Jon Kyl Refuses To Defend John Ensign In Midst Of Ethics Scandal
Jon Kyl Refuses To Defend John Ensign In Midst Of Ethics Scandal
Late last week, the New York Times documented new ethics problems for Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). In an effort to cover-up an affair he was having with the wife of one of his top staffers, Ensign asked his corporate allies to give that aide — Doug Hampton — a lobbying job. Despite rules that prohibit congressional staffers from lobbying for one year after leaving their government position, Ensign nevertheless helped Hampton line up lobbying clients and then “repeatedly intervened on the companies’ behalf with federal agencies.”
Ensign “could be legally at risk” if he knew that Hampton was violating the one-year ban, or if he aided and abetted him in doing so. Law enforcement officials told the Times that the F.B.I. is “likely to open a preliminary investigation” into the new accusations to determine whether a full investigation is warranted. The FBI inquiry would take precedence over a Senate ethics inquiry.
This morning on CNN’s State of the Union, Senate ethics chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced “there’s a preliminary investigation going on, and we will look at all aspects of this case.” When asked whether Ensign can continue to “serve effectively,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — a member of the Senate Republican leadership — refused to lend his support to Ensign. We should simply “wait and see what happens,” Kyl said. Watch it:
Ensign is finding no support among his long-time friends and colleagues on Capitol Hill. On Friday, Republican leader Mitch McConnell dodged the issue. “I really don’t have any observations to make about the Ensign matter,’’ McConnell told reporters.
- Comments
- 49
Kyl Asserts ‘I Don’t Need Maternity Care’ In My Health Policy; Stabenow Shoots Back ‘Your Mom Probably Did’
Kyl Asserts ‘I Don’t Need Maternity Care’ In My Health Policy; Stabenow Shoots Back ‘Your Mom Probably Did’
Today, the Senate Finance Committee debated Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) amendment to prohibit the federal government from “defining the health care benefits offered through private insurance.” Kyl tried to make his case by citing the unnecessary expense of maternity care. He was quickly smacked down by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):
KYL: I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.
STABENOW: If I could just interject once with my colleague — I think your mom probably did. (LAUGHTER)
KYL: Over 60 years ago my mom did. (LAUGHTER) You notice I wasn’t too specific with regard to that.
Watch it:
Of course Kyl doesn’t need maternity care; he will never be a mother. As Igor Volsky notes at the Wonk Room, Kyl’s amendment “would prohibit the government from defining which benefits should be included in a standard benefit package and would permit health insurance companies to design policies that exclude higher-cost beneficiaries.”
Maternity care, in fact, is a perfect example of why Kyl’s amendment is so bad. Most individual health insurance markets don’t cover maternity care. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 14 states have a requirement for such coverage, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise dramatically. Anthem Blue Cross — which has been actively fighting health care reform — considers pregnancy optional and therefore not necessary to insure:
“The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That’s what you’re trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer,” said an Anthem Blue Cross spokesman. “Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice.”
“A well defined minimum benefits package would compel health insurers to provide basic services to all Americans,” adds Volsky. “The Kyl amendment, which ultimately failed, would have allowed the industry to continue profiting from discriminatory practices.”
Kyl: Health insurance companies ‘don’t need to be kept honest.’
Kyl: Health insurance companies ‘don’t need to be kept honest.’
President Obama has explained that one of the reasons he supports a robust public option as a competitor to private insurers is to “force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who opposes a public option, tells the Wall Street Journal that insurance companies don’t need to be kept honest:
“The health insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in America,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) on the Senate floor Monday. “They don’t need to be ‘kept honest’ by the government.”
Kyl is simply expressing the conservative view that unregulated private industry functions best. He might want to sit down and talk to Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who has testified that he saw how first-hand how private insurers “confuse their customers and dump the sick — all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”
In fact I'm fairly certain that the lobbyists for the health insurance industry and the analysts for the industry in New York were probably doing high-fives on the news coming out of Washington that the Senate Finance Committee might be voting on a bill that does not include a public option and also that the House is not going to be voting on a bill before the recess. It's giving a gift to the health insurance industry no doubt about it.
After Bragging ‘Our Effort Is To Slow This Down,’ Sen. Kyl Claims Republicans Are Not Holding Up Health Reform
After Bragging ‘Our Effort Is To Slow This Down,’ Sen. Kyl Claims Republicans Are Not Holding Up Health Reform
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who serves as the Republican whip in the Senate, has been a chief architect of tactics aimed at delaying — and ultimately defeating — health reform.
Speaking with radio show host Hugh Hewitt last month, Kyl stated, “The President has said that if we don’t do [health reform] quickly, it won’t get done at all, and he’s right.” Kyl then added, “Our objective is to slow this down.” He also admitted recently that he revoked Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) authority to negotiate with Democrats on the Finance Committee, even though Grassley is the ranking member.
Nevertheless, this morning on Fox News, Kyl seized upon recent delays in the health reform process to assert that his party has no role in obstruction:
KYL: So I think it’s important to remind folks Democrats have a 60 to 40 majority in the Senate and a bigger margin than that in the House. So, if they all got together they could pass a bill. This isn’t being held up by Republicans.
Watch it:
Today, the Hill quoted an anonymous influential lobbyist who claimed a key strategy of defeating Obama’s reforms is to “create delays” and when negotiations break down, to seize the “opportunity to outright kill a proposal.” Despite Kyl’s professed innocence, Senate Republicans have been on the front lines of this delay and kill approach:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “I take pride with being an obstructionist.” [Politico, 7/6/09]
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “I think we can stop it in the Senate. … We cannot afford to lose the health care battle.” [Fox News, 6/30/09]
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “It needs to slow down.” [Senator McConnell Press Office, 7/6/09]
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): “I think the first thing [on health reform] is, slow down guys.” [Senate Republican Caucus Video, 7/14/09]
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): “Maybe we could put something underneath that and say: ‘Slow Down’ or maybe in the language of my State ‘Whoa.’” [Senator Floor, 7/14/09]
Sen. Mike Enzi: “We need to slow down.” [Senator Enzi Press Office, 6/8/09]
Meanwhile in the House, Republican leaders are similarly using every tactic available to delay and kill reform. The Hill also recently reported that Newt Gingrich, the Republican leader who instructed members to “do whatever they can to kill” President Clinton’s health reform proposals in the early 90s, is now assisting Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) in whipping Republican opposition to health reform.
Kyl Wants To Cut Off Stimulus Funding That Arizona Governor Is Already Spending
Kyl Wants To Cut Off Stimulus Funding That Arizona Governor Is Already Spending
On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued that the $787 billion stimulus package “hasn’t helped yet. … What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it.” Watch it:
The next day Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer received letters from four Obama administration officials — Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar — pointing out the billions headed for Arizonans. LaHood wrote:
The stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) quickly fired back on Tuesday, saying that he “strongly support the comments of Senator Kyl and call[s] on the administration to retract its threat against the citizens of Arizona.” But Brewer, who faces a massive budget deficit, a combative GOP-controlled state legislature and the prospect of arguing in favor of raising the state sales tax, has already tapped into billions of dollars made available by the stimulus package — and rejected efforts by the Arizona GOP to slash funding for education and health care. In March, Brewer announced she would accept the stimulus money, citing among many financially strapped programs the need to fund public education:
“To forgo these funds at this time would be a disservice to Arizona taxpayers who have remitted their federal taxes in good faith and have seen many of those hard-earned dollars expended for the benefit of residents of other states,” the governor wrote. “Our citizens need their fair share of those funds returned home to provide for their families during these hours of our greatest need.“
On July 8, Brewer signed legislation that secured more than $1 billion in federal education funding for Arizona. Only a few weeks earlier, Brewer announced Arizona was among the first to receive federal energy funding, which Brewer said in a press release is expected to create 1,500 jobs — and she noted more money was on the way: “After demonstrating successful implementation of its plan, the state will receive an additional $27 million, for a total of $55.4 million.”
GOP Responds To Cheney’s Concealment Of CIA Program With Strawmen And Shrugged Shoulders
GOP Responds To Cheney’s Concealment Of CIA Program With Strawmen And Shrugged Shoulders
Earlier this week, seven House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee released a letter revealing that CIA Director Leon Panetta had “recently testified to Congress that the agency concealed information and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001″ about an unidentified CIA operation that was an “on-again, off-again” effort until Panetta stopped it in June. The New York Times reports today that former Vice President Dick Cheney gave “direct orders” for the program to be concealed from Congress.
On the Sunday shows this morning, several Republican lawmakers attempted to defend or divert attention away from the revelation about Cheney. “I don’t think we should be jumping to any conclusions,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on ABC’s This Week. Kyl claimed that Cheney’s alleged actions were “not out of the ordinary”:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But this allegation of the vice president ordering it be kept secret, you believe that should be investigated?
KYL: Look, the president and the vice president are the two people who have responsibility, ultimately, for the national security of the country. It is not out of the ordinary for the vice president to be involved in an issue like this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But to order it be kept secret?
KYL: What if it’s a top secret program? Of course he and the president would both be responsible for that. Let’s don’t jump to conclusions is what I’m saying.
On Fox News Sunday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that while he agrees that “the CIA should brief the Congress,” any mention of Cheney is just the Obama administration trying to “blame the Bush-Cheney administration” for everything. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he doesn’t “know whether it was appropriate,” but dismissed the concern by saying, “the CIA is in the secrecy business.”
Also on CNN, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said that it “is wrong if somebody told the CIA not to inform the appropriate members of Congress,” but tried to cast the debate as an “attempt” by Democrats “to basically undermine the capacity to protect and develop intelligence.” Watch it:
On NBC’s Meet The Press, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he doesn’t “know what the details of this are” and that Cheney “should obviously be heard from if the accusations are leveled in his direction.” “If I know Washington, this is the beginning of a pretty involved and detailed story,” said McCain, adding that he doesn’t know if there should be “a, quote, investigation.”
Kyl: Obama Wants To ‘Make A Deal’ With Russia More Than He Wants To ‘Ensure The Protection’ Of The U.S.
Kyl: Obama Wants To ‘Make A Deal’ With Russia More Than He Wants To ‘Ensure The Protection’ Of The U.S.
Yesterday, President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed an agreement to negotiate a successor to the soon-to-expire START treaty that would “cut American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals by at least one-quarter.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — “seasoned killer of past arms control treaties” — responded to news of the agreement on Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning by claiming that the Obama administration is “more anxious to make a deal than it is to ensure the protection of the United States.” Bennett told Kyl that he “didn’t think the reductions in missiles by the amount they were doing it was that serious,” but asked him to elaborate:
KYL: In the past, our assessment of what we need to protect our interests as well as the allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella put the number of weapons as a certain level. And the administration is planning to go far below that. … I’m very concerned that the administration is more anxious to make a deal than it is to ensure the protection of the United States.
Kyl’s remarks today demonstrate further that Obama’s right-wing critics are more interested in accusing the President of not wanting to protect the nation than they are in offering substantive critiques of his policy proposals. Last week, Kyl made similar arguments alongside Iraq war architect Richard Perle in the Wall Street Journal. The two wrote that Obama’s widely-praised plans to work toward the elimination of all nuclear weapons were “dangerous, wishful thinking.”
On the specifics of the agreement Obama reached yesterday, Kyl appears to be nearly alone in objecting to it. Even the traditionally-partisan Newt Gingrich endorsed the goals that Obama laid out in a speech yesterday in Moscow. “There is much in it to support,” Gingrich wrote on Twitter. And despite Kyl’s attempts to portray Obama’s commitment yesterday to eliminate just a portion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as detrimental to U.S. national security, James Collins and Jack Matlock remind us that former President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev “came within a hair’s breadth of agreeing to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within 10 years” during their 1986 summit.
Tauscher confirmed to State Department post after Kyl lifts hold on her nomination.
Tauscher confirmed to State Department post after Kyl lifts hold on her nomination.
Earlier this week, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) had placed a hold on Rep. Ellen Tauscher’s (D-CA) nomination to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, perhaps as blackmail in his wider goal of preventing the Obama administration and Russia from negotiating “deep cuts” in the respective U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. However a congressional source told Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen yesterday that Kyl is no longer holding up the nomination. Soon after, the Senate confirmed Tauscher to the State Department post. Kyl’s office did not respond to inquiries from ThinkProgress asking why Kyl lifted the hold.
Is Sen. Kyl Placing A Hold On Ellen Tauscher’s State Department Nomination Because He Wants More Nukes?
Is Sen. Kyl Placing A Hold On Ellen Tauscher’s State Department Nomination Because He Wants More Nukes?
The Senate has yet to confirm a number of President Obama’s nominees to various State Department posts. One of those nominees, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) — a champion of repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — has had a hold placed on her nomination to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. But the hold on her nomination is not anonymous, as Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen reports:
A blanket hold placed late last week by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on all State Department nominees appears to have been lifted on Saturday, administration sources tell The Cable. Kyl’s only remaining hold, The Cable was told, is on Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), President Obama’s nominee to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security.
Kyl’s office confirmed his remaining hold on Tauscher’s nomination. “He honestly has made no guise of his hold on her nomination,” spokesman Ryan Patmintra told The Cable Monday.
When asked why Kyl is placing a hold on Tauscher, a spokesperson said, “He expressed privately to the administration his concerns. He has chosen not to discuss them publicly.” Indeed, Kyl’s office did not respond to an inquiry from ThinkProgress.
But last week, Rozen reported that Capitol Hill sources said Kyl “is not satisified with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia”:
“Kyl’s beef and the general Republican argument now emerging against the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy is that they are rushing to conclude a new agreement with Russia on strategic arms levels before their Nuclear Posture Review [NPR] is complete,” a Democratic congressional source said.
However, the Obama administration has to move quickly because the arms control agreement with Russia — the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a verification regime signed in 1991 — expires on Dec. 5. The Obama administration has made no secret of wanting warmer relations with Russia. In recent negotiations, both nations have expressed interest in “much deeper cuts in strategic arsenals than those achieved by START when it came into force.”
Nuclear non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione told ThinkProgress, “Senator Kyl wants to delay any arms reductions until the Nuclear Posture Review, then work the process so the NPR makes only minor changes to the existing nuclear arsenal.”
Indeed, if Obama makes a deal with Russian President Medvedev to drastically reduce nuclear stockpiles, Kyl — who is against reducing America’s nuclear weapons — won’t have much of an opportunity to challenge it. Kyl would rather play domestic politics with the NPR and have a chance at limiting nuclear reductions before any U.S.-Russia binding agreement. Thus, it appears Kyl is using the NPR as an excuse to block U.S. negotiations with Russia, and is holding up Tauscher’s nomination as blackmail.
Kyl: Who cares if Europe doesn’t like Guantanamo, they didn’t like when we invaded Iraq either.
Kyl: Who cares if Europe doesn’t like Guantanamo, they didn’t like when we invaded Iraq either.
On CSPAN’s Newsmakers today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) attacked President Obama’s efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. “The real question is why do it and the only answer is, ‘well, it’s a symbol,’” said Kyl, adding that “the terrorists don’t need Guantanamo to figure out that they don’t like the United States.” When the host noted that Guantanamo “has been an issue in Europe, among leaders, our allies,” Kyl replied, “big deal.” “They didn’t like the fact that we invaded Iraq and replaced Saddam Hussein either.” Watch it:
Considering that the decision to invade Iraq ultimately “made the American people less secure,” Kyl shouldn’t be so dismissive of those who said from the start that it was a mistake. Likewise with Guantanamo Bay. Kyl dismisses the negative symbolic power of Guantanamo, but as the Center for Strategic & International Studies concluded in September 2008, “the United States has been damaged by Guantánamo beyond any immediate security benefits. Our enemies have achieved a propaganda windfall that enables recruitment to violence, while our friends have found it more difficult to cooperate with us.”
Transcript: More »
Kyl Threatens GOP Boycott of Sotomayor Hearing
Kyl Threatens GOP Boycott of Sotomayor Hearing
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told Roll Call yesterday that he and his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee may boycott Judge Sotomayor’s hearings if Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) does not cave to right-wing demands to delay the hearings:
“As the hearing time approaches we will evaluate whether we can make that deadline,” Kyl said, explaining that if Republicans do not feel they can adequately question Sotomayor they will try to meet with Leahy to make a plea for more time.
However, Kyl, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, did not explicitly rule out the use of delay tactics, including a Republican boycott of the confirmation hearings, if an accommodation cannot be made.
But Kyl is not entitled to any more accommodations than what he has already received. Far from expediting Sotomayor’s confirmation process, Leahy set a schedule which is virtually identical to that enjoyed by Bush appointee John Roberts, even though Chief Justice Roberts’ record was more difficult to investigate because it was necessary to track down thousands of pages of documents Roberts produced while he worked in the Reagan and Bush I Administrations, and even though thousands of new documents relating to Roberts were uncovered just two weeks before his hearings began.
Kyl’s threat to take his ball and go home if he doesn’t get his way is unfortunate, but it is hardly surprising. Earlier this week, all seven GOP members of the Judiciary Committee signed a letter demanding that Sotomayor complete a series of irrelevant or even impossible tasks before her nomination may be considered.
Sen. Kyl: We support ‘free market’ health care, but we won’t talk about it because it’s not ‘persuasive.’
Sen. Kyl: We support ‘free market’ health care, but we won’t talk about it because it’s not ‘persuasive.’
In an interview posted online by the National Review, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) candidly explained how his party would try to deceive the public during the coming health care debate. Kyl said that although Republicans believe in a “free market” approach to health care, to describe it honestly to the “people we have to convince” would not be “persuasive.” Instead, Kyl boasts that he and his colleagues will use the “hollow buzzwords” prescribed by GOP language consultant Frank Luntz:
KYL: We of course believe the free market can provide the incentives for everyone to be covered with good insurance but to talk about it in terms of the free market is not to be persuasive with the people we have to convince. We have to describe this in terms that people really do understand and care about and that is patient-centered. They don’t want to get between themselves and their doctor. They don’t want to have long waiting lines, possibly even denying care that they feel is important. They don’t want to lose insurance they like already. Those are all things we need to address in our alternatives and I think that’s the best way for us to talk about it rather than talking about the free market.
Watch it:
Of course, Kyl is pretending that for-profit insurance companies don’t already stand in between patients and doctors.
Ten Democrats vote for Sens. Kyl and Lincoln’s bill protecting the children of multimillionaires.
Ten Democrats vote for Sens. Kyl and Lincoln’s bill protecting the children of multimillionaires.
Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) recently introduced a $250 billion amendment to slash estate taxes for the heirs of multimillion-dollar estates. Yesterday, the Senate narrowly passed the bill by a 51-48 vote. Joining Republicans in approving the bill were ten Senate Democrats:
Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Cantwell (D-WA), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Tester (D-MT)
As the New York Times explained, under Obama’s budget, “99.8 percent of estates will never — ever — pay a penny of estate tax. The heirs of the remaining 0.2 percent of estates are who Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Kyl are so worried about.”
In midst of recession, Sens. Kyl and Lincoln think ‘the most pressing issue’ is ‘America’s wealthiest families.’
In midst of recession, Sens. Kyl and Lincoln think ‘the most pressing issue’ is ‘America’s wealthiest families.’
Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have offered a $250 billion proposal to cut estate taxes for the children of multi-millionaires. The proposal is attracting a disturbing amount of support. In an editorial this morning, The New York Times writes that, while the nation is focused on ending the deep recession, Kyl and Lincoln’s “most pressing issue is clear: America’s wealthiest families need help. Now.” The Wonk Room’s Ben Furnas noted yesterday:
While opponents of the estate tax claim rolling it back protects small farms and businesses, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that “only 0.2 percent of the additional cost of the proposal, relative to [the Obama proposal], would go toward tax cuts for small businesses and farms.”
The rest of the cost, approximately $249.5 billion, would go to the inheritors of estates worth over $7 million. Paris Hilton, get excited.
The Waltons — the Arkansas-based family that founded Wal-Mart — are one of the key groups financing the campaign to repeal the estate tax. “With all the serious work before Congress, it is a colossal waste of time to have to rebut the false claims and warped premises of ardent estate-tax cutters,” the NYT writes. “Ms. Lincoln’s and Mr. Kyl’s colleagues in the Senate should make short work of it and move on to urgent matters.”
Recession Reality: John McCain and Jon Kyl’s Arizona.
Recession Reality: John McCain and Jon Kyl’s Arizona.
Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl (R) and John McCain (R) have vehemently opposed President Obama’s recovery package, both voting against the legislation today. McCain called the bill “generational theft, and in a Senate GOP press conference today, Kyl claimed that there are “a lot of earmarks and a lot of wasteful Washington spending in this bill.” As two of the most vocal opponents of the bill, Kyl and McCain need to better understand the “recession reality” facing their constituents. Watch it:
As the video above portrays, Arizona is plagued by an all-time high unemployment rate. “I’m just optimistic…that I’ll get something” from the stimulus, said job-seeker Eduardo Vivanco. Roughly 74,000 jobs could be created or preserved by the recovery package. Furthermore, the state legislature’s budget director says that the recovery plan’s “health and education money…could help close the state’s budget shortfalls.”
Senate Republicans Gearing Up To Filibuster Recovery Package Despite Promises To The Contrary
Senate Republicans Gearing Up To Filibuster Recovery Package Despite Promises To The Contrary
Last night on NPR’s All Things Considered, host Robert Siegel asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) about the prospects of a Republican filibuster of the Senate’s version of the economic recovery package. Grassley responded that Republicans would indeed filibuster the package, requiring the bill to garner a 60-vote majority for passage:
SIEGEL: By the way, Senator, we always just assume that anything in the Senate requires 60 votes because there will be a filibuster threat. Is that right? Does this bill need 60 votes to pass?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
SIEGAL: It does?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
Listen here:
Grassley’s promise of a filibuster is surprising given the fact that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly said that Republicans “would not filibuster against the stimulus package.” He remarked earlier this month, “I don’t think this measure’s going to have any problem getting over 60 votes.”
But now, as Grassley indicated last night, McConnell may not be able to keep his word as conservative opposition to the package grows.
Despite the fact that the Senate version of the recovery package is already loaded up with a significant number of provisions sought by conservative Republicans and the pro-business lobby, a number of senators are working with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to coordinate opposition to the package, and as CNS News reports today, “a filibuster is a possible part of that plan“:
“I think its going to take 60 votes to pass the bill,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told CNSNews.com, indicating the likelihood of a filibuster.
“Whatever we can do, whether offering amendments, whether voting against the bill because it could not be amended, or whatever parliamentary possibilities are in front of us we will explore because this isn’t about playing the game,” Sen. Kyl told CNSNews.com when asked whether he would filibuster the bill or encourage his colleagues to do so. [...]
“I would be a part of it,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said when CNSNews.com asked him if he personally would participate in a filibuster.
Conservative Politicians Misleadingly Blame Labor Unions For Detroit’s Woes
Conservative Politicians Misleadingly Blame Labor Unions For Detroit’s Woes
Congress and the Bush administration are currently considering whether to spend $25 billion to rescue Detroit automakers. The proposal has generally been met with stiff resistance from conservatives, who have increasingly been pinning all the blame for the crisis in Detroit on labor unions:
Sen. Jim DeMint: “Some auto manufacturers are struggling because of a bad business structure with high unionized labor costs and burdensome federal regulations. Taxpayers did not create these problems and they should not be forced to pay for them.”
Sen. Jon Kyl: “For years they’ve been sick. They have a bad business model. They have contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose huge costs.The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about $28.48. For these auto makers, it’s $73. And for the Japanese auto companies working here in the United States, it’s $48.”
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: “You know, if you pay the auto workers or the benefits and all of those things, are maybe too high. … We have, like, in America, you sell a car, and you have $2,000 of each car just goes to benefits. So I think that there’s a way of reducing all of that, make them more fiscally responsible.”
Watch a compilation:
Unions do not deserve the blame placed on them by the right wing. In fact, unions have repeatedly made concessions to auto executives over recent years. Contrary to Kyl’s claim, new auto employees earn $25.65 an hour.
Big Three automaker CEOs and executives based their business model on a future of cheap oil, fighting fuel efficiency standards despite warnings against such a strategy. Detroit manufactured, as Tom Friedman pointed out, oversized gas-guzzling SUVs that reduced their competitive edge.
Financial firms AIG, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns did not have unionized workers but still suffered economic collapses. Frozen credit markets and a spiraling recession were major contributors to Detroit’s current state. Today, the Center for American Progress urged Congress “to support legislation to grant a $25 billion bridge loan to the U.S. auto companies to ensure that they avoid bankruptcy” provided the automakers provide health and retirement security and invest in clean technology.
Kyl Says Bush Is Blame-Free In Financial Mess: ‘The President Doesn’t Run The Economy’
Kyl Says Bush Is Blame-Free In Financial Mess: ‘The President Doesn’t Run The Economy’
Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) claimed President Bush’s economic agenda had nothing to do with the current financial crisis, insisting defiantly that Bush “doesn’t run the economy”:
KYL: George Bush doesn’t run the economy. He didn’t create this problem. His tax rates being lower actually helped for six years create the second largest economic growth that we’ve had in the history of the country in recent years. … The President doesn’t run the economy.
Watch it:
The current financial crisis is a direct result of Bush running the economy. Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy have contributed to record inequality and historic deficits and debt. The administration gutted several “specific regulations” of the financial system, helping plunge Wall Street into the mess it is facing today.
Embracing a common conservative talking point, Kyl tried to lay all the blame for the crisis on the lack of regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As Alan Greenspan, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, and former Treasury Secretary John Snow — along with the Wonk Room — have stated, this is false.
CAP’s Scott Lilly noted that for the past eight years “we have papered over the fact that American consumers do not have the purchasing power to sustain economic expansion.” Why? Bush’s policies have done nothing for the majority of Americans.
If Bush or any president doesn’t run the economy, then who does, Sen. Kyl?
Sen. Kyl Still Convinced Of Saddam/Al Qaeda ‘Link,’ Says ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’
Sen. Kyl Still Convinced Of Saddam/Al Qaeda ‘Link,’ Says ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank recently took Iraq war architect Douglas Feith to task in his “Washington Sketch” column, noting that Feith blames the Iraq war’s failures on “everyone but himself.” Milbank highlighted Feith’s failed pre-war attempt to link Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda, adding that “the CIA was correct” in finding no such ties.
Milbank’s column did not sit well with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). In a letter to the editor in today’s Post, Kyl took issue with Milbank’s assertion that “‘the CIA was correct’ that there were no links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein,” adding, “The historical record tells a different story”:
In 2002, then-CIA Director George Tenet wrote in a letter to Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, that “our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving” and “we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.”
But Milbank is right. The CIA found no ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. While the CIA did find “contacts” between Iraq and al Qaeda — as Kyl noted — the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in its 2006 report on pre-war intelligence that the CIA said those contacts “did not add up to a formal relationship.”
But like all good conservatives who continue to argue — falsely — that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda, Kyl was bound to get confused. In his letter, Kyl’s Saddam-Al-Qaeda relationship theory gradually weakened as he explained the evidence. First Saddam and Al-Qaeda were directly linked, then they shared associates, then they merely shared goals and objectives, and finally, Saddam was linked just to “terrorists” in general:
In his April 25 Washington Sketch column, “Iraq War Is Everyone Else’s Fault, Feith Explains,” Dana Milbank asserted that the “CIA was correct” that there were no links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The historical record tells a different story. [...]
A March 2008 report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command included information about the relationship between Hussein and Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s second in command: “Saddam supported groups either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”
Critics of the war in Iraq often try to minimize — if not dismiss — the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. As they say, facts are stubborn things.
Kyl’s criticism of Milbank echoes a recent conservative movement to defend theories of a Saddam/al Qaeda “collaboration” after the Defense Department released a report last March confirming “no direct link between late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda network.”
Indeed, facts are stubborn things, especially when they in no way support your disproven theories.
BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.
BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.
By a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”
UPDATE Before the vote today, changes were made to the original amendment, with paragraphs three and four taken out completely. This paragraph was also added at the end:
“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that “I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by the preferable approach. That the one we are using. We always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.”
Read the full marked up amendment here.
UPDATE II: The roll call for the vote is here. The following senators voted against the amendment:
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) didn’t vote.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll