ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Hatch Counters Menendez’s Immigration Reform Bill By Introducing Enforcement-Only Legislation

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Sep 30, 2010 at 4:30 pm

menendezLast night, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) filed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010.

The bill establishes a path to legalization, but also outlines a set of border enforcement “triggers” that must be met before any unauthorized immigrants can apply for permanent residency. Once those benchmarks are reached, undocumented immigrants will have the opportunity to register with the government, undergo a background check, learn English, and pay fines and taxes on their way to becoming American citizens.

The legislation also includes the DREAM Act which would allow undocumented youth to regularize their status by going to college or serving in the military. AgJOBS, which would establish an earned legalization program for undocumented farmworkers and revise the existing H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program to provide farmers with a steady flow of labor they need is additionally attached to the bill.

Republicans have already blasted Menendez’s bill. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called it nothing more than a “cynical ploy for votes.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called the push for immigration reform “for effect rather than reality.”

In fact, Hatch responded by introducing an immigration bill of his own today. According to the Deseret News, Hatch’s bill, Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America’s Security Act, “would require participation in key law enforcement programs, clamp down on identify theft, streamline the visa system, track the amount of welfare benefits being diverted to illegal immigrant households, curb serious abuses of immigration laws and help prevent Mexican cartels from using national parks and federal lands to grow marijuana.” However, it doesn’t do anything to address the status of the 11-12 million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. and the lack of visas available to migrants who want to work in the U.S.

Menendez doesn’t deny that the election will make it difficult to get any significant amount of floor time for an immigration debate this fall. However, his bill does show Latino voters what has been the reality all year long: Democrats have been more than ready to introduce and vote yes on immigration reform while Republicans have stalled and obstructed the issue. Menendez told Politico, “clearly, you see the difference between those who are willing to move forward and get a reform and [those who are] not, and for the Hispanic community, clearly they understand who stands on their side and [who does] not.”

Yglesias

Trade, Taxes, and Tea Parties

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 30, 2010 at 4:29 pm

(cc photo by fibonacci blue)

(cc photo by fibonacci blue)

In case you were wondering whether or not the Tea Party movement constitutes an ideologically coherent, policy-oriented, principled defense of small government and free markets:

While 65 percent of union members say free trade has hurt the U.S., so do 61 percent of Tea Party sympathizers. Democratic pollster Peter Hart and his Republican counterpart Bill McInturff, who conduct the NBC/WSJ poll, say the greatest shift against free trade has come among relatively affluent Americans, or those earning more than $75,000 a year.

I do think there’s a real question, underdiscussed in policy circles, of whether the GATT model of “trade deals” has run its course. The textbook argument for free trade counsels in favor of unilateral free trade, not “deals.” The deal-based approach is motivated by a political calculation that mutualism would be easier to sell. At this point, however, free trade agreements are toxically unpopular and their text tends to include many many many provisions that have only a tangential relationship to the cross-border exchange of goods and services.

A more direct approach might simply be to stop talking about deals, stop talking about “free trade,” and just focus on regressive sales taxes:

The disparities are staggering. In his research, Gresser found that the tariff rate on a cashmere sweater is 4 percent; the rate for one made of much cheaper acrylic is 32 percent. A silk brassiere has a tariff rate of less than 3 percent, but the rate on a polyester one is slightly less than 17 percent. The tariff rate on a snakeskin handbag is just over 5 percent but climbs to 16 percent for one made of canvas. Similar variations occur when it comes to household goods. Drinking glasses that cost more than $5 each have a tariff of 3 percent, while those that cost less than 30 cents each have a rate of 28.5 percent. A silk pillowcase has a rate of 4.5 percent; this goes up to nearly 15 percent for one made of polyester.

More generally, we’re pulling in about $10 billion a year in federal sales taxes on imported clothing, primarily drawn from non-luxury items. That’s a sharply regressive tax and I’m certain that if a politician stood up and said “what this country needs is a sales tax on non-fancy clothing” everyone would consider that insane. But nobody wants to hear about free trade.

Politics

McMahon Unsure What The Minimum Wage Is, But Sure That It Should Be Lower

By Tanya Somanader on Sep 30, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Linda-McMahonAt a press conference today, Republican Senate candidate and World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon (CT) celebrated the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a “prominent business interest lobby” that finds fault with unemployment insurance, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act.

But “staff abruptly shut down” the conference when McMahon began endorsing the NFIB’s more controversial opposition to increasing the federal minimum wage. When pressed by reporters on whether she supported reducing wages, McMahon said “Congress should consider lowering” such a “mandate” that businesses cannot afford:

Most notably, McMahon said she believed Congress should consider lowering the federal minimum wage in times of economic distress for small businesses, such as the current recession.

“The minimum wage now in our country, I think we’ve set that and a lot of people have benefited from it in our country, but I think we ought to review how much it ought to be, and whether or not we ought to have increases in the minimum wage,” McMahon said.[...]

When reporters asked McMahon to clarify whether she would support reducing the wage, which is currently $7.25 per hour, the candidate replied, “We should always review the policy that is put in place.”

“I think we ought to look at all of those issues in terms of what mandates are being placed on businesses and can they afford them?” McMahon said. “I think we should get input from our business community. We should listen to our small business operators, and we should hear what it is they have to say and how it’s impacting their businesses and make some of those decisions.”

McMahon insisted that she was not advocating an elimination of the minimum wage altogether, but when pressed on whether the state’s minimum wage “was too high, or onerous on state businesses,” she “admitted that she did not know what the current minimum wage is” and decided she was “just not going to comment anymore.”

Six hundred and fifty economists, however, were quite clear in 2007 that an increase in minimum wage not only “would improve the well-being of low-wage workers” but would have “very little or no effect on employment” as critics suggest. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute found last year that the minimum wage acted as a “stealth stimulus” during the current economic crisis by boosting consumer spending by $4.9 billion.

But McMahon has no interest in delving into the actual impact of her policies. Indeed, McMahon admitted that she didn’t even know “if any of her employees at World Wrestling Entertainment are paid” a minimum wage. But if her treatment of her employees is any indication, Connecticut constituents shouldn’t expect even a health or pension benefit from her. That’s just how she does business.

Update

A McMahon campaign spokesman called it a “creative interpretation” to say that McMahon would consider lowering the minimum wage, adding “she is clearly saying that we ought to review whether this is in fact the time to raise the rate.” However, the transcript from the event shows that McMahon pretty clearly left the door open to reducing the wage:

Ted Mann, The Day: Should it be reduced now? Since businesses are struggling, as you all described? Would you argue for reducing the minimum wage now?

McMahon: “We have got minimum wages in states, we have got minimum wages in the (federal) government, and I think we ought to look at all of those issues in terms of what mandates are being placed on businesses and can they afford them. I think we should get input from our business community. We should listen to our small business operators and we should hear what it is they have to say and how it’s impacting their businesses and make some of those decisions.”

Alyssa

Off-Course

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Sep 30, 2010 at 3:45 pm

I’m perhaps fonder of both Bend It Like Beckham and Bride & Prejudice than the average critic since I happen to like both John Rhys Meyers and over-the-top-ness, but I’m at a total loss as to how Gurinder Chadha went from making Western-weighted meetings of India and the UK or US to something that looks as bad, and as stupid, as this:

It’s not really that funny to joke that a non-bombshell single girl must be a lesbian. The Mrs. Bennet-influenced incompetent schemer in Bride & Prejudice is a lot more subtle and interesting than this murderous woman who doesn’t appear to even like her daughter very much. I desperately hope there’s more to Sendhil Ramamurthy’s character than simply that devastating smile and a handsome suit, and that he’s more than the vehicle for smooches for our browbeaten heroine. This movie just looks unpleasant to watch, and I’m actively annoyed at her for having made it.

Economy

Ryan Pleads With Candidates To Stop Criticizing His Radical Social Security Plan (UPDATED)

By Pat Garofalo on Sep 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm

When Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released his radical Roadmap for America’s Future — which he claims will balance the budget via privatizing Social Security and Medicare — Republican leadership quickly ran away from it, emphasizing that it was Ryan’s personal plan and not the official GOP platform. Now, it seems, Ryan doesn’t want anyone else scrutinizing his plan at all.

During an appearance at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Ryan criticized Democrats for “the political weaponization” of Social Security, and asked candidates on the campaign trail to please stop attacking Republican plans to gut entitlements. Politico reported:

“We’ve got to get through this political moment. The political weaponization of entitlement reform is very unfortunate. It’s hurting our chances of actually getting bipartisan agreement in the near future. It’s unfortunate but we’ve got to get out there.” Though he called for candidates to stop talking about entitlement reform on the campaign trail, Ryan also cast his Roadmap in a soft light to deflect criticism that it will hurt seniors. He reminded the audience that his plan doesn’t affect those over 55.

Of course, Ryan’s plan would radically alter Social Security, to the detriment of the program, which is something that needs to be talked about. Remember, under the Roadmap, Social Security would be privatized through the creation of personal investment accounts and benefits for future retirees would be cut, all without setting the program on a path for solvency:

The Ryan plan proposes large cuts in Social Security benefits — roughly 16 percent for the average new retiree in 2050 and 28 percent in 2080 from price indexing alone — and initially diverts most of these savings to help fund private accounts rather than to restore Social Security solvency. Because the plan would divert large sums from Social Security to private accounts, it would leave the program facing insolvency in about 30 years, just as under current law. The plan would avoid insolvency by transferring $1.2 trillion from the rest of the budget to Social Security between 2037 and 2056.

Ryan’s Roadmap would also end Medicare as we know it, creating a voucher that won’t keep up with the cost of health care.

Republicans, from their rhetoric to the plans that they actually put on paper, have failed to explain what cuts to the federal budget they would make if given the opportunity, leaving raiding entitlements as the only way to make their various plans work. Ryan, on the other hand, has laid out some of the draconian cuts that he would make, but he would really prefer people don’t take him to task for proposing to tear apart programs upon which millions of Americans depend.

Update

The original Politico story linked above said that Ryan called for candidates “to stop talking about entitlement reform,” but now reads “stop attacking.” We have an email in to the reporter to clarify and have altered the post accordingly.

Yglesias

What Do FATA Residents Want?

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 30, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Gene Thorp

Peter Bergen, Patrick Doherty, and Ken Ballen write up the first comprehensive survey of public opinion in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas:

More than three-quarters of FATA residents oppose American drone strikes. Indeed, only 16 percent think these strikes accurately target militants; 48 percent think they largely kill civilians and another 33 percent feel they kill both civilians and militants. Directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, missiles are launched from unmanned drone aircraft in the FATA region of Pakistan. President Obama has dramatically ramped up the drone program, authorizing 122 so far during his administration, more than double the number authorized by President George W. Bush during his entire eight-years in office. This may help account for why Obama is viewed unfavorably by 83 percent of FATA residents in our poll.

A plurality of FATA residents consider the United States to be the party most responsible for the violence that is occurring in their region today. Nearly 80 percent of the people in FATA also oppose the U.S.-led “war on terror,” and believe its real purpose is to weaken and divide the Islamic world, while ensuring American domination. Only 10 percent thought the U.S. was motivated to defeat Al-Qaeda and its allies. Similarly, three-quarters of FATA residents thought that the continuing American occupation of Afghanistan was because of its larger war on Islam or part of an effort to secure oil and minerals in the region. 11 percent said it was because of the 9/11 attacks, and just 5 percent to prevent the Taliban from returning to power.

The good is that al-Qaeda is also unpopular, as are both the Afghan and Pakistani Talibans. FATA residents say “their opinion of the United States would improve if the U.S. increased visas for FATA residents and educational scholarships to America, withdrew the American military from Afghanistan or brokered a comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians.” They also say health care and education would help, but to a lesser degree.

Maybe continuing to steadfastly ignore the stated views of the people in the relevant area—at the cost of billions per week—is the best way to build support for the United States and undermine our enemies. But I sort of doubt it.

Politics

Most Tea Partiers Think Free Trade Agreements That Tea Party Candidates Support Are Bad For The Country

By Zaid Jilani on Sep 30, 2010 at 3:10 pm

demint1Earlier this week, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal released a new poll surveying Americans’ views on trade. The poll found that 69 percent of Americans thought that free trade agreements the United States has taken part in have cost the country jobs, and 53 percent of Americans think these agreements hurt the country as a whole.

Interestingly, the poll also found that opposition to free trade agreements is particularly strong among Americans who define themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement. 61 percent of self-described tea party supporters said they thought free trade has harmed the United States, just four percent less than union members:

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 69 percent of Americans believe free trade agreements with other countries have cost jobs in the United States, while just 18 percent believe they have created jobs. A 53 percent majority—up from 46 percent three years ago and 30 percent in 1999—believes that trade agreements have hurt the nation overall. [...]

While 65 percent of union members say free trade has hurt the U.S., so do 61 percent of Tea Party sympathizers. Democratic pollster Peter Hart and his Republican counterpart Bill McInturff, who conduct the NBC/WSJ poll, say the greatest shift against free trade has come among relatively affluent Americans, or those earning more than $75,000 a year.

What’s ironic about most tea partiers opposing free trade is that numerous high-profile tea party-endorsed candidates are ardent backers of the policy. From sitting U.S. senators to relatively unknown individuals who have become serious candidates for higher office, politicians who have co-opted the tea party movement do not share its view on free trade:

– Rand Paul: Tea party “darling” Paul’s campaign website boasts that the candidate wants to “engage the world in free trade.” He also bragged that he would “stand up” to unions to get free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, and South Korea passed through Congress.

– Joe Miller: “Tea Party favorite” Miller, who ran an insurgent campaign that successfully toppled incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), responded to a candidate survey earlier this month that he was in favor of “the United States’ involvement in free trade agreements.”

– Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): DeMint, who “has embraced the tea party movement more enthusiastically than most of his GOP congressional colleagues,” is a strong backer of free trade. He has voted to support every new free trade agreement that has come before the Senate over the past five years, and writes on his website that he sees backing new free trade agreements as the key to a “strong economy.”

– Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): Price, who has been a featured speaker at national tea party rallies, is a prominent backer of free trade within the Republican congressional coalition. Price wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times last month saying that opposition to further free trade agreements is doing “real damage to our nation’s future prosperity.”

– Marco Rubio: Rubio, whose support from the tea party allowed him to coast to the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, writes on his campaign website that “we should adopt the free trade agreements that have already been negotiated with Colombia, Panama, South Korea and other nations around the world.”

– Mike Lee: Utah tea party-backed GOP Senate candidate Mike Lee told a radio host earlier this year “that one of the best ways we can improve our economy is with free trade.”

– Pat Toomey: Toomey, who has praised the tea party in the past as a “constructive force for political change,” supported free trade agreements with Australia, Chile, and Singapore during his time in office as a congressman. He also slammed Democratic presidential primary candidates Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards as “collectivists” for skepticism over a free trade deal with South Korea and a willingness to alter NAFTA.

One major financier of the tea party movement, Americans For Prosperity (AFP), also supports free trade agreements. On its congressional scorecard, support for further free trade agreements is a major category, and AFP gives legislators who are critical of these agreements worse ratings. This lends merit to the idea that AFP is a corporate-backed astroturf front group, not a group of grassroots Americans claiming to represent average Americans who are sympathetic to the tea parties. (HT: David Sirota)

Justice

Senate Leaves Town Without Confirming Any New Judges

By Ian Millhiser on Sep 30, 2010 at 2:50 pm

Earlier this week, Attorney General Eric Holder warned that judicial confirmations have slowed to such a glacial pace that half of all federal judgeships will be vacant by the year 2020 unless the pace accelerates.  And Holder is right to be worried.  Thanks to widespread right-wing obstructionism in the Senate, President Obama’s judicial nominees are being confirmed at about half the rate of his two predecessors’ nominees:

tyrannyofime_webcharts-02.jpg

If anything, this problem appears to be getting worse — and it is getting worse fast.  Last night, the Senate recessed until after the election without confirming a single district or circuit judge.  That means that only one federal judge, Judge Jane Stranch, was confirmed during the Senate’s entire post-August session.  President Bush, by contrast, had nine judges confirmed during the same point in his presidency.

Judicial confirmations have slowed to this near-standstill because conservatives are exploiting a loophole in the Senate Rules which makes it virtually impossible to move more than a fraction of the Senate’s business forward.  Unless all 100 senators agree to hold a vote immediately, the Senate must waste up to 30 hours of time before it can vote on a single nominee.  Because a new president must fill approximately one thousand Senate-confirmed jobs during the course of their first term, it takes far longer to confirm each of these nominees (at 30 hours a piece) than the Senate is actually in session during two entire presidential terms:

TyrannyofTime_webcharts-01

Simply put, there is not enough time to confirm President Obama’s nominees in the face of right-wing obstructionism, so hundreds of federal judgeships could be vacant the next time a conservative president occupies the White House.

The possibility of a right-wing president filling these hundreds of judgeships should terrify anyone familiar with the right’s vision of the law.  As the right has increased it’s control over the federal bench, it has used the courts to immunize powerful corporate interest groups from campaign finance law, from laws intended to protect the environment, and from laws intended to protect women and older Americans in the workplace.  This corporate capture of the judiciary will only get worse if the right-wing’s confirmation roadblock does not get torn down.

Yglesias

Luce on the Pledge

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 30, 2010 at 2:27 pm

budget comparisons under 1

The FT’s Ed Luce has a smart take on the Pledge to America:

In contrast, John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, flanked by the “Young Guns”, only one of whom is younger than Mr Cameron, promised to maintain all the tax cuts that George W. Bush instituted, never raise any taxes again in any shape or form, and do all this while restoring America’s budget to balance.

All of which might have been plausible were it to have spelt out the draconian spending cuts that would therefore be necessary to bring the budget back to surplus. But it declined to do so. Instead it ring-fenced more than three-quarters of the US federal budget – social security, Medicare and defence spending – and promised to impose caps on the remaining, “discretionary” portion of it.

Indeed, as our CAP chart indicates the Pledge plan would make deficits appreciably higher than the Obama budget.

The only question at this point is why this comes as a surprise to anyone. Since 1980, we’ve had two movement conservative presidents and this is what they both did—cut taxes drastically, increased military spending, reduced spending on a few things, blew up the deficit, and relaxed regulatory enforcement. Both George HW Bush and Bill Clinton reduced the deficit with a mix of higher taxes and lower spending, and both were denounced by the right for doing so. But deficit reduction isn’t a mystery. You need higher taxes and lower spending.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up