ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Evan Bayh

Security

Evan Bayh Cautions Against ‘Slippery Slope To War’ With Iran

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh is no dove when it comes to Iran. As recently as last month, Bayh supported attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. But in a Fox News interview today, he cautioned against the dangers of an Israeli attack and predicted a unilateral Israeli strike would take the United States on a “slippery slope toward war”:

BILL HEMMER: In your view, how real is the possibility of war between Israel and Iran?

EVAN BAYH: I think that’s more of a threat right now than a reality. And the reason for that, Bill, is Israel could launch a single attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities assuming we know where they all are. We know where most of them are but there may be some where we don’t. [...]

So the real consequence would be if Israel launched an attack against Iran, the Iranians would probably think we were complicit in that. They would never believe the Israelis did it on their own, even if that were true. The Iranians might then lash out at us. Bomb some of our embassies. Go after our troops in Afghanistan. Unleash Hezbollah against us some places. And that would then confront the United States with the decision that having being attacked by Iran, well of course we aren’t going to sit idly by and let them get away with that. So it could be a slippery slope toward war.

Watch it:

Bayh, who has previously bought into the “martyr state myth” that Iran is a suicidal country, should be familiar with the “slippery slope to war” from his membership in the Iraq-war pushing Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. His latest remarks don’t completely contradict his previous endorsements for the use of U.S. military force against Iran but it does offer a stiff rebuke against the increasingly explicit statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak suggesting Israel is preparing for a unilateral attack.

Admitting that an Israeli attack would almost inevitably result in retaliation against U.S. interests, thereby drawing the U.S. into another war in the Middle East, is an important admission coming from a certifiable Iran hawk.

Security

Evan Bayh Plays Bill Kristol’s Role On Fox News Sunday, Says U.S. Should Bomb Iran

Talk of Iran’s nuclear program has heated up in recent weeks with reports that the IAEA will soon release details showing that the Islamic Republic is developing an atomic weapons capability. And this week, Israeli media outlets have been reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is mobilizing support for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilites. The news prompted Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace to ask the show’s weekly panel for reaction. While leading neocon Bill Kristol usually fires off about attacking Iran, today he was a bit measured. “It seems to me the United States has an obligation to act and not leave it to Israel to stop this threat,” he said.

The real warmongering was left to former Democratic senator and member of the war charging Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Evan Bayh, who boosted the right-wing claim that the Iranians are suicidal maniacs incapable of being deterred and added that, ultimately, the United States will have to attack Iran:

BAYH: The Israelis may be able to launch a one off strike on Iran but they don’t have the ability for the kind of sustained bombing campaign that it would really take to degrade their nuclear arsenal. … You’d have to bomb them for several weeks in a row. There’s only one country that has that kind of capability and that’s the United States. For Israelis it is an existential question. For us it raises the issue, is the Iranian nation a normal nation-state that’s belligerent and does things we don’t like but ultimately is not suicidal and can be deterred. Or are they really a suicidal theocracy that might actually use nuclear weapons even if it meant a nuclear retaliation against them. That’s a different case. … The odds are that they are not a suicidal theocracy. But the question is if you’re Israel can you afford to run that risk? Probably not. …

For us it may be better to try and stop that [proliferation] before it gets started by using limited force to prevent Iran from going nuclear when it gets right down to it. … We have to ask ourselves, is a nuclear Iran acceptable? If the answer is no, there’s really only one way to keep that from coming about and that’s the use of force.

Watch the clip:

While Bayh claimed that for Israelis, the Iran issue “is an existential question,” ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy pushed back on this narrative last week, saying Iran is “far from posing an existential threat to Israel.”

And the claim that Iran is ruled by suicidal maniacs hell bent on blowing up Europe, the United States and Israel with nuclear weapons is an alarmist charge that the right trots out when advocating for military strikes to stop Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program. CAP’s Matt Duss recently outlined this “martyr state myth” over at Foreign Policy and notes that it is based on ” flawed assumptions.”

Thus, Bayh’s warmongering is also based on flawed assumptions. Perhaps he has yet to learn any lessons from his days hawking war with Iraq.

Economy

Evan Bayh Shills For Chamber’s Anti-Regulation Campaign With A Series of False Claims

Our guest blogger is Sidney Shapiro, University Chair in Law at Wake Forest University and Vice-President at the Center for Progressive Reform.

The United States Chamber of Commerce, which spends millions of dollars donated by large corporations to lobby against government regulation, has kicked off a new anti-regulatory road show, starring former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Andrew Card, George W. Bush’s former chief of staff. In a press conference at the Chamber yesterday, Bayh bashed “excessive” regulations, saying they “suck the vitality” out of the economy. And in an op-ed today, Bayh and Card laid out their case on behalf of the REINS Act, legislation that would virtually halt new or updated health and safety protections (see here, here, and here) by requiring that Congress vote to approve final regulations before they go into effect.

Their case is not only weak; it is false. Bayh and Card, hewing to the Chamber’s talking points, claim that the economic recovery depends on cutting back on government regulation, because “more regulations impose heavy burdens on job creators.” The answer is to “get Americans back to work by removing excessive and costly regulations that make it hard for businesses to grow.” The available evidence supports neither of these claims.

To support their claim about excessive regulatory costs, Bayh and Card cite a study commissioned by the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, which claimed that regulations cost $1.75 trillion in a year. That study is popular with anti-regulation advocates, but never stood up to scrutiny. A Center for Progressive Reform report I co-authored details the serious methodological problems with this estimate; 70 percent of which was based on a regression analysis using opinion polling data on perceived regulatory climate in different countries. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service backed up and expanded upon this critique . In congressional testimony, Cass Sunstein, the President’s point person on regulation, described the statistics now cited by Bayh and Card as an “urban legend.”

As with any type of spending, regulatory compliance generates economic activity. While it is difficult to measure whether on balance job gains from this spending offset any job losses, existing studies (described in congressional testimony I gave) do not support the conclusion that regulation retards economic recovery. Instead, the studies find either no overall impact or, in some cases, an actual increase in employment. Read more

Yglesias

Is Evan Bayh’s Quadruple Dipping Single-Handedly Responsible For America’s Jobs Crisis?

I’ve been touting insufficient aggregate demand as the primary cause of America’s high unemployment rate, but it’s possible that Evan Bayh is single-handedly responsible for the situation:

Former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will now serve on the board of directors of Fifth/ Third Bancorp. The new job adds to the list of responsibilities that Bayh has taken on since leaving the Senate, including positions as a Fox News contributor and a job with the United States Chamber of Commerce.

They forgot that he’s also holding down a third job as a lobbyist and a forth job with Apollo Capital Management as a private equity rainmaker. That’s a lot of jobs for one man, especially since in a few years he’ll be eligible to double-dip on pensions as a former governor of Indiana and a former senator.

Politics

When Did Evan Bayh Begin Job Negotiations To Lobby For Big Business?

The son of a famous senator, Evan Bayh (D-IN) was born into a life of privilege. After spending nearly two decades in public service, first as governor, then as a senator from Indiana, Bayh is returning to a life of wealth and luxury. Earlier this year, he announced that he would be joining a corporate law/lobbying firm, McGuireWoods LLP, as well as Apollo Global Management, a multi-billion dollar private equity firm.

Now, Peter Stone is reporting that Bayh will be joining the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, perhaps the most influential lobbying group for multinational corporations and big businesses with a far right lobbying agenda. (View ThinkProgress’ history of the Chamber, including its decades-long opposition to women’s rights, labor rights, and even its refusal to support a war against Nazi Germany.)

Bayh will be joining former Bush administration official Andy Card in a Chamber-led lobbying campaign designed to weaken regulations on corporations across the board, and make it more difficult to enact new regulations. The REINS Act, which Bayh will be helping to pass, will severely undercut (and effectively repeal) significant portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, health and financial reform, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, among many other laws.

It is not clear how much Bayh is being paid by the Chamber, or by his new gigs at Apollo Global Management or McGuireWoods. During the period of 2009-2010, when Bayh was still in office, he appeared to be auditioning for a job in the private sector as a lobbyist:

Killing Labor Reform: Despite past support for the labor rights legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, Bayh eventually wavered on support the bill once it had a real chance of passing when President Obama came into office. Killing the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have given workers a fair chance to form a union, was the Chamber’s biggest legislative priority other than passing the bank bailouts of 2008.

Killing Climate Change And Clean Energy Jobs Legislation: Bayh positioned himself to the right of some members of the GOP in opposing a renewable energy standard. He later railed against clean energy reform, which died in the Senate because of obstruction from Bayh and several other conservative senators.

Supporting Pro-Corporate Senate Obstruction: Bayh even formed a coalition of conservative senators — including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) — to slow and kill major reforms proposed by President Obama. As ThinkProgress’ Matthew Yglesias has noted, Bayh and his cohorts appeared to be “hoping to soak up special interest cash in exchange for blocking the progressive agenda.”

One must wonder: when did Bayh begin negotiations with the Chamber for his current job as a lobbyist? Did the expectation that he would leave Congress and join the private sector as a lobbyist impact his votes and actions while in the Senate? If he had been a staunch advocate for the workers and families of Indiana, and had fought for labor reforms, would he have been welcome for what is probably an extremely highly paid job at the Chamber? The same type of questions could and should be asked of former Reps. David Obey (D-WI), John Tanner (D-TN), Allen Boyd (D-FL), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Bart Gordon (D-TN), and many other recently retired members of Congress who have joined corporate lobbying firms.

Politics

After Leaving Senate Because Of ‘Too Much Partisanship,’ Former Sen. Evan Bayh Takes Job At Fox News

When former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) surprised Washington one year ago and announced his decision not to seek re-election, he blamed “too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving.” Bayh said that “what we need to do is come together as a people and solve the problems facing our country.”

Today, the Huffington Post reports that Bayh has taken a job at Fox News Channel:

Fox News is expected to announce Monday afternoon that former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will become a contributor to the network, The Huffington Post has learned.

Bayh will be a commentator and political analyst across all of Fox News’ platforms.

Bayh joins a network that, in just the past week, compared Muslims to mafia members, characterized unions as one giant “kickback system” and union members as “violent,” “rabid leftists,” “howling liberals,” and which has been actively encouraging a government shutdown.

In an interview last year, Bayh said he wasn’t sure what he would do once he left the Senate. “If I could help educate our children at an institution of higher learning, that would be a noble and worthy thing. If I could help a charity or a philanthropic activity, cure a disease, or do something else worthwhile for society, that’s what has motivated my life.” He also said he wanted to help create jobs.

Bayh has indeed succeeded in creating jobs, for himself. In addition to his Fox News position, Bayh accepted a job at Apollo Global Management, a multi-billion dollar private equity firm, and also McGuireWoods LLP, a D.C. lobbying firm that engages on banking and climate change legislation, on behalf of “well-heeled” clients.

Yglesias

Former Senator Evan Bayh To Pair Lobbying With Conservative Television Punditry

History's Greatest Monster

When he first announced that he was stepping down from the United States Senate, Evan Bayh cited a lot of high-minded reasons for the decision. So high-minded was his talk that Ezra Klein was moved to remark that “Evan Bayh might have been an ordinary politician, but he’s proving an extraordinary retiree.” It turned out, however, that his main plan was to get rich as a lobbyist. Today we learn that he’ll also be acquiring a secondary gig as a conservative television pundit:

Bayh will be a commentator and political analyst across all of Fox News’ platforms. He was a Senator from 1999 to 2011, where he became one of the more prominent conservative Democrats in the chamber. He was also the Governor of Indiana from 1989 to 1997. Bayh considered running for the presidency in 2008, but ultimately decided against it.

Note that there’s considerable synergy between Bayh’s job at McGuireWoods LLP and his Fox gig. This way business enterprises hoping for regulatory favors or subsidies from the federal government can hire McGuireWoods not only to take advantage of Bayh’s influence and knowledge on the Hill, they’ll also be gaining on on-air television spokesman, presumably one whose client affiliations won’t be disclosed to the viewing public. And since as best we can tell Fox has no journalistic standards, it’ll be an ideal venue for peddling whatever nonsense he likes.

Yglesias

Evan Bayh Off To Work On Prosperity-Enhancing Private Sector Job Creation

Be the change you want to see in the world:

Evan Bayh announced last year that he would not be seeking reelection, and gave a pious speech deploring partisanship. “If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months,” he announced. And now, just a few weeks into his post-public service life, he has already created a job — for himself: “Former Sen. Evan Bayh is joining McGuireWoods LLP as a partner in Washington, the law firm will announce on Monday.”

As a Senator, Bayh had a professional obligation to try to shape American public policy in the best interests of the American people and of the world. As a lobbyist for McGuireWoods LLP, Bayh now has a professional obligation to try to shape American public policy in the best interests of McGuireWoods LLP’s well-heeled clients. I’m not one of the large number of DC-based writers who frequently chats with Bayh, but if I were I’d be interested in learning why he thinks trading the former obligation for the latter one is a change for the better.

Politics

Bayh Argues Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Should Take Priority Over ‘Fairness And Things Like That’

Yesterday, the Census Bureau released a report showing that one in seven Americans is currently living in poverty, and that the median income decreased by nearly five percent during the last decade. At the same time, Congress is debating whether to adopt President Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans to expire on schedule, or whether to extend the entire package of cuts as Republicans desire. Today, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd asked Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) about the poverty data, and whether there is a disconnect between the real economic pain that people are feeling and lawmakers squabbling over tax rates for the wealthy. Bayh agreed that there is a disconnect, but then concluded that the poverty increase means lawmakers should forget about “fairness and things like that” and cut taxes for the rich:

TODD: Yesterday, the Census came out and said one in seven Americans are living below the poverty line. Do you look at that story today — you know, you open up your USA Today, right, and you see that story — and you see Washington is debating the tax rates for the wealthy, and you sit there and say, isn’t that a disconnect in America right now?

BAYH: It is a disconnect, Chuck. What we need to be focused on is growth, how do we create jobs, how do we expand businesses. That needs to be job one right now. And all these other issues involving, oh, fairness and things like that can wait.

Watch it:

As The Wonk Room explained, Bayh is pushing Congress to forget about income inequality that is the worst it has been since 1928, in order to spend $830 billion giving millionaires a tax break equal to almost two and a half times the median household’s income.

Economy

Bayh Says Poverty Increase Means Congress Should Ignore ‘Fairness’ And Cut Taxes For The Rich

Yesterday, the Census Bureau released a report showing that one in seven Americans is currently living in poverty, and that the median income decreased by nearly five percent during the last decade. At the same time, Congress is debating whether to adopt President Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans to expire on schedule, or whether to extend the entire package of cuts as Republicans desire.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) has adopted the Republican line when it comes to the Bush tax cuts, even though he likes to style himself as a deficit-hawk. Today, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd asked Bayh about the poverty data, and whether there is a disconnect between the real economic pain that people are feeling and lawmakers squabbling over tax rates for the wealthy. Bayh agreed that there is a disconnect, but then concluded that the poverty increase means lawmakers should forget about “fairness and things like that” and cut taxes for the rich:

TODD: Yesterday, the Census came out and said one in seven Americans are living below the poverty line. Do you look at that story today — you know, you open up your USA Today, right, and you see that story — and you see Washington is debating the tax rates for the wealthy, and you sit there and say, isn’t that a disconnect in America right now?

BAYH: It is a disconnect, Chuck. What we need to be focused on is growth, how do we create jobs, how do we expand businesses. That needs to be job one right now. And all these other issues involving, oh, fairness and things like that can wait.

Watch it:

So Bayh thinks that Congress should forget about:

– Income inequality, which is the worst its been since 1928. Currently, the top one percent of households make nearly 25 percent of the total income in the country. According to the latest data, “the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.”

In order to:

Borrow and spend $830 billion on the richest two percent of households. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will give a millionaire an annual tax cut of $128,832, which is nearly two and a half times the median household income.

Bayh conceded that the top two percent of earners doesn’t include many small businesses, but said that we should spend more than $800 billion to cut their taxes anyway, because “we want them doing more hiring, more investing, and at least hanging in there from a consumption standpoint.” However, according to a new study from Moody’s Analytics, the rich are more likely to save the money if their taxes are cut than spend it.

Older

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

Sign Up