ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Former Gregg Aide Tied To Abramoff Scandal, Court Documents Report He Took Gifts In Exchange For Favors

By Matt Corley on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Earlier today, the AP reported that Kevin Koonce, who worked as Commerce Secretary-nominee Judd Gregg’s legislative director from 2002-04, “has been caught up in a long-running investigation into a Capitol Hill lobbying scandal.” Koonce “was cited in a guilty plea last week by Todd Boulanger, a former deputy to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff,” as having taken gifts exceeding $10,000 in exchange for favors in spending legislation.

At the White press briefing today, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to the story about Koonce:

GIBBS: I don’t know about the vetting. I know that the Secretary-designate is not a target or a subject of any of the investigation about an employee that I think left his office in 2004 and I would direct you to them for additional statements. … This obviously is somebody who left his employment quite some time ago.

Watch it:

According to Boulanger’s plea documents, Koonce “tried to help insert spending measures and add other amendments to legislation for Boulanger’s clients.” At one point, Boulanger sent an e-mail to Abramoff saying that he was confident Koonce’s boss would help them out:

Later, Boulanger sent an e-mail to Abramoff expressing confidence that the senator for whom the staffer worked would give them a favor. “Easy money,” Boulanger wrote, adding that the aide “practically lives in our various suites. We are shady.”

As Raw Story notes, Gregg’s spokesman Joel Maiola said in 2006 that Gregg had “never had any contact” with Abramoff, despite his acceptance of donations from “two Indian tribes represented by Abramoff’s firm in 2002 and 2004.” Gregg reportedly donated the $12,000 to a New Hampshire-based charity.

Economy

Reversing The ‘Transit Paradox’

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:39 pm

ap05122208301.jpgThe New York Times reported today on the “transit paradox” — rising transit demand that is being met with service cuts:

Transit systems across the country are raising fares and cutting service even when demand is up with record numbers of riders last year, many of whom fled $4-a-gallon gas prices and stop-and-go traffic for seats on buses and trains. Their problem is that fare-box revenue accounts for only a fifth to a half of the operating revenue of most transit systems — and the sputtering economy has eroded the state and local tax collections that the systems depend on to keep running.

Furthermore, the Times noted that the stimulus bill currently before the Senate does not address these issues. Instead, the mass transit money is “devoted to big capital projects, like buying train cars and buses and building or repairing tracks and stations. Money that some lawmakers had proposed to help transit systems pay operating costs, and avoid layoffs and service cuts, was not included in the latest version.”

There is a definite case to be made for including operational aid for transit systems in the stimulus package, and it’s a shame that Congress has forsaken it. As John Kaehny wrote at the Streetsblog:

It will take time for the economy and local government to digest and contract out billions in infrastructure spending. In contrast, local transit agencies can spend billions in stimulus aid quickly just by keeping existing bus and subway service operating. If the true intent of the stimulus is to inject money into the economy as quickly and efficiently as possible, and do so in an environmentally friendly and socially just manner, then transit operating assistance is an obvious choice.

The stimulus package has two aims: creating new jobs and preserving existing jobs. There are currently 59 transit systems in America that are facing budget shortfalls, and transit workers being laid off constitutes a drag on the economy, aside from the obvious trouble it will cause many others who rely on transit to get to work. Thus, the use of stimulus dollars is justified.

In an editorial, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune highlighted this quote, which sums up why transit funding needs to be in the stimulus bill: As Met Council Chair Peter Bell points out, “I’m not sure how much sense it makes hiring a construction worker at the same time you’re laying off a bus driver.”

Update

Brian Beutler writes, “save those jobs, maintain service, reduce fares, even, and it’s instant and awesome stimulus.”

Yglesias

Late Lunch Open Thread

By ThinkProgress on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:31 pm

By Brian Beutler

It’s been a pretty depressing news day and I need some uplift. I figure if we’ve just handed the stimulus over to Susan Collins and Ben Nelson, we might as well just hop on board and feed them ideas. So, I was thinking we could start with a carbon rebate: money for polluters of all stripes, including barbecuers and illegal drag racers. Also, money for women who carry their pregnancies to term against their better judgment, and money for doctors who misdiagnose tumors on purpose. Failing that, there’s the Return to Roosevelt option of inciting World War III. What could be more American than that? Consider this an open thread.

Politics

The Right Wing’s Next Target: Hilda Solis?

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:00 pm

ap081219029006.jpgYesterday, President Obama’s nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Daschle, withdrew after it was revealed he failed to pay over $100,000 in taxes. In the wake of Daschle’s departure, the right-wing is gunning for another Cabinet victim — Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), the nominee for Labor Secretary. The Heritage Foundation writes, “Hilda Solis: The Next Tom Daschle?” Some more examples:

National Review: While everyone is looking at Tom Daschle’s tax problems…a new issue has arisen concerning another Obama cabinet nomination, that of Rep. Hilda Solis to be Secretary of Labor.

The Weekly Standard: A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama’s Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules.

RedState: [I]f we are lucky we may just see the appointment of this hardcore union shill go down in flames.

According to The Hill, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) “has questioned whether Solis had done lobbying work while she was both a House member and an official at a pro-labor group, American Rights at Work” (ARW). Solis’ confirmation has been indefinitely delayed, and today Obama nominated Ed Hugler, deputy assistant secretary for operations at the Labor Department, to serve as acting secretary.

As The Wonk Room noted last week, even before these lobbying charges were raised against Solis, Senate Republicans were “burying her in paperwork.” Their real gripe appears to be her support for the Employee Free Choice Act; the New York Times called the delay in her confirmation “a way for Republican senators to score tough-guy points with business constituents who are driven to distraction by the thought of unions.”

And as for the “conflict of interest” that the right wing is highlighting? Solis wasn’t paid for her activities with ARW, and as the Washington Independent pointed out, her role was well-known and ceremonial:

What would be the charge? Either that she participated in lobbying by being a leader with ARW, or that she erred by originally not mentioning this job in her disclosure documents. Two reasons this might not work: Solis’ role in ARW was well-known and ceremonial (it’s on their Website), and no congressman has hinted that he/she would file a complaint that could make a splash but not be deemed frivolous and politically motivated.

Greg Sargent reported recently, “Some top operatives in the labor movement are frustrated with the Obama administration for not giving them the go-ahead to publicly target Republicans who appear to be stalling Solis’ confirmation.” “The anonymous hold on Solis is a clear proxy fight for Employee Free Choice,” said a top operative at a prominent union. “And from the Obama Adminisitration … crickets.”

Yglesias

More on Pro-Life Incrementalism

By ThinkProgress on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm

By Kay Steiger 

In light of the debate about abortion politics, there was a story today in the News & Observer about a state fund that set aside money for poor women to have abortions that hasn’t been used since 1995. On the surface, this seems to be a story of eliminating government waste (although the unused money designated for the program is simply absorbed into the state budget at the end of each year). But upon closer examination, it seems that the fund has some very specific restrictions on how that money can be used. A woman can only qualify for abortion funding if she is terminating a pregnancy as the result of rape and incest. This is an argument that’s always considered an “acceptable” exception to abortion bans.

The reality, however, is that it is extremely difficult to prove that a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In the case of rape, a woman must be willing to file a charge and have proper evidence of the rape. Very few instances of rape are actually reported and few women come forward soon enough after the incident to collect evidence. As for incest, a woman or girl that might qualify for such funds might be in such a compromising domestic situation that she’s unwilling to admit the pregnancy is the result of incest. Similarly, a clinic worker would be legally obligated to report such a situation to Child Protective Services or a social worker. The prospect of legal action on top of terminating a pregnancy is so terrifying to young women that they may be reluctant to report it.

This is one example where the incrementalism on the part of the anti-choice right has been tremendously effective. What was once a pro-choice program that could provide real relief to young women who decide to have an abortion has become one of the many “waste, fraud and abuse” programs that will be cut to balance the state’s budget.

Security

Can The U.S.-Iran Relationship Change?

By Matt Duss on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:35 pm

khamenei-khomeini.jpegReuters reports that a representative of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has insisted that the U.S.-Iran relationship will not change under President Obama:

“Any government has ‘red lines’ and our ‘red lines’ are rejecting the arrogant policies of America and the Zionist regime,” said the representative to the Revolutionary Guards in northwestern Zanjan province, cleric Hojjatoleslam Ali Maboudi.

“Opposing the Zionist regime and defending oppressed people are among the pillars of the Islamic revolution and Iran and America’s relationship will not change because of Obama taking office,” he said, Fars News Agency reported.

As the article indicates, Khamenei communicates through a number of representatives, using them to test reactions to various ideas and policies. It’s also worth noting here that Iran is currently celebrating the 30th anniversary of its revolution — yesterday’s orbital satellite launch was intended to mark the occasion — so nationalist fervor is running high.

It’s undoubtedly true that opposition to the United States is a central ideological pillar of the Islamic Republic, and it’s not at all clear that high-level direct talks between the U.S. and Iran can change this. What is clear, however, is that the Bush administration’s “do what we want then we’ll talk” approach only resulted in Iran continuing to develop its nuclear program, and drawing closer than ever to having a nuclear weapons capability.

As Center for American Progress analyst Andrew Grotto wrote last May, talking to the Iranian government “would clarify the choice being presented to the Iranian nation by the international community: the poverty and isolation that extremism brings, or the prosperity and global respect that Iran would enjoy if it adopted a more constructive foreign policy.” Iran’s conservatives would very much prefer that that choice not be clarified. Depriving them of the ability to cast the U.S. as the recalcitrant party would remove one of their most treasured propaganda tools, so it should be no surprise that they continue to present new conditions for talks and downplay the possibility of changing the relationship.

Related Posts

Yglesias

Tax Breaks for Car Buyers

By ThinkProgress on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:32 pm

By Brian Beutler

Things just keep getting better and better:

The Senate voted Tuesday to provide tax breaks to spur new auto purchases….The   $11.5 billion auto amendment, adopted 71-26, would give an income-tax deduction to  car buyers for both sales taxes and interest payments on auto loans. The action applies to purchases of foreign and domestic autos, but reflects a broad desire on Capitol Hill to shore up the shaky U.S. industry.

You don’t even have to ask if there’s a fuel-efficiency requirement in the amendment. In an economic environment as bad as this one, a lot of people who would otherwise be buying new or newer cars will just decide to keep their old, inefficient ones. That’s to be expected. But while we can’t expect to erect state of the art transit systems for them over night, we can give them the extra push they need to trade now, rather than later. There are a number of ways to do this, of course, but you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Senate picked one of the least forward-looking, most auto-industry friendly among them.

Politics

Video: The reality about ‘clean’ coal.

By Amanda Terkel on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:30 pm

The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to convince the public that clean coal is more than a myth (it isn’t). Its gimmicks have included “blogger brigades,” cartoon “coal carolers,” and countless ads. The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has put together a short video spoofing these ads to show the truth about dirty coal. Watch it:

Related Posts

Climate Progress

Q: Why is Climate Progress running ads, including one from the Nuclear Energy Institute?

By Joe Romm on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm

A: Nonprofits need money, too, and I trust my readers.

We are doing a trial run of advertising on Climate Progress. It is a potentially significant source of revenue since according to Google Analytics, last month I had 1.1 million page views!

These are tough economic times all around, including for foundations and other donors who have most of their money in the stock market. My father was editor-in-chief of a medium-sized newspaper for 30 years, so I grew up understanding that ads are part of doing business for the media.

The editorial content of this blog is not going to be influenced by the ads, needless to say. Indeed, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) signed on for a trial ad run. I was initially concerned about whether NEI might have ads whose content I questioned, but the same NEI ad you will see running in rotation here is in today’s Washington Post, Greenwire, and ThinkProgress. My readers (i.e. you) are certainly as discriminating as theirs and more knowledgeable on energy issues.

I have written and placed this post — An introduction to nuclear power — on the sidebar for any new or occasional readers who might not have already read my more detailed analyses of nuclear power.

I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially on the NEI ad when it runs.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up