ThinkProgress Logo

Media

CNN Contributor Dana Loesch Compares Secretary Sebelius To ‘Terrorists’

By Lee Fang on Mar 11, 2011 at 4:15 pm

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been pushing a “revelation” that she discovered $105 billion in mandatory spending included in the health reform law. However, the spending she is referring to was openly discussed in congressional hearings and by the congressional budget office on multiple occasions. On Dana Loesch’s Tuesday broadcast of her radio show, Bachmann gave an interview discussing the issue. Responding to Bachmann’s manufactured controversy, Loesch compared negotiating with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other health reform advocates to negotiating with “terrorists.” Bachmann didn’t skip a beat, and continued on with the conversation:

BACHMANN: Kathleen Sebelius has a sixteen billion-dollar slush fund to do with as she will. [...] It’s another reason we have to repeal Obamacare, and another reason we have to defund it. But they decided they were smarter than all of us, and they surreptitiously or deceitfully hid that $105 billion dollars and I say give the money back.

DANA LOESCH: Absolutely. Well I hope that you are successful in negotiating. I feel like we’re negotiating, and I’m just going to say this, I feel like we’re negotiating, sort of, with, it seems like terrorists to do this to our economy, especially right now. Quite honestly it does. That you would be able to–

BACHMANN: And also we’re having a meeting today about an hour and a half from now at 5:30 eastern time with members of Congress because a lot of members didn’t even realize this or didn’t even know about this. And so we’re talking to members and we’re also talking about this concept of demanding that they give the money back before we go any further in these budget negotiations. We’ve acted in good faith, and Obama hasn’t. [...] You’re awesome Dana, thank you.

Listen here:

While Bachmann claimed she was educating her fellow Republicans on her pet controversy, top Republican lawmakers have already dismissed it as a non-issue. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) recently brushed the topic aside during an interview with Sean Hannity, telling the host, “tell me something I don’t know.”

Loesch’s rhetoric, referring to health reform advocates as terrorists, is part of her regular routine. Despite a long history of extreme rhetoric and myth-based political punditry, she was hired by CNN last month as a regular contributor. CNN has pushed hard to compete with Fox News hate television, not only hiring Loesch and RedState’s Erick Erickson, but also officially partnering with the Republican PR firm Russo, Marsh and Rogers to provide “Tea Party Express” coverage.

Yglesias

Firing Government Workers Leads To A Reduction In Overall Levels Of Employment

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Here’s a look at your year-to-year changes in aggregate employment:

What happened in New Jersey? Well, Chris Christie happened: “New Jersey’s job losses were almost entirely due to cuts in government employment.”

There’s a case to be made, clearly, that laying off government workers and using the savings to cut taxes on rich people will boost economic growth over the long run. But insofar as what you’re interested in is this recession right now it makes things worse. And for the past year this has been the main story of the labor market—private sector growth partially offset by public sector layoffs. You can like that pattern or you can dislike it, but what you can’t do is what conservatives have been doing—implementing the layoffs and then complaining that Barack Obama’s not doing enough to boost short-term job growth.

Economy

After Banks Cause Huge Deficits, Wells Fargo CEO Says He Can’t Prevent Foreclosures Because Of Deficit

By Pat Garofalo on Mar 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf

The banking industry and its conservative allies in Congress have been complaining about a proposed settlement that would involve the nation’s biggest banks reducing loan principal for troubled homeowners, in exchange for avoiding litigation pertaining to the “robo-signing” scandal and other mortgage servicing misdeeds. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan whined about the proposed settlement’s fairness, while other bank executives have called it a “naked shakedown.”

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf is also criticizing the proposed settlement. His justification for doing so is that helping troubled homeowners avoid foreclosure might increase the federal deficit:

On Thursday, Wells Fargo & Co. Chief Executive John Stumpf said extensive loan principal reduction would increase the U.S. deficit if taxpayers are forced to pay for write-downs of loans held by government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “It’s important to the country so that whatever happens does not slow down the recovery,” Mr. Stumpf said.

Former White House housing adviser and current CAP senior fellow Peter Swire said that the banks’ argument “boils down to the view that they should get away with all their mistakes because they’re too hard to fix now.” Indeed, Stumpf doesn’t want to agree to more foreclosure prevention, and is taking advantage of the political class’ obsession with the deficit to achieve that end.

But while some of the principal reductions would surely occur on loans held by Fannie and Freddie loans, many would be on loans held by private investors, not the government, so would have no effect on the deficit. Furthermore, keeping people in their homes, as opposed to foreclosing on them, has a positive effect both on the local economy and for those holding the loan (particularly with the current glut of housing on the market).

Plus, the main factor driving the short-term deficit is that there was a Great Recession, caused in large part by malfeasance on Wall Street. As a result of excess on the part of Wells Fargo and the nation’s other banking giants, a housing bubble grew and burst, throwing millions out of work, driving tax revenues to their lowest level in 60 years, increasing social safety net payments, and necessitating hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars to be spent rescuing the financial system. Hence, the nation has very large short-term deficits.

Wells Fargo’s federal bailout of $25 billion was worth more than the entire proposed foreclosure fraud settlement. Reducing loan principal for troubled homeowners, meanwhile, will allow them to stabilize for the long-term, reduce their debt, begin spending again, and thus create demand and drive the economic recovery.

Security

Pawlenty Dismisses Need For Int’l Coalition On Libya: ‘I’m Not Overly Concerned About Our Popularity’

By Ben Armbruster on Mar 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Taking a page from Newt Gingrich’s playbook — who recently criticized the Obama administration for having not already taken unilateral action against pro-government forces in Libya — presumptive 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty took a swipe at President Obama yesterday, presumably, for wanting to assemble a broad international coalition to deal with the situation in Libya militarily. Politico reports:

Tim Pawlenty on Thursday attacked President Obama’s “incoherent response” to the political upheaval in the Middle East – and said the White House should stop worrying about winning an international popularity contest.

“I’m not overly concerned about our popularity ratings in Europe or the Middle East,” Pawlenty said at a presidential house party in his honor. “What I am concerned about is, is this nation secure.”

But it’s not really about a popularity contest. It’s about smart policy. Unilateral action would fracture the unprecedented consensus at the UN thus far on Libya — which has resulted in referring Muammar Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court and kicking Libya off the Human Rights Council. UN Dispatch’s Mark Leon Goldberg explains that, by acting without allies and international support in Libya, the U.S. not only “would constantly have to defend the decision to work outside the council” but also unilateral U.S. military action on Libya could have a destabilizing effect:

It would probably also divide the Arab world, and in so doing undermine what are arguably more important American interests. To name a few: ensuring a steady transition to democracy in Egypt; progress on Israel and Palestine; and working to ensure that this wave of revolution spreading across the Arab world brings about governments that, at the very least, are not hostile to the United States. [...]

With a Security Council resolution, these kinds of choices between interests are simply not as stark. You don’t have to choose between angering half the world. Military intervention would have both legal and political legitimacy and enjoy broad (if not unanimous) backing by the international community. That is because if such a measure were to pass the Security Council, it would probably have to have the backing of relevant regional organizations like the Arab League and African Union.

And this is what the Obama administration is doing: working to shore up international support, with Britain and France working at the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone. “I think it’s very important that this not be a US-led effort,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week. British foreign minster William Hague agrees. “We are…making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution and an appropriate legal basis,” he said. Former UN official Bruce Jones said as much to Yahoo News’ Laura Rozen. “We would be vastly better off if it was the Arab League calling for action and the UN taking it up and the U.S. implementing,” he said.

President Obama has said that he has not taken any options of the table, including military ones. “We are slowly tightening the noose on Qaddafi,” he said this afternoon, expressing the utility of the U.S. and the international community’s preference for a united front on Libya. But like Gingrich, it appears that a commander-in-chief Pawlenty would be pulling the trigger first and asking questions later.

Climate Progress

During climate hearing, Markey asks if anti-science GOP will repeal gravity, heliocentrism, relativity

By Climate Guest Blogger on Mar 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm

To get daily updates on all things climate and energy, click here.

With sardonic humor, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) mocked yesterday’s markup of legislation to overturn the scientific finding that fossil fuel pollution is causing dangerous climate change.  Brad Johnson has the hilarious story (with video).

Markey, who championed climate legislation that passed the House of Representatives in 2009, protested the energy subcommittee’s consideration of the Upton-Inhofe bill to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules on climate pollution, including its endangerment finding:

Read more

Climate Progress

Energy and climate news for March 11, 2011: EPAs Jackson lays out five ˜fictions about the agency’s agenda; Study says Navy must adapt to climate change

By Climate Guest Blogger on Mar 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm

EPA’s Jackson lays out five ‘fictions’ about the agency’s agenda

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson sought Thursday to debunk a series of “fictions” about agency regulations that she said were pushed by “special interests with an investment in the outcome.”

Read more

Alyssa

Terrible People

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Mar 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Dear Romantic Comedy Fans,

A note on this trailer:

If the guy you love doesn’t notice how wonderful you are until he’s on the verge of marrying your best friend, he’s not charming, he’s an idiot. If your best friend immediately goes after a guy you obviously like rather than helping you figure out how to get with him, she’s not actually your best friend. And it’s not borrowing to sleep with your best friend’s fiancee, no matter how much you like said fiancee.

BETTER STORIES, PLEASE.

Cheers,
Alyssa

Yglesias

Making Sense of the Rationing Switcheroo

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm

Paul Krugman observes the madness of conservative rationing rhetoric:

But nobody is proposing that the government deny you the right to have whatever medical care you want at your own expense. We’re only talking about what medical care will be paid for by the government. And right-wingers, of all people, shouldn’t believe that everyone has the right to have whatever they want, at taxpayers’ expense. The Declaration of Independence did not declare that we have the right to life, liberty, and the all expenses paid pursuit of happiness.

And of course Huckabee knows this; he’s being completely cynical here — and his whole party is going along.

I think it’s actually worth exploring the logic of this position. I see two ways in which it can be rendered coherent, albeit repugnant. One is basically the “welfare state for me, but not for thee” of old people. Any effort to reduce government spending on health care for the elderly is intolerable socialism, and any effort to increase government spending on health care for the non-elderly is also intolerable socialism. That’s cynical, but it also reflects the objective difference in the age structure between the parties.

Another way of looking at it is this. Currently Medicare is an unlimited commitment to pay for old people’s health care. Ultimately, that needs to be transformed into a commitment that is limited in some way. The Obama administration’s idea is to limit it technocratically, through comparative effectiveness research. The idea is that for some arbitrary level $X of taxpayer spending on health care, the funds will be allocated to the treatments with the highest cost-benefit outlook. Other treatments can be paid for out of pocket. The conservative alternative is to limit the commitment through high deductibles. The government will pay for whatever, but only if you’ve already spent $Y out of pocket. Since $Y will represent a higher share of your income the richer you are, this is a proposal that’s much friendlier to wealthy old people than to less wealthy ones. And that, in turn, is very consonant with the conservative movement’s general commitment to advance the economic interests of wealthy people.

LGBT

Iowa Kingmaker Vander Plaats Still Comparing Gay Marriage To Polygamy, Incest

By Igor Volsky on Mar 11, 2011 at 2:25 pm

Bob Vander Plaats

The New York Times offers this profile of Bob Vander Plaats, the four-time failed Iowa gubernatorial candidate who is now playing kingmaker in the Iowa caucuses. Vander Plaats served as a state chair for Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential bid, ran a successful campaign to recall three judges who overturned the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (and allowed gay and lesbians to marry) and is now the head of the FAMiLY Leader, the group spearheading a campaign to revoke same-sex marriage in Iowa. The Leader is hosting a Presidential Lecture Series for likely 2012 contenders and Plaats is touring the state to promote his anti-gay marriage message.

The Times has a sampling of his messaging:

“If you’re gonna void one-man, one-woman marriage, why would you limit it to same-sex?” Vander Plaats asked. He wore the only suit in the room. Women were dressed in turtlenecks under sweatshirts; men, in collared shirts with pen-stuffed pockets. There is a wagon wheel and a cowboy boot nailed to the wall and, right behind Vander Plaats, a plastic wreath dotted with miniature Conestoga wagons. “Why not open it up! Bisexual, polygamy, multiple women? Why not? Either you’re going to stand for something or you’re gonna fall for anything.”

In another stop in Sergeant Bluff, IA:

“Where does it end? That’s why I gave the example there. The polygamist, does he have an issue there? I think he does. Someone who’s bisexual and wants to marry a man and a woman, I think they’ve got an issue. A dad that wants to marry his son?” Asked Vander Plaats.

Vander Plaats told his audience to be biblical, not political. Then he called for the remaining supreme court justices to resign for not upholding the constitution.

Until recently, the Leader’s website also directed readers to SecondHandEffects.com, which describes homosexuality as a public health crisis akin to smoking and endorses discredited ex-gay reversal therapies.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) already appeared before the group in February and other GOP hopefuls like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann are all scheduled to deliver a lecture on “family” throughout the year. Before each speech, the candidates also meet with an invitation-only Leadership Roundtable.

Politics

Front-Group Mailer Attacks Female Candidate For Being ‘Unmarried’

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Mar 11, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Less than two weeks ahead of Election Day in Tampa, FL, a nasty mail advertisement surfaced yesterday attacking candidate Rose Ferlita. Funded by Less Government Now, a 527 group, the mailer urges voters to vote against Ferlita because she is “Unmarried. Unsure. Unelectable.” (Click for full size):

The mailer suggests that because Ferlita is not married, she is incapable of valuing family or holding public office. “Rose Ferlita has put her political ambition first and foremost, while her opponent is a dedicated family man with two children — Ferlita is an unmarried woman with a suspect commitment to family values,” it reads. Moreover, as Florida blog Saint Petersblog notes, “unmarried” is a “codeword” — “if you read between the lines is a subtle way of casting doubt on Ferlita’s sexual orientation.” Other mailers sent by Less Government Now going after men have focused on the candidates’ record or policy positions, not their personal lives, marital status, or sexual orientation.

Less Government Now appears to be tied to Scott Maddox, a Democratic operative who unsuccessfully ran for Agricultural Commissioner last year, and has been used to bolster tea party candidates in an attempt to split the GOP vote. Tampa has non-partisan mayoral elections, but Ferlita, a current county commissioner, is a Republican.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up