ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Cato Explains Fundamental Similarity Between RomneyCare and Affordable Care Act

I disagree with the Cato Institute’s general take on health care policy, but their video explaining that Mitt Romney’s health care plan and Barack Obama’s health care plan are close cousins of each other is extremely effective:

Sometimes, though, I think that liberals misunderstand the upshot of this. It’s important to forget about Mitt Romney’s current political persona and remember when he was a conventional member of a Massachusetts Republican Party that’s much less conservative than the national GOP. RomneyCare was a compromise between a moderate state Republican Party and a liberal state Democratic Party. The Affordable Care Act is a compromise between the liberal and moderate wings of a national Democratic Party. So the similarity shouldn’t be particularly surprising. The weird things here are that moderate New England Republicans like Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins pretended not to see this and that Romney has remade himself as an orthodox conservative without admitting that he’s changed his views.

Health

Reagan’s Solicitor General Promises To ‘Eat A Hat Made Of Kangaroo Skin’ If Courts Repeal Health Law

Last night, Fox News hosted what may have very well been the first conversation about how the constitutional challenges fit into the current state of law. Greta Van Susteren invited Charles Fried, the former U.S. Solicitor General under President Regan, to explain his opposition to the lawsuits. Fried did what few Fox News guests ever attempt: he used Supreme Court precedent to predict how the Court would respond to the lawsuits.

Fried was so certain that the Court would preserve the health law, he promised to eat an Australian leather hat on television if was ever overturned:

VAN SUSTEREN: You have said this lawsuit in Florida is ridiculous. Why?

FRIED: That’s correct, it is ridiculous, because, first of all they say that they are going to pass a statute which will exempt Florida citizens from the reach of the act. If the act is unconstitutional you don’t need it. And if the act is constitutional, it is useless, because we fought a civil war about that. State legislatures can’t just bow out of the constitutional federal statute. So that’s nonsense, and I think any serious person knows that.

So, the question is, is it constitutional? And it seems to me, though there are a lot of things to object in this, and I would be the first to say so, the constitution is not one of them. If you don’t like it, repeal it or amend it. But don’t ask the courts to do the job for you, because they won’t. [...]

VAN SUSTEREN: The issue that will confront the federal judge, and the Supreme Court if it goes on, is whether or not the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to do this….And does the constitution in your opinion, sir, enable them?

FRIED: It certainly does. The statute which I have in front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce. The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has affect on interstate commerce. Well, if that has affect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any possibility, in your mind, or any thought that you could be wrong?

FRIED: Well, I suppose I could. But I’ll tell you what, I would be happy to come on this program and eat a hat which I bought in Australia last month made of kangaroo skin.

Watch it:

All of this is a major obstacle for those who argue that the mandate violates the 10th amendment. The Court has decided that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate economic activity among the states. And, since federal laws are supreme to the laws of the states (under the supremacy clause), states have to heed the new mandate requirements. The tenth amendment only provides that states retain powers that are not granted to Congress. (H/T: MMFA)

Climate Progress

The CRU is not pleased with Steve McIntyre

The scientists of the Climatic Research Unit have now been exonerated twice, which is two times more than their anti-science critics.  So it seems only fair to hear what CRU has to say about their most notorious attacker, a man who has laid a trail of disinformation that circles the globe (see Dr. Ben Santer says, “Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of Climategate”).

Everyone’s favorite leporid blogger [that's what google is for], Eli Rabett has that story, which I repost below so you don’t have to hop over to his site, which you ought to be doing for his sense of humor alone — he is a bunny, bunny guy.  For instance, the Nelson “Ha Ha” (moved below the jump) is from his well-headlined post, “Denialists denied again.”

Read more

Politics

Steve King Blows Up, Physically Grabs TP Blogger When Asked About His Justification Of IRS Attack

In February, a software engineer named Joseph Stack flew a small aircraft into an IRS building in Texas, killing two people and leaving another two hospitalized. Days after the incident, ThinkProgress spoke to Rep. Steve King (R-IA) about the attack, who justified the suicide attack on the IRS:

TP: Do you think this attack, this terrorist attack, was motivated at all by a lot of the anti-tax rhetoric that’s popular in America right now?

KING: I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.

TP: So some of his grievances were legitimate?

KING: I don’t know if his grievances were legitimate, I’ve read part of the material. I can tell you I’ve been audited by the IRS and I’ve had the sense of ‘why is the IRS in my kitchen.’ Why do they have their thumb in the middle of my back. … It is intrusive and we can do a better job without them entirely.

Today, King spoke at FreedomWorks‘ Tax Day Tea Party Rally in Washington, D.C. I caught up with him to get further clarification about his remarks, asking, “Do you regret what you said when you justified the attack against the IRS building?”

King initially tried to ignore me by walking away, but when I repeated my question, the congressman forcefully grabbed my arm and angrily accused me of calling him a murderer. Still holding onto my arm, King got just inches from my face and told me to shut off my camera. Here’s our exchange:

TP: It is tax day and you justified the murder of American federal employees at CPAC.

KING: Are you accusing me of that? Are you accusing me of that? Turn that camera off. I’m not going to have those allegations. You accuse me of murder. That is despicable behavior.

TP: I’m sorry — I did not say that, I did not say that.

KING: That is despicable behavior for any American on this earth to do such a thing.

TP: The camera is off –

KING: We are done.

I complied with King’s demand that my camera be turned off. However, ThinkProgress had a second camera at the event, and we captured the entire exchange on video. Watch it:


Update

The Omaha World-Herald reports that King was slippery about the subject of whether Obama is a socialist:

Following his appearance, King told the World-Herald that policies being pursued in Washington today have been “lifted off the socialist Web site.”

Is he calling the president a socialist?

“I don’t need to,” King said. “Let somebody else find that definition. That’s all just the facts.”

Yglesias

Bair: Reform Bill Ends Bailouts

File-Sheila_C._Bair

Sheila Bair explains that the regulatory reform bill will end bailouts and that Mitch McConnell and others who say it institutionalizes them are lying:

Would this bill perpetuate bailouts?
SHEILA BAIR: The status quo is bailouts. That’s what we have now. If you don’t do anything, you are going to keep having bailouts. Bankruptcy doesn’t work — we saw that with Lehman Brothers.

But does this bill stop them from happening?
BAIR: It makes them impossible and it should. We worked really hard to squeeze bailout language out of this bill. The construct is you can’t bail out an individual institution — you just can’t do it.

In a true liquidity crisis, the FDIC and the Fed can provide systemwide support in terms of liquidity support — lending and debt guarantees — but even then, a default would trigger resolution or bankruptcy.

As I said this morning, there are some questions as to whether the process the Dodd bill sets up is genuinely 100 percent airtight. But there can be no denying that it makes bailouts less likely. Some conservatives are trying to outline alternative approaches to this goal, but what McConnell and John Boehner have on the table is a policy of make believe—don’t regulate banks, let Wall Street run wild, pretend there won’t be bailouts, then when the casino goes bust show up with a bailout.

Climate Progress

Blankenship Attempts Damage Control: ‘I Don’t Think Anybody’s Head Has To Roll’

Don BlankenshipCoal baron Don Blankenship is pushing back against calls for his resignation, following the deadly explosion at his company’s Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, WV, the worst US coal disaster in 40 years. In an extended interview with the Charleston Daily Mail, the Massey Energy chairman and CEO challenged the idea that anyone should be held accountable for the mine explosion, which killed 29 miners:

I don’t think anybody’s head has to roll. I think that’s misplaced emphasis right now. The guys that are running these coal mines, they’re heartbroken, and they’re distressed and despondent, and the last thing they need is anybody pointing fingers at them right now. We don’t need anybody to be more impacted than they already have been.

Gone was the partisan, anti-regulatory, science-denying, unrepentant right-wing capitalist Don Blankenship. The Blankenship in the Daily Mail interview was conciliatory and cautious, though flashes of his high self-regard and combative spirit appeared.

The Wit and Wisdom of Don Blankenship
THEN NOW
There’s so many of the laws that are, if you will, nonsensical from an engineering or a coal mining viewpoint. A lot of the politicians, they get emotional, as does the public, about the most recent accident, and it’s easy to get laws on the books that are not truly helping the health or safety of coal miners. [6/23/09] We really need more cooperation rather than one side, i.e. the government, either the state or the federal government and the companies being at loggerheads.
We also endure a Mine Safety and Health Administration that seeks power over coal miners versus improving their safety and their health. . . . I also know Washington and state politicians have no idea how to improve miner safety. [9/7/09] There are things that when you are in my role you have to take come comfort you have professionals, the federal government has professionals, the state has professionals, and you have to at some extent rely on what they are doing.
What you have to accept in a capitalist society, generally, is that I always make the comparison it’s like a jungle, where a jungle is survival of the fittest. Unions, communities, people, everybody’s going to have to learn to accept that in the United States you have a capitalist society. [1986] If you know me, I’m a pragmatist. I believe in pragmatism.
I think climate change is a normal course of history, that there is not any correlation that can be shown between man-made CO2 emissions and climate. . . . I don’t believe the scientists look at the mathematical logic to it. They’ve looked at different periods of history and geology and science and all this. They look at temperatures. [11/16/09] I believe in finding causation, and I believe that physics and chemistry and so forth are the same every day regardless of what the political atmosphere is.
This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills. [10/19/05] I have no interest in the money aspects of it or anything, I’m just trying to get the job done.
We don’t pay much attention to the violation count. [5/26/03]

Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process. [4/6/10]

We’re not operating any mine that we think needs to be shut down; otherwise it would be shut down. I did idle several mines yesterday and maybe some more this week on the basis of violations since this accident to make sure we use the violations at one particular mine to assess all similar circumstances at all of our mines.

“It would be a big disappointment to everybody else involved if I were to walk away from [the job],” Blankenship concluded, ignoring the calls for his resignation coming from shareholders, workers, and consumer advocates.

Update

Today, President Barack Obama discussed the initial findings of an investigation by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Mine Safety and Health Administration chief Joe Main, and MSHA Administrator for Coal Mine Safety and Health Kevin Stricklin:

We just concluded a meeting, where they briefed me on their investigation. I want to emphasize that this investigation is ongoing, and there’s still a lot that we don’t know. But we do know that this tragedy was triggered by a failure at the Upper Big Branch mine — a failure first and foremost of management, but also a failure of oversight and a failure of laws so riddled with loopholes that they allow unsafe conditions to continue.


Update

,Massey Energy fires back at President Obama in a corporate statement:

Today’s statements by the White House about the Upper Big Branch tragedy are regrettable. We fear that the President has been misinformed about our record and the mining industry in general.


[updat

Alyssa

I Run This Town / When I’m On This Mic

Every once in a while, a song comes along and changes your life.  For me, and for 2010, B.o.B.’s “Don’t Let Me Fall” may be that track.

Before I explain why, let me backtrack.  Summer of 2004 (remember, I’m late to everything, be kind), I was living in a slightly disastrous group house in New Haven, trying (and sort of failing) to learn to cook, and feeling kind of intense about culture but in a sort of naive way–I spent a lot of time doing things like watching all three extended editions of the Lord of the Rings in a row.  And then, by accident, I downloaded a track that I thought was…well, something else.  I don’t remember now.  Instead, it turned out to be Cee-Lo Green’s “Die Trying.”  I don’t know if a track’s been more important to me, ever.  By that I don’t mean that it’s the best song I’ve ever heard.  But it radically expanded my understanding of what hip-hop could be (yes, even beyond OutKast–the friend I lived with that summer and I can do “Ms. Jackson” with me rapping the verses and him singing the hooks, if you get up in the right space), and of the power of the interstitial space between rap and pop, something that’s become an obsession of my criticism.  The wordplay was simultaneously intelligent and vulnerable: “the Source couldn’t find any microphones to rate me” set a new standard of articulate plaintiveness for me, a simultaneous hipster shrug and admission of a deep wound.

I don’t know that another song can ever have that impact for me again.  But “Don’t Let Me Fall” is an amazing song:

Guy’s flow is tight.  He’s got some of that Eminem-like syncopation in the first verse, especially on the “So call me whenever you want / Call me whatever you’d like / But let’s get one thing straight / You know my name, so I run this town / When I’m on this mic…Rack ‘em up, lock ‘em down / Dominoes, then I go / Where my story goes.”  It’s a modern, honed skill set with some nicely old fashioned twists.  I like the clarity and soar of the piano at the beginning, I like the whole The Great Adventures of Bobby Ray framing device, I like the sharp, crisp aesthetic.  The non-Kanye emotional register, that bravado based on talent and paired with wonder is pretty refreshing, too.  This all feels like a major step forward, an important part of a progression.  And it’s marvelous.


Politics

Rep. Kingston Would ‘Gladly Run On’ Repealing Stimulus, Forcing Businesses To Give Back Stimulus Money

In recent weeks, Republicans have escalated their rhetoric on repealing legislative items passed by President Obama. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) have called for not only repealing health reform, but repealing nearly everything passed in the last year. Newt Gingrich has suggested that Republicans, after taking back Congress, should engage in a budget standoff with Democrats that could result in a shutdown of the federal government.

At the Tax Day Tea Party at Freedom Plaza today, ThinkProgress asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) if he supported his colleagues’ stimulus repeal campaign. Kingston said that he did, and confirmed to us that he would repeal the stimulus by forcing businesses and state governments to give back the stimulus money. President Obama’s stimulus consisted of approximately one-third tax cuts to 95% of Americans, one-third support to state governments, and one-third direct investments to businesses for infrastructure and job programs. Kingston, however, said he would “gladly run on” repealing the bill and forcing stimulus recipients to pay back the funds:

TP: Are you going to say that all the stimulus money that has been doled out by businesses, should the businesses give back the money and give it back to the taxpayers?

KINGSTON: I think it would be something to consider when you think about none of this money has created jobs. So I think we should repeal the stimulus program. And I would gladly–

TP: And ask state governments to pay back the Federal government, and for businesses to pay back?

KINGSTON: I would gladly run on that, I would gladly say the stimulus hasn’t worked and we need to repeal it.

Watch it:

Ironically, Kingston — a longtime foe of the stimulus — has claimed credit for stimulus-funded jobs in his district. Last year, he fired off several press releases announcing the hiring of new police officers in his district. “This funding will provide tax relief by savings local tax dollars,” said Kingston in the release, adding that the funds “will go a long way to fight crime more effectively through community policing.” He did not reveal, however, that the funds came directly from the stimulus he has called a failure.

When Kingston fights to repeal the stimulus and demands a refund of the money, is he prepared to ask that the stimulus-funded cops in his district be fired?

Yglesias

Jobless Recovery Shows Inadequate Demand

Annie Lowrey explains the jobless recovery:

Wondering what’s behind those recent jobless recovery numbers?

1. Fortune 500 companies tripled their profits to $391 billion in 2009.

2. They also slashed their payrolls by more than 800,000 jobs.

But here’s the thing. Normally, if I’m running a delicious deli and making lots of profits then soon enough I’m going to want to open a second location and make even more money. Maybe you’re able to finance the startup of the new location out of the profits you made running the first, or else maybe a bank is willing to loan you the money since, after all, your first location was so profitable. The point is, new location equals new jobs. Similarly, if my factory is profitable and profits are growing, I’ll want to expand production and that means more hiring.

Unless, that is, I think I’m operating my business in an overall climate of weak, flat demand. In that case, even though my business might be very profitable at the current volume of operations, there’s reason to think it’ll be hard to sell any more product even though right now I’m selling product profitably. For example, suppose you let the level of nominal GDP fall $1.3 trillion below trend:

g98023400023204535364355490620732 1 1

My fear is that as GDP growth continues to leave us below trend, the recovery will continue to be jobless and people are going to confuse the cause and say that employment isn’t growing because there’s too much productivity or firms are too profitable or some such. The problem, however, is simply that there isn’t enough demand—that’s why increased efficiency is taking the form of decreased employment rather than increased production. Entrepreneurs, managers, and would-be lenders need to have confidence that the overall level of demand is going to be adequate to make it worth expanding profitable operations.

Security

Bringing China Around

Our guest bloggers are Winny Chen, Policy Analyst and Manage for China Studies, and Megan Adams, an intern with the National Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress.

US-PESIDENT-OBAMIran was on the top of the agenda when Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao met on the sidelines of this week’s nuclear summit in Washington, but what was agreed upon in that conversation depended on whom you asked.

National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs Jeff Bader stated in a briefing Tuesday, “The two presidents agreed the two delegations should work together on sanctions [on Iran].” However, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu had a different take: “China has always believed that sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issue, and dialogue and negotiation are the best ways.” Chinese officials have also continued to press for a diplomatic solution. So what should we expect to happen next?

A look at China’s past positions could shed some light. China’s foot-dragging on sanctioning Iran isn’t new. Its interests in the Middle East have given it reason to shield Iran from sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. For one, China is concerned with protecting its access to energy. In recent UNSC discussions, officials from other countries have argued for sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector, which would be most crippling to the Iranian economy. China has opposed such a strategy, probably because it imports around 460,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day and invests heavily in Iran’s energy sector.

On a more fundamental level, China has historically abstained from measures that infringe on other states’ sovereignty. Two of China’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which serve as the foundation of China’s foreign policy, are mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference in others’ internal affairs. These principles not only help China’s relations with other countries but prevent foreign powers from intervening in its domestic affairs as well, namely on human rights, Tibet and Taiwan issues. To the Chinese, economic sanctions would cross over the line into domestic affairs. They would not only violate the spirit of territorial integrity but also prove counter-productive, the Chinese have argued.

Recently, Iran appealed to China’s commitment to sovereignty and called on the Chinese to resist international pressure, specifically pressure from the United States. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast commented in March, “We are hopeful that China will not be affected by others’ demands and will have its own independent policy. We hope such independent, powerful countries will block bullying powers…” Iran has also offered financial incentives to China to further solidify their economic relationship.

Despite this, China has now shown a reluctant willingness to join with other UNSC members, just as it has in the past when under international pressure. In 2003, China thwarted the U.S.-backed attempt to condemn North Korea after it left the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, only to turn around and enforce sanctions against North Korea in 2006, when international pressure ratcheted up. Similarly, China supplied the International Atomic Energy Agency with intelligence on Iran’s secret nuclear build-up in 2008, after initially opposing sanctions against Iran. It seems that when China is isolated in its opposition, and especially when Russia agrees to cooperate with the other members of the UNSC, China finds its way back to the majority.

China has also shown considerable progress with global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, providing optimism on China’s dedication to nuclear security issues. Since signing the NPT in 1992 and the CTBT in 1996, China has been increasingly more active in the international arena in curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons. It has applied the same dedication at home as well with the development of domestic monitoring systems for nuclear related exports. China’s agreement Monday to work with the P5+1 on Iran mark another step in the country’s evolution toward a more responsible steward in the regime.

Now that it has agreed to work with the UNSC, China’s statements remain ambiguous as to what their version of an ideal sanction package would look like. How China behaves at the nuclear disarmament conference in Tehran next week will be very telling of how committed it is to working with the UNSC and the world on the non-proliferation issue. In the meantime, it is important the administration continues to ramp up international pressure on Iran, both to ensure China’s continue cooperation and to nudge Iran toward a solution.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up