Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill: The Public Option Is ‘Unnecessary’
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 »
- Comments
- 105
Pence: ‘We Actually Do Deal With Pre-Existing Conditions’ In The GOP Health Bill
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.
Coburn places hold on veterans benefits bill.
Coburn places hold on veterans benefits bill.
One of the Senate’s most vociferous opponents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has been Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who called the stimulus “the worst act of generational theft in our nation’s history.” Today, The Marine Corp Times revealed exactly how far Coburn was willing to go to undermine ARRA. It turns out Coburn has been the senator who has placed holds on several veterans benefits bills because he wanted to divert money from unspent ARRA funds on them:
Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.
Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill. [...]
In a letter sent Monday night to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 13 military and veterans groups ask the Senate to get on with it.
“It is essential that Congress act on this comprehensive measure without further delay,” the letter reads. “Thousands of disabled veterans with serious medical conditions and the family members who care for them are counting on this additional support.”
Steve Robertson, the legislative director for the veterans advocacy group The American Legion, met with Coburn’s staff about the holds on the bills and came away disappointed with their refusal to budge on the issue. “For a lot of family caregivers, delay is costing them their jobs and their savings. It’s having a big impact,” Robertson told the press. “They made it clear that Sen. Coburn sees this as using his rights as a senator to place a hold on a bill…I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to hold up a bill that would do a lot of good things for veterans that has cleared a committee and is ready for a vote.”
Rep. Todd Akin screws up the Pledge of Allegiance, leaves out ‘indivisible.’
Rep. Todd Akin screws up the Pledge of Allegiance, leaves out ‘indivisible.’
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) had the honor of leading the anti-health care protesters on Capitol Hill today in the Pledge of Allegiance. To show his fervent devotion to the Pledge, he gave a short speech about the importance of the phrase “under God.” However, when it came time to actually recite the Pledge, he was so excited about that one phrase that he forgot to say “indivisible” before “with liberty, and justice for all.” The crowd seemed to remember the actual words though, which threw Akin a bit off track. Watch it:
When right-wing radio host Mark Levin took the stage a short while later, the American flag fell over, and he exclaimed, “What the hell is this? Dare I say it? The flag drops. Hold up the flag and drop that [the health care bill]!”
Michael Steele and Rep. Mike Pence to host a 12-hour online health care town hall called ‘Pelosi Plan Exposed.’
Michael Steele and Rep. Mike Pence to host a 12-hour online health care town hall called ‘Pelosi Plan Exposed.’
Today, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out a press release announcing that Chairman Michael Steele and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) will be hosting a 12-hour online town hall called “Pelosi Plan Exposed” tomorrow from 1:00 p.m. to Friday 1:00 a.m. ET. The intent of the forum is to “expose the 12 truths of Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill” and promote the “Republican alternative.” Topics include “your money,” “the culture of life,” “taxes,” and “families and women.”
In his video announcement, Pence said that he and his House colleagues “will present an interactive broadcast marathon on the Democrats’ plans to launch a government takeover of health care. We’ll take your calls, answer your tweets, and talk to people on the street.” Watch it:
Maybe they’ll explain why they’re in favor of allowing insurers to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
As The Media Obsesses Over New York Special Election, It Ignores Leftward Lurch In California Special Election
As The Media Obsesses Over New York Special Election, It Ignores Leftward Lurch In California Special Election
In the past few weeks, conservatives and their allies in the press have obsessed over the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district. Pundits have claimed that the rise of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman as the likely winner in that race is a “referendum on the Obama-Biden spending agenda” and evidence of a rightward shift in the nation’s politics, despite the fact that this particular district in New York hasn’t elected a Democrat in a century.
While pundits have obsessed over the special election in New York, they’ve completely ignored another race that evidences a progressive resurgence. Today, voters in California’s 10th congressional district will go to the polls to elect a member of congress to replace former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who was brought into the Obama Administration to serve as the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.
As The Nation’s John Nichols notes, CA-10 is a far more competitive district than NY-23:
If [NY-23] elects a Republican Tuesday – and, though Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party line, he is now backed by local, state and national GOP leaders and organizations – the district will hold to the pattern it has been on since Ulysses Grant was president. On the other hand, California 10 was represented by a Republican until Tauscher beat him in 1996 – and in the past century, Republicans have represented the core counties of the district more frequently than Democrats. In other words, California 10 is the more historically competitive turf.
Despite the competitiveness of his district, Democrat John Garamendi leads Republican David Harmer by ten points in the latest polling.
What makes Garamendi’s lead all the more impressive is his progressive stances. While CA-10 was previously held by a Democrat, Tauscher legislated as a centrist. A member of the business-friendly “New Democrat Coalition,” Tauscher was a supporter of rolling back the estate tax, tightening bankruptcy rules, and expanding free trade agreements. Following the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2006, she famously warned her colleagues to not run “over the left cliff” by passing too much progressive legislation.
Garamendi, on the other hand, is an unabashed liberal. He is a strong supporter not only of a public option, but of a single-payer Medicare-for-all health care system, supports the creation of an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and actually defeated the hand-picked candidate for the Democratic endorsement.
If he is elected, and he likely will be, it will mark a dramatic leftward shift in CA-10. But with all the media coverage of NY-23, most Americans may never know that.
FLASHBACK: Lieberman Voted Yes On Cloture For Legislation He Ultimately Opposed
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
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.”
House Republicans ‘growing frustrated’ with lack of GOP alternative health care bill.
House Republicans ‘growing frustrated’ with lack of GOP alternative health care bill.
In June, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised that an alternative health care reform bill would be introduced that Republicans could rally behind. “We’re putting the final touches on our bill,” Boehner said in July. Then, the chairman of the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), admitted that the House GOP leadership was unlikely to introduce a bill. Now, The Hill reports that “some House Republicans are growing frustrated that their leaders have not yet introduced a healthcare reform alternative”:
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), revealed the schism within his party late last week.
“There’s a difference of opinion over what ought to be the strategy from a political standpoint on this issue. I happen to believe we ought to have a bill. There are others who believe, as strongly, that the principles that would be outlined and would be adhered to in the Republican bill are what need to be discussed because everybody can embrace those principles,” Price said last week. [...]
One House Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity said, “The fact is, [GOP leaders] are very concerned with doing anything that the base would interpret as ‘Democrat-lite’ or ‘socialized-lite’ … which is forcing a little of paralysis.”
Rep. Paul Broun Proposes Bill That Would Privatize Medicare
Rep. Paul Broun Proposes Bill That Would Privatize Medicare
One of the great success stories of the modern American welfare state has been the Medicare system, which — since 1966 — has provided health insurance for all Americans age 65 and done so much more efficiently than private insurance. While Medicare may be a very popular program today, it was bitterly fought by the right when it was proposed. (Ronald Reagan even produced commercials claiming that the single-payer health care system for the elderly would lead to a dictatorship.)
In an attempt to reclaim the right’s rich tradition of opposing Medicare, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has proposed legislation that would roll back the Medicare system and replace it with a system of vouchers that seniors could use to purchase private insurance:
U.S. Rep. Paul Broun introduced his own health care reform bill last week that would, among other things, privatize the Medicare insurance program for seniors.
Broun’s bill would replace government benefits with vouchers that could be spent on private insurance or put in tax-free medical savings accounts.
“We’ve got to fix Medicare,” he said. “It’s headed in a direction that’s unsustainable.”
While Medicare is facing future budgetary problems, privatization isn’t the solution. Medicare Advantage, the Medicare plan under which the administration of the program is farmed out to private insurance companies, has more than five times the administrative costs of the traditional public Medicare plan.
Earlier this year, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — who is a strong supporter of extending a program like Medicare to all Americans — introduced an amendment that would eliminate Medicare. Not a single member of Congress voted for Weiner’s amendment, including Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), despite his long-held belief that the program is unconstitutional.
Former Sen. Chuck Hagel: GOP is being ‘irresponsible’ in the health care debate.
Former Sen. Chuck Hagel: GOP is being ‘irresponsible’ in the health care debate.
The Hill reports today that Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) criticized the Republican Party’s approach to the health care debate during a speech at the University of Michigan earlier this month. Hagel chided his former Republican colleagues for using the health care debate to “destroy the other party” rather than engage in thoughtful conversation; he also said that such an approach is “irresponsible“:
“If your attitude is wrong, if your intention is to use healthcare to destroy the other party, or to destroy the presidency of Barack Obama, then it’s very unlikely you’re going to find much consensus from people who want to use healthcare,” Hagel said earlier this month in a speech at the University of Michigan, video of which was only made available recently.
“As some Republican senators have said publicly — that if we kill Obama on this, and we destroy this, and we defeat his, that will drive a stake through his political heart on this administration,” the former senator, who retired at the end of his term in January, added. “I just find that about as irresponsible of a thing as I can think of.”
Watch Hagel’s full remarks here:
Rep. Alan Grayson Grills Republican Congressman On Constitutionality Of Anti-ACORN Crusade
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.”
Sen. Burr Touts Funds From Stimulus Bill He Opposed
Sen. Burr Touts Funds From Stimulus Bill He Opposed
Earlier this year, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — commonly referred to as the stimulus — with the votes of only three Republicans in the Senate. Since then, a whole host of legislators who opposed the stimulus have jumped at the opportunity to personally deliver stimulus funds to their cash-strapped districts.
Now, the Hickory Daily Record reports that the latest senator to engage in stimulus hypocrisy is Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). Last week, Burr appeared in Bethlehem, North Carolina, to deliver ARRA funds for a fire station there:
This summer, the department applied for and won a $2,008,515 federal grant that will pay for a new 19,000-square-foot fire station.
On Friday, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr was in Bethlehem to present the grant to the department.
“This is a great thing for this county,” he said. “We’re not accustomed to federal dollars in that magnitude finding their way to North Carolina.”
“This will serve a huge need for us,” said Chief Shannon Lowrance of the Bethlehem Community Volunteer Fire Department. “This is a very fast-growing community. We’re building for the next 50 years.” [...]
Having the plans ready to go helped the department win three American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Assistance to Firefighters Station Construction Grants issued this year from the Federal Emergency Management Agency / Department of Homeland Security, Lowrance said.
Last winter, Burr slammed the stimulus on Fox News, telling one of their anchors, “This isn’t a stimulus package, this is a spending package.” The senator even delivered the official Republican response to President Obama’s weekly address on the stimulus, warning ominously that “the federal government is obligating the American people to a similar fate” as that of a family choking under credit card debt. He ended up voting against the funds he is now happy to tout.
GOP Rep. from district where civil rights workers were lynched talks about shooting ‘tree-hugging Democrats.’
GOP Rep. from district where civil rights workers were lynched talks about shooting ‘tree-hugging Democrats.’
In a new interview with Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS), Politico asks the congressman what the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus does. Harper’s response:
We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.
Harper represents Mississippi’s 3rd congressional district, which contains Neshoba County — the place of one of the most infamous race-related crimes in American history. In 1964, white supremacists lynched three civil rights workers. In recent months, sportsmen around the country have been joining up with “tree-hugging” liberals on climate legislation. In April, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus and other sportsmen’s and environmental groups “called for Congress to pass global warming legislation that includes increased funding for natural resource protection.”
Rep. Kingston Doesn’t Mention The Stimulus When Handing Out Stimulus Funds
Rep. Kingston Doesn’t Mention The Stimulus When Handing Out Stimulus Funds
Earlier this year, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — commonly referred to as the stimulus — without a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives. Since then, a whole host of legislators who opposed the stimulus have jumped at the opportunity to personally deliver stimulus funds to their cash-strapped districts.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that not a single Georgian GOP legislator who voted against ARRA has turned down stimulus funds for their district. The paper notes one congressman, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), has managed to get away with this hypocrisy by hiding the source of the funds he is doling out:
On July 28, Kingston’s office issued news releases announcing $245,187 combined in funding through the federal Office of Community Oriented Policing Services for the Alma and Jesup police departments. The money will pay the salary and benefits for one entry-level police officer for each department for three years, according to Kingston’s news releases, which did not mention the funding was made possible by the federal stimulus program.
“We’ve seen from experience that local initiatives go a lot further toward solving local problems than policies set in Washington,” Kingston said in his release about the funding for Jesup. “This funding will provide tax relief by saving local tax dollars.”
In February, Kingston said the recovery act is “fundamentally flawed and doesn’t represent the change we deserve or the stimulus we need.” His spokesman said Kingston, who remains opposed to the stimulus, routinely announces all types of federal funding for his district without identifying the legislation that created it.
“We are very cautious not to take credit for it in those releases,” Kingston spokesman Chris Crawford said.
Last week, ThinkProgress noted that Kingston’s colleague Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) — another ardent opponent of the stimulus — handed a giant, stimulus-funded check to the city of Cedartown, Georgia to help fund community development projects.
Gingrey — who remains opposed to the Recovery Act — was forced to release this statement explaining his hypocrisy: “If the Democrats are hellbent on spending an astronomical sum of money, it is my job as a member of Congress to see that the communities I represent receive consideration for the federal funds that the Democrats are spending, whether I agreed with its allocation or not.”
Specter rips GOP: ‘A Party of obstructionism.’
Specter rips GOP: ‘A Party of obstructionism.’
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who until late April of this year was a lifelong Republican, castigated his former party this morning on Fox News. Specter ripped the GOP for refusing to be a good-faith negotiator in the health care debate:
On the Republican side, it’s no, no, no. A party of obstructionism. … You have responsible Republicans who had been in the Senate — like Howard Baker, Bob Dole, or Bill Frist — who say Republicans ought to cooperate. Well, they’re not cooperating.
Watch it:
Specter also indicated he would fight hard for the public option. “I’m not prepared to recede at all. I think the public option is gaining momentum,” he said. “I am not going to step back a bit. I am going to fight for the best public option.”
Phil Gingrey’s Stimulus Hypocrisy: Votes Against Recovery Act In DC, But Hands Out Giant Stimulus Check In Georgia
Phil Gingrey’s Stimulus Hypocrisy: Votes Against Recovery Act In DC, But Hands Out Giant Stimulus Check In Georgia
Earlier this year, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — commonly referred to as the stimulus — without a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives. Since then, a whole host of legislators who opposed the stimulus have jumped on the chance to personally deliver stimulus funds to their cash-strapped districts.
The latest member of Congress to engage in this hypocrisy is Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA). Earlier this month, Gingrey appeared in the city of Cedartown, Georgia, to present a giant check of $625,000 in stimulus funds to the city commission to help fund the the city’s Streetscape project, which will install new sidewalks and infrastructure:
The money comes from federal stimulus funds and will fund the second phase of Cedartown’s Streetscape project, with new sidewalks, landscaping and other improvements to the downtown area. [...]
Believing that the project qualified for federal stimulus funds as a “shovel-ready” project, Gingrey presented the proposal at the federal level, his spokesperson, Linda Liles, explained. [..]
“These federal dollars will allow us to work both phases together and complete Streetscape by mid-2010,” [City Commissioner Scott] Tillery said. “This will be a big boost for the historic downtown area and for the whole city.
The Cedartown Standard snapped a picture of the congressman presenting stimulus funds which he once decried as the “trillion dollar debt” bill:
Gingrey joins numerous other conservatives in opposing the stimulus while touting its benefits and exploiting its funds. For example, following their votes against the stimulus, Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to steer $50 million in stimulus funding into a bio-energy project they supported. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) boasted about securing funds for streetcar expansions that came from ARRA funds. And perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), toured his state handing out jumbo-sized checks that were funded by the stimulus, despite his pledge that if he was still a member of Congress, he would’ve voted against the Recovery Act.
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to vote for Senate Finance health bill: ‘When history calls, history calls.’
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to vote for Senate Finance health bill: ‘When history calls, history calls.’
While Republicans were hoping to have all members in its caucus oppose health care legislation, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) announced today that she will vote for the Finance Committee’s bill, making her the only Republican to do so. “When history calls, history calls,” she told her colleagues, noting that she still had some criticisms of the bill. She also touted the legislation’s “bipartisan, landmark reforms.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrongly predicted that the bill would pass on “a party-line vote of 13 to 10.”
Boehner Brushes Off Past GOP Moves To Rush Bills Through Congress: ‘It Was A Different Time’
Boehner Brushes Off Past GOP Moves To Rush Bills Through Congress: ‘It Was A Different Time’
Last night on Fox News, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) complained about the process of moving bills forward for a vote. “I’m going to introduce a resolution here in the House that would require all committees to post within 24 hours the actions taken by their committee,” he declared.
Host Greta Van Susteren piled on. “Why in the world don’t we have that?” After Boehner spent much of the segment calling on the Democratic majority to “let people read these bills,” Van Susteren turned the tables and asked Boehner what the standard practice was when the Republicans were in power:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, when your party was in leadership in the House and there were issues about transparency, any recollection how you handled it? Did you guys resist it at all? I realize that different times, but did you resist it at all?
BOEHNER: Well, it was a different time. I can tell you when I was Majority Leader, at the time, in almost all cases, I insisted that members have at least 24 hours to read a bill before it came to the floor. But that was — it’s a different time. I’ve made a commitment, and as have my Republican members, that if we take the majority back, we will have a requirement that no bill will come to the floor that hasn’t been out and available to the public and to the members for at least three days.
Watch it:
Boehner may have “insisted” that members have at least 24 hours to read a bill before a vote when he was (briefly) Majority Leader, but that guidance wasn’t always followed. At 9:21 P.M. on Sept. 26, 2006, the House Rules Committee reported the Military Commissions Act to the House, which then was voted on and passed at 4:45 P.M. the next day. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 also had about a day after it was reported out of committee and before it was voted on in the House.
When asked if the GOP leadership waved rules requiring at least 72 hours for members to read bills before voting on them, former Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) said, “Absolutely — it is among the most commonly waived rules the House has.”
Indeed, during the GOP’s House reign, Republican leaders rushed major pieces of legislation through without giving 24 hours for members to read over the bills, let alone 72, including the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, President Bush’s second tax cut for the wealthy in 2003, and the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
In fact, presumably much to Boehner’s delight, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently pledged to put health care reform legislation, and any amendment, online “for at least 72 hours before the House votes.”
Speaker Pelosi responds to Republicans: ‘I’m in my place. I’m the Speaker of the House.’
Speaker Pelosi responds to Republicans: ‘I’m in my place. I’m the Speaker of the House.’
Earlier this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) put out a press release criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) comments on Afghanistan, saying that Gen. Stanley McChrystal should “put her in her place.” Today, Pelosi responded during her weekly briefing:
It’s really sad that they really don’t understand how inappropriate that is. I’m in my place. I’m the speaker of the House — the first woman speaker of the House. And I’m in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there.
Pelosi added that she hadn’t heard sexist language like what was in the NRCC press release in “decades.” Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll