Claire McCaskill Tweets That Clean Energy Bill Will ‘Unfairly Punish’ Missouri
Claire McCaskill Tweets That Clean Energy Bill Will ‘Unfairly Punish’ Missouri
Last night, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will establish the first national standards for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and global warming pollution. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) responded on Twitter this morning, saying that the legislation’s cap on carbon pollution would “unfairly punish” Missouri’s families and businesses:
Missouri gets 85 percent of its electricity from coal and is home to the world’s largest coal company, Peabody Energy. Peabody has spent neatly $10 million lobbying against climate legislation since 2008. In reality, the cap-and-trade system the House passed fully protects states now dependent on coal, with multi-billion-dollar programs for advanced coal technology. “My focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal,” coal-district Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) explained during yesterday’s debate. “Both of these goals have been achieved.”
In his weekly video address, President Barack Obama congratulated “the House for passing this bill, and urged “the Senate to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations – to our constituents, to our children, to God’s creation, and to future generations.” He also asked senators like McCaskill not to be “prisoners of the past“:
Now my call to every Senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true.
Watch it:
- Comments
- 110
House Democratic Fundraising Committee To Attack Patriotism Of GOP Members Over July 4 Weekend
House Democratic Fundraising Committee To Attack Patriotism Of GOP Members Over July 4 Weekend
Last week, Congress passed the “$106 billion military supplemental to fund the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.” In the House, 170 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted against final passage of the supplemental citing various reasons, including opposition to a measure from the Senate version of the bill which would make a new line of credit available to the IMF at a cost of $5 billion. (CAPAF Senior Fellow Nina Hachigian explained the need for the IMF measure.)
Now, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) plans to run ads on the July 4 holiday criticizing several vulnerable Republican members for their votes against the supplemental last week. As Glenn Thrush reports, “A series of 60-second radio ads will run during drive time from July 1 through July 8, according to a script provided to POLITICO — and they have the support-our-troops ring of GOP spots.” Thrush provides the script:
Around here, we recognize Independence Day with parades … and picnics … maybe a few fireworks. But July Fourth is about more than that.
It’s about remembering those who fought for our freedoms. And those still fighting today. Congressman Lee Terry used to understand that.
When George Bush asked, Congressman Terry voted to fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, last year he said, quote, “We must give our military every resource it needs.”
Seems like Congressman Terry is playing politics now … Last month Congressman Terry voted AGAINST funding for those same troops. It’s true: vote No. 348 – you can look it up.
Versions of the ads are reportedly going to be run against seven Republican members: Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Dan Lungren (R-CA), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Lee Terry (R-NE) and Joe Wilson (R-SC). The DCCC insists that it is simply pointing out that “[w]hen George Bush was president, Republicans were quick to criticize anyone who voted against the supplemental bills that fund the troops as against the troops. But now that Republicans are trying to score political points, they have flip flopped on troop funding.”
This, however, is not really the case. On May 14, when the House voted on its version of the supplemental — which did not include the IMF funding and a number of other changes to which many Republicans ultimately objected — 168 Republicans voted in favor of the bill. In fact, every single member whom the DCCC is targeting with its patriotism-themed ads voted for initial passage of the war funding.
Steve Benen writes, “As a substantive, policy matter, lawmakers can have completely legitimate reasons for voting against military spending measures, and opposition to these expenditures does not make one an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer.”
On multiple occasions, ThinkProgress has criticized Republicans and conservatives for questioning the patriotism of those who were critical of the Bush administration’s policies — it’s not any more acceptable when Democrats question Republicans’ patriotism in a similar fashion.
Rep. Broun receives applause on the House floor for calling global warming a ‘hoax.’
Rep. Broun receives applause on the House floor for calling global warming a ‘hoax.’
During the floor debate this morning over the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) received a round of applause from GOP colleagues when he claimed that man-made global warming is a “hoax” with “no scientific consensus.” Broun, citing misleading statistics, also claimed that the bill would hurt the poor and “kill jobs:”
BROUN: Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus. … And who’s going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income…the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3100 per family. … This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax! … [APPLAUSE.]
Watch it:
Broun’s tired hoax claims aside, Broun’s $3,100 talking point is contradicted by the Congressional Budget Office, which found that that the average cost of the legislation would be only 48-cents a day, the price of a postage stamp, and that “households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020.” A report by the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts also found that the bill would create 1.7 million new jobs, including 59,000 new jobs in Broun’s homestate of Georgia.
Harold Koh confirmed to State Department legal post.
Harold Koh confirmed to State Department legal post.
After months of GOP stalling tactics and conservative fearmongering, Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was confirmed by the Senate today to be the State Department’s top legal adviser. He passed by a vote of 62-35, with five Republicans voting to confirm — Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Richard Lugar (IN), Mel Martinez (FL), and George Voinovich (OH). Yesterday, Senate Democrats successfully avoided a filibuster by a 65-31. Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Judd Gregg (R-NH), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) all voted for cloture but did not vote for Koh’s confirmation. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) skipped the cloture vote but voted against Koh’s confirmation today.
Brownback Becomes Third GOP Senator To Announce He Won’t Vote For Sotomayor
Brownback Becomes Third GOP Senator To Announce He Won’t Vote For Sotomayor
Yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) “became at least the third Republican” to announce that he will vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court:
Mr. President, judges do not make law, and under no circumstance should they be under the impression that they do. Judge Sotomayor sees judges as lawmakers — as both umpire and player. [...]
I wonder how Alexander Hamilton would respond. I think he would wholly disagree with that interpretation. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s writings and statements lead me to believe she is a proponent — a clear proponent — of an activist judiciary. I cannot support her nomination. I will vote “no” when it comes before the full Senate.
Watch part of his floor speech:
During the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito in 2006, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) lamented to the judge that there were “those who have already decided to vote against your nomination and are looking for some reason to do so.”
At the time, however, no Democrat had announced plans to vote against Alito; only Republicans had made up their minds to support him. This time around, Republicans — like Brownback — are the ones who are rushing to announce their opposition to Sotomayor, even though Senate Republicans have promised to give Sotomayor a “fair opportunity to provide full and complete answers” about her record.
Last week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) also said that his vote to oppose Sotomayor was a “foregone conclusion” 11 years before she was even nominated for the Supreme Court, citing his opposition to her in 1998. He also blew off a scheduled meeting with the judge. As early as May 28, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) came out and became the first Republican to oppose Sotomayor, saying, “I do not plan to vote for her. … I voted no in 1998. … Since that time, she has made statements on the role of the appeals court I think is improper and incorrect.”
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) also blew off his meeting with Sotomayor. The judge, who has been “[h]obbling along with her leg in a cast,” was 10 minutes late. Impatient, Corker said he didn’t feel like waiting on the injured judge: “I decided to proceed on to the next meeting.” In the wake of the press attention, Corker rescheduled the meeting. After the meeting, Corker said that he is “reserving judgment on her nomination until the conclusion of a fair and thorough hearings process.”
Ensign receives ‘round of applause’ from GOP colleagues.
Ensign receives ‘round of applause’ from GOP colleagues.
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) reportedly received a “round of applause” from his GOP colleagues today at the weekly conference lunch, his “first meeting with them since the sex scandal that cost him his leadership position.” “All I can say for sure is that it [Ensign's speech] was very, very sincere, very heartfelt and very well received in our caucus,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who was at the meeting. Ensign’s welcome is similar to the reaction Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) received, when “he was welcomed back to a closed Republican Senate luncheon with a loud standing ovation” after admitting his involvement with an escort service run by the DC Madam. However, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) — who faced charges of “lewd” sexual conduct in a men’s public restroom — faced calls to resign.
Barney Frank: GOP Thinks $2 Billion F-22 Project Is Funded By Monopoly Money
Barney Frank: GOP Thinks $2 Billion F-22 Project Is Funded By Monopoly Money
Last week, over the objections of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Obama administration, the House Armed Services Committee restored funding for the basically useless F-22 fighter jet, in the process stripping funding for nuclear waste cleanup efforts. Last night, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) filed an amendment to restore the waste cleanup funds and eliminate the money for the F-22. The move came after months of Republicans issuing dire warnings about the consequences of suspending the F-22 program: Frank Gaffney, for example, declared it would lead to “diminished military capability, emboldening enemies, and alienating our friends.”
On a press call hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund this afternoon, Frank pointed out Republicans’ hypocrisy in railing against the deficit while simultaneously funding a $2 billion air force jet that has never once flown a mission in Afghanistan or Iraq. Frank said so-called deficit hawks act as though the Pentagon is funded with “Monopoly money”:
I am of course struck that so many of my colleagues who are so worried about the deficit apparently think the Pentagon is funded with Monopoly money that somehow doesn’t count.
Frank also dismissed concerns that eliminating the F-22 will cost jobs:
These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.
Listen to it:
Indeed, conservatives declare that canceling the F-22 would result in thousands of lost jobs. However, as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb pointed out on the call, the administration has also ramped up production of the F-35, which is produced at many of the same facilities — and by the same workers — as the F-22.
Frank called the F-22 fight an important “test” for the Obama administration’s efforts to cut wasteful military spending. “If we cannot hold the line on this, then it’s very bad news for trying to hold down any kind of excesses in military spending,” he said.
Dodd comes out in support of marriage equality.
Dodd comes out in support of marriage equality.
Yesterday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) wrote an op-ed in the The Meriden Record-Journal announcing that he had shifted his position on gay marriage. He now supports full marriage equality:
Public officials aren’t supposed to change their minds. But I firmly believe that it’s important to keep learning. Last week, while I was in Connecticut meeting with members of the gay and lesbian community from across the state, I had the opportunity to tell them what I’ve learned about marriage, and about equality.
While I’ve long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status (“civil unions”) and full marriage rights.
I believe that, when my daughters grow up, barriers to marriage equality for same-sex couples will seem as archaic, and as unfair, as the laws we once had against inter-racial marriage. And I want them to know that, even if he was a little late, their dad came down on the right side of history.
Brian Rice of the Human Rights Campaign’s Board of Governors was at the meeting with Dodd and writes that when the senator announced his change in position, “attendees let out a huge cheer and extended ovation.” Last month, President Clinton also said that his position on marriage equality was “evolving.” (HT: Pam’s House Blend)
Republican party drops to Cheney-levels of unpopularity.
Republican party drops to Cheney-levels of unpopularity.
A NBC/WSJ poll released this week showed that Vice President Cheney now has a 26 percent approval rating, “up eight points from April.” However, Greg Sargent today points out that the “overall popularity of the Republican Party has now dropped” below Cheney’s “abysmal level.” In fact, the party is now at only 25 percent, down four points from April. “Okay, the difference is within the margin of error, making this a statistical tie,” said Sargent. “But still, this is pretty awful for the GOP, given that for a long time Cheney’s historic unpopularity seemed to define a kind of low-water mark among Republicans.”
Six Democrats join GOP in overturning Obama administration’s efforts to cut F-22 funding.
Six Democrats join GOP in overturning Obama administration’s efforts to cut F-22 funding.
Last April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended capping production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 planes. Gates said the move was part of a series of changes in defense spending that he called “no-brainers.” (The F-22 has never seen action in either Iraq or Afghanistan.) Yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee “threw a wrench in the Obama administration’s plans to end” the F-22 program, voting 31-30 on a measure marking up the Defense Department spending bill that would “add $369 million in extra funding to keep production of the Air Force’s most advanced jet alive.” Six Democrats — Reps. Jim Marshall (GA), Joe Courtney (CT), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Eric Massa (NY), Bobby Bright (AL), and Mike McIntyre (NC) — joined 25 Republicans in voting for the amendment. The Wall Street Journal reports that “the extra money would be a boost for Lockheed [Martin's] Marietta, Ga., production facility” which is in Marshall’s home state.
House Republicans: Iranian Bloggers Are Just Like Us, We’re Both An ‘Oppressed Minority’
House Republicans: Iranian Bloggers Are Just Like Us, We’re Both An ‘Oppressed Minority’
Trying to take political advantage of the Iranian protests, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) declared that there was “more freedom” in Iran than in the U.S. Congress, after House ended debate last night:
“I wonder if there isn’t more freedom on the streets of Tehran right now than we are seeing here,” ripped Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, to Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) at the raucous hearing.
Dreier’s not alone in making such absurd comparisons. Nico Pitney, blogging on the Iranian protests at the Huffington Post, points to a tweet from Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), comparing Iranian bloggers and Twitter-users to the House Republicans’ Twittering last summer, when they protested rising gas prices:
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) joined Hoekstra, claiming that House Republicans are just like the Iranians because they are an “oppressed minority”:
In comparing themselves to the Iranian dissidents, Dreier, Culberson, and Hoekstra offensively discount the great personal risk many Iranians are taking by continuing to blog, Twitter, and protest. The Iranian National Guard told bloggers to take down any material that might “create tension,” or face legal action. One Iranian provincial prosecutor warned that the “few elements” behind the protests “could face the death penalty under Islamic law.”
The worst Hoekstra and Culberson faced during their so-called Twitter revolution? Inadequate lighting.
Frist On Using Reconciliation Process To Pass Health Care Reform: ‘It’s Legal, It’s Ethical’
Frist On Using Reconciliation Process To Pass Health Care Reform: ‘It’s Legal, It’s Ethical’
On May 1, Congress passed President Obama’s budget, which included language allowing for the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform with a simple majority in the Senate. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said any use of budget reconciliation by Obama would be “regarded as an act of violence” against Republicans, and likened it to “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.” Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) made similar remarks, while Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called reconciliation a “purely partisan exercise.”
But at least one Republican recognizes that the use of reconciliation — while rare — is not unprecedented or unethical, let alone “an act of violence.” On Bill Bennett’s radio show yesterday morning, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said of budget reconciliation: “It’s legal, it’s ethical, you can do it.” Further, Frist said that he believed Obama would be able to get a health care package passed this year:
BENNET: We just had Bill Kristol on. He said he’s got real doubts that [Obama] will be able to pull [health care reform] off. Bottom line, Do you think they can?
FRIST: Nah, I think Bill’s wrong. I think they’ll pull it off. … You can drive things through a fifty vote threshold, instead of that sixty vote threshold. And you don’t do it maybe one out of a thousand bills do you do it on. But it’s legal, it’s ethical, you can do it. And it has been suggested and accepted by the administration, pretty directly that if it came down to it, they’re going to drive this thing through a fifty-vote door. And if they do that…they can pass whatever they want to. I hope that they don’t do that.
Listen here:
Frist’s “hope” that the budget reconciliation process is not used is actually fairly close to what the Hill characterizes as “the mainstream Democratic view: a bipartisan agreement [on health care] is preferable, but they’re willing to revert to reconciliation if necessary.” Indeed, as Howard Dean explained at the America’s Future Now conference earlier this month, “Democrats should have ‘no intention’ of working with Republicans if it’s not the strongest possible legislation that could be passed with a simple majority.” More bluntly, Dean remarked, “If Republicans want to shill for insurance companies, then we should do it with 51 votes.”
Similarly, former President Bill Clinton explained in a meeting with a group of progressive bloggers yesterday that the priority should not be garnering Republican support at the expensive of effective universal coverage:
If he can’t get a bill that’s genuine universal coverage, that genuinely is going to cut costs and make health insurers give up some of these unbelievable administrative burdens that they’ve put on people, and that really gets to the guts of the delivery system and does more primary preventive care and actually measures things that work, then I would go for the 51.
Reid Clarifies His Position On DADT: ‘We Would Welcome A Legislative Proposal From The White House’
Reid Clarifies His Position On DADT: ‘We Would Welcome A Legislative Proposal From The White House’
During a press conference yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) attracted attention when a reporter asked him whether the Senate will be pushing for a bill to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT):
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate.
“I haven’t identified any sponsors,” he said. “My hope is that it can be done administratively.“
The Obama administration has repeatedly resisted calls to suspend DADT by executive order. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs last month said that President Obama is looking for a “durable legislative solution,” and Obama himself has written that repeal of the policy “needs Congressional action.”
Many LGBT bloggers immediately criticized Reid’s comments, saying that Obama and Congress were “playing hot potato over DADT.”
Today in a statement to ThinkProgress, Reid’s office clarified the senator’s remarks, saying that what he is looking for is a “legislative proposal” from the White House. Additionally, while the Senate does not currently have a bill introduced, “a number” of senators are working on one:
While we do not have a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell bill introduced in the Senate yet, a number of Senators are working on an approach to get it repealed. We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the President would like to see and when. Working together, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress.
One of the major obstacles to introducing a bill in the Senate has been finding a willing Republican co-sponsor. The House already has a bill to repeal DADT. “If the House moves on this,” said Reid, “I would be happy to take it up.”
Senate GOP Blocking Obama Nominees In Attempt To Delay Health Care And Climate Legislation
Senate GOP Blocking Obama Nominees In Attempt To Delay Health Care And Climate Legislation
In April, ThinkProgress noted that Republicans were blocking an increasing number of President Obama’s nominees to pursue ideological witch hunts and to facilitate self-interested horse trades. Two months later, a number of key nominees are still waiting and Senate Republicans are bottling up dozens more of Obama’s nominees in order to delay action on key Obama agenda items like health care and climate change legislation by consuming one of the most precious resources in the Senate: floor time. Roll Call explains:
Reid came to the floor three times Wednesday and several more times throughout the week to plead with his Republican colleagues to stop holding up a growing number of President Barack Obama’s appointees. The Majority Leader’s appeal was his most forceful yet, and aides say he has no plans to abandon the effort anytime soon.
“I would hope that people would search their conscience and try to get these done,” Reid said, explaining that procedural motions that he could employ to clear the nominees would eat up too much floor time. “It would take until the summer, until we finish the July recess and beyond, for us to get this done, filing cloture on every one of these. I hope it doesn’t come to that.”
Absent unanimous consent from all senators, no issue may be considered by the full Senate unless it is given time on the Senate floor for debate. Although such a debate can be cut off by a cloture motion — a vote receiving the support of 60 senators — such a motion itself consumes floor time. Thus, by indiscriminately objecting to President Obama’s nominees, a single senator can effectively force Reid to choose between confirming essential government personnel or advancing health care reform, cap and trade, the federal budget or anything else on the Senate’s agenda. Floor time is limited and Senate conservatives are running out the clock to ensure that nothing gets done.
Among the nominees conservatives are holding hostage are Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s exceptionally qualified nominee to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, Harold Koh, a leading expert in international law who is nominated to be the chief legal adviser to the State Department, and Judge David Hamilton, a court of appeals nominee currently being blocked because of false claims that he gave preferential treatment to Muslims in favor of Christians.
Hatch bristles over criticisms that he’s at fault for problems of the Bush years: ‘Don’t you believe that B.S.’
Hatch bristles over criticisms that he’s at fault for problems of the Bush years: ‘Don’t you believe that B.S.’
Yesterday at Utah’s GOP convention, the state’s two U.S. senators — Orrin Hatch (R) and Bob Bennett (R) received only “polite receptions,” compared to the boisterous applause received by some of the state’s representatives. From the Deseret News:
Hatch, at one point in his speech, appeared upset when some delegates applauded as a way of blaming national Republicans, himself included, for the deficit and other problems of the Bush years.
“Don’t you believe that B.S.,” Hatch said loudly. But some of the 1,800 delegates clearly did.
While many delegates stood and applauded the longtime incumbents (Hatch 33 years, Bennett 15 years), others sat on their hands — not booing, but showing their disapproval through silence.
Many attendees also expressed displeasure with Gov. John Huntsman (R), who has agreed to become President Obama’s ambassador to China. GOP party chair Jude Law said that Huntman’s endorsement of civil unions “mocks God.” (HT: Huffington Post)
Burr Defends Mint-Flavored Suckable ‘Tobacco Lollipops,’ Claims They’re Not Being Marketed To Children
Burr Defends Mint-Flavored Suckable ‘Tobacco Lollipops,’ Claims They’re Not Being Marketed To Children
On May 27, CNN’s Carol Costello reported on tobacco company R.J. Reynolds new dissolvable “smokeless products.” Noting that critics call them “tobacco lollipops” that are aimed at getting “kids hooked on nicotine,” Costello reported that “R.J. Reynolds will soon test three new products — Camel sticks that dissolve as you suck them, minty tobacco strips that look like breath strips, and orbs — flavored, dissolvable tablets that some say look and taste exactly like candy.”
On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) came to the tobacco company’s defense, claiming that it wasn’t trying to deceive anyone; it’s CNN’s fault for labeling Camel Orbs as candy. Burr charged that CNN “mischaracterized the product” because “it’s not candy flavored”:
BURR: But when CNN did their story. Take a guess on the angle that they took. They labeled it as candy. Candy! Even though it’s not candy flavored. They said it was candy. … No, they said it was candy. That’s where they labeled it. … They portrayed Reynolds America as being deceptive and luring children. No candy. It’s not going in the candy section. It’s in the tobacco section where smokeless and stick products is.
Later in his speech, Burr responded to Sen. Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) criticism that some of the dissolvable tobacco products are in containers shaped like cell phones to attract kids. “Let me assure you, Mr. President, if a cell phone doesn’t work, children don’t want it,” said Burr. Watch it:
While Burr might claim that the Orbs aren’t “candy-flavored,” the fact is that they come in “mint and cinnamon flavors” known as “fresh” and “mellow.” Additionally, the tobacco industry has a well-documented history of using flavored tobacco to market their products to children:
Documents from the tobacco industry also contradict these claims. A report from R.J. Reynolds in 1985 stated: “Sweetness can impart a different delivery taste dimension, which younger adult smokers may be receptive to, as evidenced by their taste wants in other product areas.” A Brown & Williamson report from 1972 suggested consideration of developing cola-flavored and apple-flavored cigarettes. The report also suggested a sweet-flavored cigarette and stated: “It’s a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products. Honey might be considered.” If flavored products were appealing to youth then, what has changed to make them less appealing to youth now?
Burr’s speech today follows his earlier claims that regulating tobacco by the FDA would contradict the agency’s mission to protect public health since there is no healthy way to use tobacco. Burr, whose hometown Winston-Salem is also the home of R.J. Reynolds, is the second-highest recipient of campaign contributions from Big Tobacco.
Sessions gets annoyed with child crying during a hearing: ‘Enough with the histrionics.’
Sessions gets annoyed with child crying during a hearing: ‘Enough with the histrionics.’
Yesterday, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) held a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay nationals to bring their foreign partners into the United States on the same basis as straight couples. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the only Republican who bothered to show up, grew impatient during the testimony of Shirley Tan; she faces deportation back to the Philippines, though her partner of 23 years and her children are American citizens. The New Republic reports that Sessions mocked Tan’s child for crying:
[O]ne of Tan’s children started crying within seconds of the start of her testimony. … For most people, the sight of a 12-year-old boy in tears at the prospect of his mother being deported halfway around the world would invoke some sympathy. Unmoved, however, was Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, ranking minority member of the Committee and the only Republican to bother to attend the hearing. At the sight of the weeping boy, according to a Senate staffer who was at the hearing, Sessions leaned towards one of his aides and sighed, “Enough with the histrionics.”
Watch the video here (though you cannot hear Sessions’ remark). Sessions opposes the bill because, he said, it would be “providing an additional avenue for abuse of the marriage preference for immigration into our country.” Perhaps he’s listening to his top aide, Brian Benczkowski, who compares gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.
GOP Budget Cuts Take Aim At Educational Opportunities For Women, Bike Paths, And Technology Innovation
GOP Budget Cuts Take Aim At Educational Opportunities For Women, Bike Paths, And Technology Innovation
Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) sent President Obama a proposal with budget cuts that they claim could save taxpayers “in excess of $375 billion.” From their letter to Obama:
Of course, reducing spending is never easy. … The proposed terminations and reductions your Administration released last month garnered immediate opposition from many Democrats. Likewise, the proposals we have put forward here will not be supported by all Republicans. However, if we work together, we are confident that we can come up with a common-sense package of entitlement reforms, program terminations, and spending reductions that will generate significant savings for the American taxpayer and reduce our current deficit. For example, enactment of the proposals we have outlined in the enclosed document could save taxpayers in excess of $375 billion [over the next five years].
First of all, Boehner and Cantor are inflating their cuts. Their proposal actually equates to just $23 billion in spending cuts over the next five years. As the AP points out, many of the GOP cuts “haven’t been estimated by federal scorekeepers and the party has padded its own estimate by assuming $317 billion over the next five years from limiting non-defense agency budgets to inflation-adjusted levels that Obama is sure to reject.”
Second, Republicans are planning to slash more than just “wasteful and unnecessary spending,” as Boehner and Cantor wrote in their letter to Obama. A small sampling of the proposed cuts:
– Termination of the Women’s Educational Equity program. The Department of Education program “promotes education equity for women and girls through competitive grants.” In Boehner and Cantor’s proposal, the justification for slashing the program is that it’s “no longer needed.”
– Elimination of the Safe Routes to Schools program. The program “pays for building sidewalks, bike paths and crossing guards.” Not only does the program encourage green community practices, but also aims to increase safety and improve public health.
– Elimination of the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program. The Byrd Honors program provides scholarships to “exceptionally able high school seniors who show promise of continued excellence in postsecondary education.” Boehner and Cantor’s proposal calls it an “ineffective federal education program.”
– Elimination of the Technology Innovation Program. The program supports “high-risk, high-reward, pre-competitive technology development.” According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), it is a key part of ensuring U.S. global competitiveness “through a new emphasis on math, science, engineering, and technology education, and a renewed commitment to basic research.”
The AP notes that there are “plenty of political proposals” in the GOP plan as well, including “a move to abolish the $4 million budget of a House panel on global warming and to block federal employees who are union activists from being granted time to devote all of their work time to union activities.”
Matt Yglesias adds, “When the Obama administration proposed $17 billion in federal spending cuts, the announcement was generally met with mild derision at what a small share of the overall pie that is. But the point is that they found $17 billion dollars worth of cuts that there are actual reasons to believe are worth making. It’s easy to generate a high headline number by being arbitrary. But it’s also easy to do devastating damage to the country.”
Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
In April, the Environmental Protection Agency “formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.” Though President Obama has said that he would “prefer that Congress address global warming rather than have the EPA tackle it through administrative action,” the EPA’s finding allows the agency to move forward with regulations to limit greenhouse gas pollution to build a clean-energy economy.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats have attacked the EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. But the Senate’s top global warming denier does not not appear worried.
In a speech for the Heartland Institute yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that the Senate could just “stall” any EPA regulation:
INHOFE: Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there. The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem.
Watch it:
Make no mistake, Inhofe is an avowed opponent of EPA regulation. On the day that the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced the endangerment finding, Inhofe released a statement arguing that “Congress should pass a simple, narrowly-targeted bill that stops EPA in its tracks.”
Unsurprisingly, Inhofe is also against a cap-and-trade program, which he calls “another bad option.” In his Heartland Speech, Inhofe confidently predicted that he will be able to block any cap-and-trade legislation that passes the House, saying that “in the Senate it will not pass” thanks to obstructionists like him.
Transcript: More »
GOP Congressmen Smear Green Collar Workers, Claim Their Jobs Are ‘Paper Mâché,’ ‘Subprime,’ ‘Gangrene’
GOP Congressmen Smear Green Collar Workers, Claim Their Jobs Are ‘Paper Mâché,’ ‘Subprime,’ ‘Gangrene’
Yesterday, House Republicans took to the floor for an hour-long series of speeches dedicated to attacking Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation. But in addition to doing the usual — misrepresenting an MIT study to claim the legislation would result in a tax and flaunting their skepticism of global climate change — the members of Congress decided to fire a volley of smears at workers doing green jobs as well. ThinkProgress has compiled a video of some of the attacks:
REP. JOHN FLEMING (R-LA): What we really get is a pass-through of taxpayer dollars that go into what I would call artificial - or I call them paper mâché jobs, so-called green jobs.
REP. TODD AKIN (R-MO): The green jobs that are being talked about, we’re going to create all these green jobs. In Spain, they call them subprime jobs.
REP. G.T. THOMPSON (R-PA): This is all in the name of green, greening America, specifically solar and hydro. But I have to - in terms of the economy, the other green that comes to mind is gangrene.
Watch it:
Similarly, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) has mocked the very existence of green jobs, calling the clean energy industry “as real as the Jolly Green Giant.”
Despite the attacks from right-wing congressmen, green jobs legislation can simultaneously help solve the climate change crisis while spurring an economic boom that will generate millions of both high tech and manufacturing jobs. Akin and others point to a debunked ExxonMobil-funded study on the effect of cap and trade on the Spanish economy to call green jobs “subprime.” But a report by the Center for American Progress shows investment in green jobs produces four times as many jobs as an equivalent investment in the oil industry.
The Environmental Defense Fund website notes there are at least four clean energy companies in Thompson’s district and six in Akin’s district. Maybe these right-wing congressmen should consider they are not only preventing millions of future green jobs by opposing Waxman-Markey, but by sliming green jobs they are mocking their own constituents.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll