ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “John Thune”

Politics

Sen. Thune Says There Is ‘No’ Merit To Idea That Multimillionaire Romney Is Of The 1 Percent

By Scott Keyes on Jan 3, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Protesters interrupted a Mitt Romney campaign stop outside Des Moines, Iowa last night, chanting that the former Massachusetts governor is “of the corporate one percent” and admonishing him to “stop the war on the poor.” The protestors were quickly shouted down by Romney supporters.

ThinkProgress spoke with Sen. John Thune (R-SD), a prominent Romney endorser, after the event to get his take on the dust-up. Thune disagreed with the protesters, saying there is “no” merit to the idea that Romney, whose net worth is estimated at $250 million, is part of the corporate 1 percent.

KEYES: Do you think there is any merit, they’re charging that he’s of the corporate 1 percent?

THUNE: No. I think that this is somebody, if I’m somebody in this country who is worried about my job or is looking for a job, I want somebody out there who knows how to create jobs. [...] Obviously tonight these are people who are going to protest, that’s fine. That’s a democracy, we welcome that. I thought he handled it well.

KEYES: The charges are off-base though?

THUNE: They are. I think it’s all what you’d expect from a campaign like this. The other side’s got their people out there. I’m very happy with where his campaign is, with how he’s addressing the issues, and what I think he can do to get people back to work.

Listen to it:

The cut-off to be in the top 1 percent of the American income spectrum, according to the New York Times, is an income of $506,553 per year. If Romney were to put his entire $250 million fortune in a typical Nationwide Bank savings account, for instance, at a 0.95 percent rate, the interest alone would put him in the top 0.1 percentile with $2,375,000 per year. Meanwhile, his retirement package from Bain Capital is likely taxed at a far lower rate than what average Americans pay on their salaries, but Romney has thus far stonewalled on releasing his tax returns.

Romney’s wealth came in large part from Bain, a private equity firm he founded in the 1980s. Bain made enormous amounts of money by, as the Los Angeles Times noted, “firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits.”

Though his 1 percent credentials are beyond reproach, it is also worth noting that Romney has built his campaign relying on the support of Wall Street bankers and billionaires. In fact, 10 percent of all the billionaires in America have donated to Romney, and the candidate himself has called for allowing them to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, including his own. Romney’s economic agenda, in turn, is tailor-made for the wealthiest 1 percent.

Still, despite his enormous personal wealth, billionaire-backing, and one-percent economic agenda, Romney has tried to reach out to average people by pointing out that, like many Americans, he’s “also unemployed.“

Justice

14 GOP Senators Slam Senate GOP’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Filibuster*

By Ian Millhiser on Dec 7, 2011 at 11:00 am

Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Discuss Their Understanding Of The Constitution

Yesterday, Senate Republicans voted nearly unanimously to block Caitlan Halligan’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Only Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) broke party lines to join the 54-45 vote to allow Halligan to move forward — leaving Halligan six votes short of what she needed to break the GOP filibuster.

The Senate GOP’s decision to filibuster Halligan earned wide rebukes from Senate Republicans*, many of whom slammed this decision to filibuster a judicial nominee as unconstitutional:

  • Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”
  • Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”
  • Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”
  • John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.
  • Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”
  • Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional”
  • Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”
  • Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): “[T]he Constitution envisions a 51-vote majority for judgeships…. [Filibustering judges] amend[s] the Constitution without going through the proper processes…. We have a majority rule that is the tradition of the Senate with judges. It is the constitutional requirement.”
  • Jon Kyl (R-AZ): “The President was elected fair and square. He has the right to submit judicial nominees and it is the Senate’s obligation under the Constitution to act on those nominees.”
  • Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”
  • Jeff Sessions (R- AL): “[The Constitution] says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply ‘shall advise and consent’ on nominations…. I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean … confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote.”
  • Richard Shelby (R-AL): “Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it.”
  • John Thune (SD): Filibustering judicial nominees “is contrary to our Constitution …. It was the Founders’ intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote.”

*All quotes are taken from when George W. Bush was president. But, of course, that doesn’t matter because — in the words of Cornyn — “we need to treat all nominees exactly the same, regardless of whether they’re nominated by a Democrat or a Republican president.”**

**Cornyn’s statement was also made when George W. Bush was president.

Health

Rockefeller Stops CLASS Repeal, Says ‘Gloating’ Republicans ‘Have No Answers’ For Long-Term Care Crisis

By Igor Volsky on Nov 3, 2011 at 10:32 am

Last night, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) — the sponsor of the Senate bill to repeal the CLASS Act — offered a unanimous consent request to advance a measure that would eliminate the long-term care program to the Senate floor, but was met with an objection from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). The West Virginian insisted that the country needs a more sustainable long-term care system and argued that it could be “amended through the legislative process to make it sustainable over the long term”:

ROCKEFELLER: Always our friends on the other side of the aisle appeal something. You can lead people to the same sense of suffering as we found during the pepper commission where people prostrate themselves in order to qualify for medicaid, in which they haven’t a chance at getting some long-term care. [...] Those who are gloating today about the administration’s decision not to carry forward with the class act are not the fiscal heroes they make themselves out to be. They have no answers. They have no answers. They have no alternative.

Watch it:

Economy

Despite Saying ‘America’s Priorities Should Come First,’ Senate GOP Blocks Emergency Disaster Relief

By Tanya Somanader on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:55 am

Tornado damage in Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) home state of Alabama

The unprecedented number of natural disasters in 2011 have left already struggling states with $36 billion in damages. Hearing calls for aid, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) responded by bringing a $7 billion relief package before the Senate.

His Republicans colleagues, however, responded by obstructing it. Last night, GOP senators successfully blocked Reid from bringing up the bill for consideration. In need of 60 votes, Reid got 53 votes in favor and 33 votes against. Fourteen senators did not vote, but every single senator who voted against relief was Republican.

Even GOP senators representing states that suffered disaster damage — North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Alabama Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, and Mississippi Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker — voted against aid for their constituents. Taking a page from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA), the Senate GOP refused because the relief was not offset with cuts elsewhere:

– SEN. RAND PAUL (KY): “I plan to insist my fellow senators take a long, hard look at where the funding comes from,” Paul said yesterday before the vote. “Will it be more borrowing on the backs of our children and grandchildren, or will it be from the coffers of our numerous nation-building programs overseas? America’s priorities should come first.”

– SEN. JOHN THUNE (SD): “These are different times. We have got to figure out how to pay for these things,” Thune told reporters last week.

– SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (AL): As ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sessions “believes the Senate should not provide the spending before getting expert advice on the precise need.” “We haven’t carefully examined every penny of it,” he added. Noting that he represents “a state that has suffered” from tornado damage, he still asked “how much more do we need” in aid?

Disaster relief — much like funding to rebuild Iraq — is traditionally not subject to offsets. But only Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins seemed to take note of that fact. She, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-MN), Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN), Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) were the only five to break with their party and vote in favor of the disaster aid.

They, however, will find support from numerous GOP governors who seek aid without offsets. Cantor’s home state Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) rebuked this kind of zero sum thinking. GOP favorite Gov. Chris Christie (NJ) characteristically did not mince words: “Our people are suffering now, and they need support now. And they [Congress].. can figure out budget cuts later.” For now, Christie — and the people’s needs — go unheeded.

Economy

Thune: Top Message I Got From Town Halls Is ‘Don’t Cut My Social Security And Medicare’

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Aug 29, 2011 at 3:05 pm

As Republican lawmakers held constituent meetings in their home districts over the August recess, they were often confronted for taking hard-right positions on everything from taxes to entitlement reform, sending a message that at least Sen. John Thune (R-SD) seems to have noticed. Thune said the main things he heard from constitutes was frustration over Congress’ inability to work together and opposition to cuts to social safety net programs, the Argus Leader reports:

“Do something,” Thune said Wednesday after a town hall meeting at the Brandon Municipal Golf Course. “Why can’t you work together? There’s a high level of frustration with the inaction, and there’s a lack of confidence in the country and the economy. They want to see us get something done.”

That’s one of the major insights he’ll take back to Washington, D.C. after the August recess, he said.

It ranks behind “don’t cut my Social Security and Medicare. I’ve heard that quite a bit,” Thune said.

It’s not surprising that Americans are voicing their concern about cuts to Medicare and Social Security, considering that the programs are overwhelmingly popular and that Republicans have threatened to cut them, most notably with the House’s passage of Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Medicare-replacement budget. Numerous polls show Americans oppose cutting these social safety net programs as means to rein in the deficit, while 63 percent say they want to see revenue raised through increased taxes on the wealthy or with a millionaires surtax. Meanwhile, Americans are frustrated with Republican lawmakers’ intransigence grinding Congress to halt, as Thune notes.

Thune’s comments are particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has made criticism of Social Security — which he has called unconstitutional — a central part of his campaign. (HT: Rachel Weiner)

NEWS FLASH

GOP Sen. Thune: Tweaked Reid Plan Probably Won’t Be Filibustered, Could Pass House | Appearing this afternoon on Fox News, Sen. John Thune (R-SC) said that if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brings his debt ceiling plan up, it will get a vote in the Senate. In other words, enough Republicans would support Reid to prevent a filibuster. Thune also suggested that, if the Reid plan was “strengthened” it could collect 216 votes in the House, enough for passage. Watch it:

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jul 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Yglesias

John Thune Should Run For President

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 3, 2011 at 10:28 am

I can’t think of any reason whatsoever why John Thune is considered a viable presidential candidate. There are literally dozens of other incumbent senate Republicans who, as best I can tell, are identical to Thune. Therefore, I take the fact that Thune is continually discussed as a potential presidential candidate to indicate that he has some crucial below the water line advantages in terms of support by shadowy elites. Under the circumstances, he ought to toss his hat in the ring and run.

But Manu Raju and Jonathan Martin suggest he’s leaning against a bid. Jon Chait notes that Barack Obama’s recent strong polling may be dissuading him: “Thune can pick when he wants to run for president, and running against a fairly popular incumbent president may not be the best time to pick.”

In case Thune happens to be a reader of this blog, let me throw out there that this idea of picking your year doesn’t make much sense. There’s a ton of uncertainty inherent in any presidential campaign because the dynamics of primaries are very hard to predict, and because the underlying economic trends that weigh so heavily on general elections are also hard to predict. The only thing we really know about John Thune’s prospects in 2012 is that for semi-mysterious reasons he’s currently considered a more plausible candidate than Jon Kyl or Jim Risch or Roger Wicker or John Barrasso or Mike Johanns or any number of other unremarkable conventional conservative Republicans. Will this still be true in 2016? Nobody knows. Will Obama be popular in the fall of 2012? Nobody knows. Have Republicans waged a primary campaign, then lost, and gone on to have successful future political careers? Yes. The conclusion is clear—he should get in. Unless the issue is that he doesn’t actually want to be president (understandable, in my view, though I would love the airplane) in which case he should shut the door on this.

Related Posts

Yglesias

Essential Air Service

By Matthew Yglesias on Jan 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm

Most of the stuff that the government spends money on is in there because someone wants it in there. And the extent to which someone wants it has little to do with his or her nominal ideology. Brian Beutler has a number of examples of which this is my favorite:

For instance, the RSC plan would slash $150 million in spending on Essential Air Service — a government program, which ensures small and rural communities continue to receive commercial airline service.

Flash back to 2007, and possible Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) spearheaded an effort to restore such service to his constituents. “I am encouraged by the Senate’s action to move this important legislation. Essential Air Service is just that, essential. It is essential to the people it serves and it is essential that the House of Representatives pass this legislation without modification so that we can restore commercial air service for Brookings,” said Thune. “Ensuring access to communities like Brookings strengthens the local economy, provides consumers with choices, and makes the entire commercial airline network more valuable.”

One of the main things the federal government does is transfer resources from high-productivity urban areas to low-productivity rural ones. It does this in part through direct obvious measures like this, in part through agricultural subsidies, in part through universal programs like the Postal Service that mask these subsidies, etc. And in the aggregate, it’s a huge drag on the American economy. Not so much because it costs money (though it does cost money) as because over time it drives misallocation of private sector resources.

In principle, it would be a good idea to change this. In practice, America’s constitutional setup all but guarantees this outcome. Which is what it is. But given the fact that politicians who like to talk about free markets and small government tend to also be the most zealous defenders of these measures, it would be nice if writers and thinkers who like to talk about free markets and small government spent some more time acknowledging that this is one of the main things the government does, and it does it because conservative voters, donors, and activists want it to happen.

Politics

Thune: I Would Never Vote For The DREAM Act

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Dec 17, 2010 at 11:00 am

Appearing on Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham’s radio show yesterday, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said he would never vote for the DREAM Act. Asked if he would ever consider voting for the measure, which would help children of undocumented immigrants gain a path to citizenship in exchange for completing college or serving in the military, the potential presidential contender flatly replied, “no”:

INGRAHAM: Would you ever vote for a DREAM Act?

THUNE: Would I? No. I mean, I think they’re trying to push that through. … I mean, this is the Democrat agenda, which as I said earlier, has been rejected by the American people.

Listen here:

Thune is wrong to suggest that DREAM has been “rejected by the American people.” A CNN poll from last week found that 54 percent of Americans support the bill, which used to enjoy strong Republican support from people like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who have since flip flopped to oppose the measure. In the past year, DREAM has been vilified by conservatives as “backdoor amnesty,” with Fox News host Glenn Beck and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) even declaring that it will hurt white people.

Politics

ANALYSIS: A Look At Republicans Who Are Blasting An Omnibus Bill Laden With Their Own Pork

By George Zornick on Dec 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell requested and received millions of dollars in earmarks for this year’s omnibus spending bill, but has now denounced the measure and plans to vote against it. Overall, Republican Senators have gotten nearly $2 billion in earmarks into the omnibus, and yet because of concerns over “wasteful spending,” they are threatening to block the entire bill — which contains not only funding for their own projects, but the money the federal government needs to operate past this weekend.

Yesterday, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Thune (R-SD) denounced earmarks and the omnibus bill during a press conference, despite requesting hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks between them. “I support those projects, but I don’t support this bill,” reasoned Thune. Cornyn defended himself in a “heated exchange” with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:

Today, the Washington Post reports that two of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress — “unabashed spending barons” Republican Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — are also planning to vote against the omnibus, despite being responsible for 405 earmarks costing over $865 million.

Sens. McConnell, Wicker, Cochran, Cornyn and Thune are far from the only earmark hypocrites, however. A large number of Republicans requested substantial earmarks for the 2011 omnibus, despite a history of demagoguing the earmark process, and also plan to vote against a bill that included many of their requests. An examination of Taxpayers for Common Sense’s database of earmark requests for this year’s omnibus and their database of who was awarded earmarks last year, along with Sen. Tom Coburn’s working database of the earmarks that actually made it into this year’s omnibus, reveal quite a bit of Republican hypocrisy:

– Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) said on Fox News’ “Happening Now” this morning that he would vote against the omnibus bill. He requested 291 earmarks totaling over $770.5 million, and succeeded in getting 86 earmarks into the omnibus.

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is opposing the omnibus because it’s “full of unnecessary spending which grows the federal government.” He requested 116 earmarks costing $326.8 million, and the omnibus contains one of these for $379,000.

– Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-TX) office said she will vote against the omnibus, which she tried to insert 119 earmarks into, at a cost of $770.9 million. She has $140 million earmarked in the bill.

– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) will also oppose the omnibus, because it “simply spends too much.” Chambliss requested 122 earmarks totaling $492 million. He achieved $56 million in earmarks in the omnibus.

– Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) blasted the “massive, 2,000 page spending bill” in a statement. Burr tried for 82 earmarks, totaling $287.1 million, and received most of them.

– Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) “has been railing against the spending in that massive bill that could come to a vote before the lame duck session.” He requested 32 earmarks this year, totaling $115.8 million, and got nearly all of them — almost $100 million — into the omnibus.

– Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) tweeted today that “Defending the #earmark establishment is not leadership. Defending business-as-usual in Washington isn’t either. Leaders lead by example.” Rehberg is a proud member of the “earmark establishment” — last year he was the fifth-largest earmarker in the House, with 89 earmarks in the 2010 omnibus totaling $103.5 million.

– Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) said on Fox Business Channel this morning that “It’s a week before Christmas, and unfortunately my Democratic colleagues like to play Santa Claus to the tune of $8 billion in new earmarks.” Lee was in a much more festive mood last year, with 36 earmarks totaling over $33.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

– Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) tweeted today that “A HUGE spending bill is making its way through Congress. $1.1 trillion and 6,000 earmarks. We must stop it. I encourage the President to veto.” Last year, however, Wilson got 15 earmarks costing over $23.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

It is the height of hypocrisy for these Republicans — all of whom have a long history of earmarking, and in most cases requested and received earmarks in this very bill — to suddenly oppose it because of a newly found opposition to “wasteful” spending.

Older

Switch to Mobile