting, “then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill pleaded that the government — already running a $158 billion deficit — was careening toward a fiscal crisis.” Allegedly, Cheney replied by saying that “deficits don’t matter.”

Six years later, the Bush administration’s consistent belief that deficits don’t matter has increased the national debt to over $10 trillion. This is the highest dollar amount ever, and pushes the debt to 69% of the gross domestic product, which is the highest percentage since 1955.

debtgnp.gif

Bush has presided over the largest increase in the debt of any president in history. When he took office, “the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion.” In eight years, there has been an increase of over 70%.

And the Bush administration has seemingly not learned any lessons from this, as the FY2009 budget had a near-record deficit of $407 billion. This deficit was calculated before the administration spent $900 billion rescuing troubled financial institutions and proposed a $700 billion economic bailout. The bailout bill put forth by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson increased the federal debt ceiling – the amount to which the debt is legally allowed to go – to $11.3 trillion.

As the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities has shown, 42% of the “fiscal deterioration” and explosion of the deficit that occurred under Bush was due to tax cuts:

The key factors have been large tax cuts and increases in security-related programs. For fiscal 2009, some $1 trillion of the $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation’s fiscal finances stems from policy actions, and tax cuts account for 42 percent of this $1 trillion deterioration.

The conservative practice of cutting taxes while spending millions on wars has led to the largest debt in half a century, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is proposing exactly the same policies. An analysis by the Center for American Progress found that if McCain’s economic plan was in place for eight years, it would leave a debt of $12.7 trillion, besting Bush’s record.

Politics

McCain: ‘I Do Not Complain About The Media’

Yesterday during an interview with Fox News’s Carl Cameron, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) astonishingly claimed that he has not had any complaints with the way the media is treating him or his campaign:

MCCAIN: I do not comment on the media treatment of me or Sarah. Complaining about something we are doing voluntarily that we want to do and get done I think would just not be productive. [...] But I do not complain about the media and I will not complain because that’s not appropriate for me to do so and frankly it doesn’t do me any good if I did.

Watch it (beginning at 1:15):

Anyone paying any attention to anything in recent weeks knows that this claim is beyond absurd. In fact, McCain himself just recently railed against “gotcha journalism” when CBS News’s Katie Couric asked about Sarah Palin’s recent claim that the U.S. should “launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to, quote, ‘stop the terrorists from coming any further in‘” — a position that McCain opposes and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) supports.

The McCain campaign has been waging a well-known and well-documented war against the media for what they consider to be biased coverage. Some of the battles:

– McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer blasted a recent interview Couric conducted with Palin as “a series of trapdoor questions.”

– Top adviser Steve Schmidt accused the media of being “on a mission to destroy” Palin by displaying “a level of viciousness and and scurrilousness” in pursuing questions about her personal life.

– Schmidt attacked a New York Times article about how Palin was vetted before becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee as “a complete work of fiction.”

– Schmidt said of the Times: “This is an organization that is completely, totally 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate. It is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside it’s journalistic integrity to advocate for the defeat of John McCain.”

– During her speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin hit the media, saying “if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

– McCain himself recently canceled an interview with Larry King because a CNN reporter conducted a challenging interview with campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.

– The McCain campaign demanded that the media treat Palin with “deference.”

Also, just today, McCain complained that PBS’s Gwen Ifill would be moderating today’s Vice Presidential debate because she is writing a book that is perceived as favorable to Obama.

Yglesias

Debateblog

I’ll be contributing to the factcheck/liveblog of the debate over at ThinkProgress and also offering some thoughts (probably more post-debate than during-debate) over here as well. Enjoy.

UPDATE: It’s worth saying, I suppose, that I have a very hard time imagining this debate actually being consequential in terms of determining the outcome of this election.

Politics

Hans Von Spakovsky Claims Obama Would Have A ‘Partisan And Politically-Biased’ Justice Department

spakovsky.jpgIn May, controversial former Justice Department official Hans Von Spakovsky withdrew his name from consideration for the Federal Election Commission, following months of opposition from lawmakers and civil rights groups. Since then, Spakovsky has busied himself by writing opinion pieces for conservative news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and National Review.

In an article for the right-wing Human Events today, Spakovsky criticizes efforts by Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) presidential campaign to get attack ads by the “American Issues Project” off of TV, saying that the “actions should cause every American to ask, can Obama be trusted with the powers of the Justice Department.” Spakovsky claims that the Justice Department under Obama would be “partisan and politically-biased”:

There is no threat against television stations or a demand by Obama to criminally prosecute NARAL or other liberal organizations that are no different from AIP or the NRA except, of course, that they have spent millions of dollars for independent ads attacking John McCain and supporting Obama. This dichotomy provides a frightening example of just how partisan and politically-biased the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be under an Obama administration, criminally prosecuting political opponents while turning a blind eye to supporters like NARAL.

Spakovsky’s worries are ironic given that six of his former Justice Department colleagues wrote to the Senate Rules Committee in June 2007, claiming that he “injected partisan political factors into decision-making” when he ran the Voting Section of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division. Critics say Spakovsky used every opportunity “to make it difficult for voters — poor, minority and Democratic — to go to the polls,” including pushing through Texas re-districting that violated the Voting Rights Act.

Additionally, Spakovsky neglects to mention that he has reason to hold a personal grudge against Obama. In Oct. 2007, Obama “derailed” a vote on Spakovsky’s nomination, which eventually led to Spakovsky’s withdrawal from his nomination. In an op-ed explaining his opposition, Obama wrote that Spakovsky had “amassed a record” of “putting partisan politics above upholding our civil rights.”

Health

McCain Pays $300 In Health Deductibles, He Wants You To Pay 10 Times More

kennedymccain.jpgSen. John McCain (R-AZ) is having a hard time finding anyone who agrees with his health care policy. While the campaign claims that McCain’s health care plan “relies on the traditional source of health insurance, which is employers,” analylses by The Tax Policy Center, Health Affairs, and Commonwealth Fund, conclude that under McCain’s proposal to shift more Americans into the individual health insurance market, “the health care cards that you get from your employer, that you keep in your wallet, is at risk.”

At least 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage, but McCain won’t be one of them. As a member of the senate, McCain receives his health care through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), a health insurance exchange in which “federal employees across the country must use their employer-provided contributions to buy plans selected through the federal government.”

The program allows the senator to tailor his government-funded health insurance to meet his unique needs, and “choose from among Fee-for-Service (FFS) plans, and their Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO), or Plans offering a Point of Service (POS) Product, or Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).”

In fact, McCain probably pays less for health insurance than someone covered under his health insurance plan.

“Currently, the FEHBP plan with the highest enrollment is the Blue Cross Blue Shield Standard Plan option.” This most popular FEDBP option has significantly lower deductibles and co-payments than a comparable plan in the individual market:

- $300: FEHBP Deductible.
- $2,750: Individual Market Deductible.

- $15: FEHBP Co-Payment.
- $29-$37: Individual Market Co-payment.

Admittedly, individual insurance market plans “often have low premiums” — but their high deductibles and other cost-sharking lead to much higher out-of-pocket spending. One analysis of McCain’s plan concluded that his proposal would “lead to reductions in the comprehensiveness of coverage in that market through deregulation, and encourage employer-based coverage to become less generous as well. These changes would have the effect of shifting costs from insurance premiums toward out-of-pocket payments, and people with chronic or acute illnesses would likely incur much higher out-of-pocket health care costs than they do now.”

As Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, McCain would not be able to find coverage under his own plan. Unfortunately, he also wants Americans to pay more for health care than he does.

Yglesias

The Wrong China Hedge

200px_peoples_army.jpg

I think it’s pretty uncontroversial to say that the only country one could really imagine becoming a serious military competitor to the United States on any kind of foreseeable time horizon would be China. The first-best approach to military competition with China is to try to avoid military competition with China, recognizing that a fundamentally cooperative relationship between the two countries would be better for the overwhelming majority of Chinese people, better for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and better for the overwhelming majority of people who are neither Chinese nor American. But I think everyone agrees that there’s some logic to the idea of “hedging” against a deterioration in relations. At the moment, that’s one of the rationales for investing vast sums of money in maintaining Cold War-style weapons systems.

I’ve long felt that was somewhat counterproductive insofar as it doesn’t so much hedge against the possibility of a deterioration in US-Chinese relations as it does make such a deterioration more likely. But Ilan Goldbenberg uses the column I published this morning as the jumping off point for the more provocative point that spending so heavily now is likely to counterproductive even in terms of the military balance:

The economy acts as the base of military power. It can be transformed into immediate military power at any time but at a long-term cost of reducing your military power. A country can invest in its economy in the short-term causing long-term economic growth, which creates a bigger base from which it can invest in military power. Or, it can invest in military power in the short-term understanding that this will have a cost to it’s economy and thus long-term military effectiveness.

The problem right now with the Bush administration sreategy is that we are investing well over $500 billion per year in defense once you include Iraq and Afghanistan, while China, the country most likely to present a significant long-term strategic challenge to the U.S., invests only $60 billion. That is a pretty dramatic handicap that we are creating for ourselves, especially when most of the spending is for weapons programs that might be obselete by the time the Chinese really are ready to compete and the fact that we still hold a dramatic military advantage.

He quotes Richard Betts offering a smarter strategy:

The correct way to hedge against the long-term China threat is by adopting a mobilization strategy: developing plans and organizing resources now so that military capabilities can be expanded quickly later if necessary. This means carefully designing a system of readiness to get ready — emphasizing research and development, professional training, and organizational planning. Mobilization in high gear should be held off until genuine evidence indicates that U.S. military supremacy is starting to slip toward mere superiority. Deferring a surge in military production and expansion until then would avoid sinking trillions of dollars into weaponry that may be technologically obsolete before a threat actually materializes. (The United States waited too long — until 1940 — to mobilize against Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. But starting to mobilize in 1930 would have been no wiser; a crash program in aircraft production back then would have yielded thousands of ultimately useless biplanes.)

I believe that the experience of Italy during the 30s and 40s illustrates some of the problems with rearming too early (in order to pursue silly imperial ambitions in East Africa) only to find yourself fighting a war with outdated equipment.

Yglesias

Nine Days Before Voting for Earmark-Laden Financial Rescue Package, McCain Deemed Such Compromises “Unacceptable”

Ali Frick and Wolf Blitzer point out that as recently as September 23, John McCain thought it would be “unacceptable” to add any earmarks to a bailout package:

Of course he voted for just such an “unacceptable” bill yesterday. We see here not only some hypocrisy, but once again the fundamentally impractical nature of McCain’s thinking on these issues. All things considered, rampant earmarking isn’t a good thing and I think we should consider it a considerable weakness of America’s system of weak party discipline and many legislative veto points. But given the need to pass legislation in the institutional set-up we have, if allowing some earmarks is the best way to get an important bill passed, then of course you add the earmarks. Even McCain, in practice, seems to recognize this.

Climate Progress

NSIDC stunner: Arctic ice at “Likely Record-Low Volume”

Looks like the Arctic may have set a record this year after all. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said today that Arctic sea ice volume likely hit a record low in 2008. They reconfirmed that the sea ice extent (or area) “dropped to the second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979″ and that “Despite cooler temperatures and ice-favoring conditions, long-term decline continues.”

But the big news was the announcement about ice volume, since that has huge implications for future ice loss:

NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.” [See Figure -- Click to enlarge.]

nsidc-10-volume.png

This figure compares ice age in September 2007 (left) and September 2008 (right). It shows the sharp increase in thin first-year ice (red) and the decline in thick multi-year ice — both “second-year ice” (orange) and “third-year and older ice” (yellow). “White indicates areas of ice below ~50 percent, for which ice age cannot be determined.”

NSIDC explains what prevented 2008 from beating the 2007 record low in ice extent:

Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up