Think Progress

Republicans Are Shocked The Public Is Mad At Them For Voting Against Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment

Last month, 30 Republican senators voted against Sen. Al Franken’s (D-MN) amendment that would punish defense contractors “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” His amendment was inspired by Jamie Leigh Jones, who was gang-raped by her co-workers while working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad in 2005, and then had to fight her employer for justice.

The GOP senators who sided with defense contractors at the expense of women — such as John Thune (SD) — have been facing an intense backlash. David Vitter (LA) refused to give a rape victim a straight answer when she confronted him about his vote, claiming that he is “absolutely supportive of any [rape] case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.”

Politico reports that Republicans are now scratching their heads at why the public is so incensed about their “no” votes:

Privately, GOP sources acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the political consequences of a “no” vote on the amendment. And several aides said that Republicans are engaged in an internal blame game about why they agreed to a roll-call vote on the measure, rather than a simple voice vote that would have allowed the opposing senators to duck criticism.

As BarbinMD writes, “Seriously? They voted against an amendment that was prompted by the brutal gang-rape of a young woman by her co-workers while she was working for a company under contract for the United States government, after which she was locked in a shipping container without food or water, threatened if she left to seek medical treatment, and was then prevented from bringing criminal charges against her assailants. And they failed to anticipate the political consequences?”

Thune is also claiming that Franken doesn’t really care about Jones and other rape victims whose employers have blocked them from seeking justice; he and other Democrats just wanted to “create a vote which they could use to attack Republicans.”

So basically, the only lesson they learned is that next time, they have to hide their votes when they decide to screw over women’s rights. That way, they can support their allies in the contracting business and the public will never find out.

Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay For An Escalation Of The War But Not For Health Care?

In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today, columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is “fiscally irresponsible” while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

– Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the “resources [needed]” for a “significant increase in U.S. forces” while warning that he is “really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit.” [9/13/09, 10/26/09]

– Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care legislation would “expand government spending even more,” while also boasting of his Republican caucus’s “broad support” for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]

– Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we “urgently need more resources” in Afghanistan, “including more combat troops,” while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to “generational theft” that would run up “unconscionable and unsustainable deficits.” [11/10/09, 8/27/09]

Kristof’s question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don’t have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, “Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine.”

Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill: The Public Option Is ‘Unnecessary’ »

This morning on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) about the House’s historic passage of health care legislation last night. Lieberman said that as a “matter of conscience,” he will join a Republican filibuster if a public option — which has supposedly been put forward “by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance” — is also included in the bill that goes before the Senate:

LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.

But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.

WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?

LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

Watch it:

Late last month, Lieberman told reporters that he was planning to filibuster a public option. But a few days later, the Hill reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office was confident Lieberman would “vote with Democrats in the necessary procedural vote to end debate, perhaps with intentions to change the bill.” Today, Lieberman made it clear where he stands.

It isn’t really Lieberman’s “conscience” that is driving him to oppose the public option — more likely it’s his ego (since he told reporters that he likes feeling “relevant“). After all, Lieberman opposed the Senate Finance Committee bill even though it didn’t have a public option, and in 1994, his “conscience” told him that the filibuster was “unfair” and shouldn’t be used to block major legislation. He has also asserted that the public option would raise premiums and increase the debt, even though the Congressional Budget Office has disputed those claims. Furthermore, 60 percent of his constituents support a public option, but Lieberman has dismissed them as just being “confused.”

Transcript: More »« Less

Pence: ‘We Actually Do Deal With Pre-Existing Conditions’ In The GOP Health Bill

This week, House Republicans officially released their alternative health care legislation, which the Congressional Budget Offices estimates would still leave 52 million Americans uninsured by 2019. The plan has been met with widespread criticism, focusing around the fact that the plan doesn’t bar insurers from rejecting coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Today on Fox News, however, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) tried to whitewash this point and simply insisted, “We actually do deal with pre-existing conditions in our bill”:

PENCE: You know, the Speaker has said it was scandalous — some interpretation of the Republican plan, which I am happy to talk about. We actually do deal with pre-existing conditions in our bill. But what’s scandalous is the Democrats launching a massive $1.2 trillion government takeover of health care paid for with more than $700 billion in tax increases on individuals and small businesses at a time when unemployment may well today come close to 10 percent.

Watch it:

Yesterday on MSNBC, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) similarly said that they “address the pre-existing conditions.” Both statements are misleading, and Republicans clearly recognize that they’re in an uncomfortable position because their bill doesn’t address one of the public’s top priorities in health care reform. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that the public overwhelmingly wants final legislation to require “that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.” Sixty-three percent of the respondents said that it “must” be included, and another 26 percent said they would “prefer” that it were there.

As Roll Call reported, Republicans “deal” with Americans with pre-existing conditions by forcing them into expensive high-risk pools:

And states would be eligible for a total of $15 billion [in federal funds] over the next 10 years in aid for creating high-risk pools for people whom private insurance companies refuse to cover because of pre-existing health conditions.

People with pre-existing conditions would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage under the plan. States would have to cover the rest of the tab with a “stable funding source,” although the modest federal subsidy would cover a portion of the cost.

Most states already have such plans, which typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured.

Even worse, high-risk pools would be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions that made people eligible in the first place. So people would be forced into the pools because of their pre-existing conditions, but the pools wouldn’t pay for treatment of that condition. President Obama and the Senate Finance Committee have also supported increased funding for high-risk pools, but only as a stop gap until 2013, when insurers would be prohibited from denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

The disappointing refusal to bar insurers from rejecting Americans with pre-existing conditions comes after numerous Republican officials promised to address this problem.

FLASHBACK: Lieberman Voted Yes On Cloture For Legislation He Ultimately Opposed

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who caucuses with the Democrats, made headlines when he vowed to join the Republican filibuster the Senate health care bill unless the public option is removed from it.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, “A member of the majority has never before crossed party lines to filibuster with the minority. And that is exactly what Joe Lieberman is threatening to do to kill health care reform.” In fact, according to research dug up by Maddow and her staff, Lieberman has voted for cloture and allowed up-or-down floor votes on a number of major bills he opposed in the past:

– Lieberman joined 55 Republicans and 13 Democrats to back cloture for a bill that made it more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy. [5/8/05] He voted with the minority in opposing final passage. [5/10/05]

– Lieberman joined 93 other senators in voting for cloture on the Secure Fence Act, which beefed up the use of technology for border security. [9/20/06] He voted with the minority in opposing final passage. [9/29/06]

– Lieberman joined 96 other senators in backing cloture for an Iraq funding bill that included a timeline for withdrawal. [3/28/07] He voted with the minority in opposing final passage. [4/26/07]

One of the most glaring examples of Lieberman’s past flexibility on filibusters was during the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Lieberman, who was part of the notorious “Gang of 14” that ended the chances of a filibuster of Alito’s nomination, explained his rationale to Fox News host Sean Hannity: “I did vote against the filibuster cause I thought that, you know, it was time to move on.”

Indeed, the same argument can now be made for health care.

House Republicans Pander To Tea Party Movement With Frivolous Resolution Inflating 9/12 Protest Numbers

Earlier today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) released a “leader alert,” proclaiming, “Great Work, Congress: Speaker Pelosi’s House to Honor Confucius’ Birthday as Unemployment Nears 10 Percent.” “With millions of Americans looking for jobs and the nation’s unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, the U.S. House of Representatives today will take up a grand total of four non-controversial ’suspension’ bills,” said Boehner.

But Boehner’s “playing hooky” attack on Pelosi comes at an awkward moment, considering that just today, 76 House Republicans introduced a frivolous resolution aimed at playing to the conservatives’ tea party base by officially commemorating the Glenn Beck-inspired 9/12 taxpayer march on Washington. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), claims that “the fundamental American principles of limited government and personal liberty are under direct assault.” It also seeks to have Congress officially enshrine the inflated crowd numbers pushed by conservatives:

Whereas, on September 12, 2009, hundreds of thousands of American patriots, who refuse to sit idly by as the Federal Government advances skyrocketing deficits, taxpayer-funded bailouts, pork-barrel projects, burdensome taxes, unaccountable policy czars, command-and-control energy policy, and a government takeover of health care, came to Washington, DC, to show their disapproval;

[…]

Whereas estimates of the number of people who peacefully marched from Freedom Plaza to the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on September 12, 2009, range as high as 1,700,000 marchers;

[…]

Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of people who marched on Washington, DC, on September 12, 2009, to show their love of liberty and their grievance with recent government actions.

The closest thing to an official count, numbers given by the Washington DC Fire Department to ABCNews.com, placed the crowd at “approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people.”

Rep. Alan Grayson Grills Republican Congressman On Constitutionality Of Anti-ACORN Crusade

One of the right’s loudest crusades has been their effort to undermine the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN). Following the release of a series of videos showing a handful of ACORN employees behaving inappropriately, conservatives in Congress have done everything they can to single out ACORN for being stripped of all federal funding (while engaging in apparent opposition to defunding companies that cover up rape). Many legal experts have warned that these measures may be unconstitutional because lawmakers cannot punish a group or individual without a trial.

Yesterday, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) challenged the constitutionality of one of these anti-ACORN measures being supported by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) during a hearing of the Science and Technology committee. Grayson repeatedly questioned Broun about the constitutionality of “bills of attainder” — which are punishments that single out a group or individual without a court trial. The Georgia Republican was unable to offer a coherent rebuttal:

GRAYSON: I’d like to ask the gentleman from Georgia a few questions, and I’ll yield to him for the purpose of having answers to these questions. Does the gentleman from Georgia know what a bill of Attainder is?

BROUN: A bill of, the answer’s yes, in fact it’s been very explicitly described by the court’s.

GRAYSON: What is it?

BROUN: [long pause. Scrambling through papers.] The courts have applied a two pronged test. Number one, whether specific individuals or entities are affected by the staute, Number two, when the legislation affects a “punishment,” on those individuals, it serves no legitamate regulatory purpose.

GRAYSON: What, um, does the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

BROUN: Oh, I suggest that this is not a Bill of Attainder. It’s, um, certainly does focus on a specific entity, but it does not inflict punishment by any means. In fact…

GRAYSON: Will the gentleman from Georgia explain what the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a second? The gentleman from Florida?

GRAYSON: No. I’d like an answer to my question. [...]

GRAYSON: The question is, will the gentleman from Georgia agree with me that the Bill of Attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision, but as an implementation of the seperation of powers, and a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature. Will the gentleman agree to that?

BROUN: No, sir, I will not, and I ask counsel to help us with this. I think all this is determination of the court and I’d like to appeal to Mr. Sensenberner.

GRAYSON: Well, I’m sorry, but it’s my time, not yours or Mr. Sensenberner’s, so I will reclaim my time, and I will point out that what you just you would not agree to is from a Supreme Court case called the United States v. Brown, something I would expect you might know about, given your name.

Watch it:

Grayson ended his remarks by noting that the conservative crusade against ACORN isn’t based in principle but politics: “We are trampling on people’s Constitutional rights. And I think it’s unfortunate that the mania that exists on the other side of the aisle regarding this one organization, and we know why that mania exists, it’s because they’ve registered an awful lot of Democrats, continues to distort and waste the time of this committee and many other committees here in Congress. Enough is enough.”

(HT: MinistryOfTruth at Daily Kos)