ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Republican National Committee

Health

RNC Chair Predicts Obama’s ‘Brand’ Will ‘Go Down In Flames’ Because Of Obamacare

During an interview with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren on Wednesday night, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus made a rather bold prediction about President Obama’s second term, asserting that the president’s “brand” would suffer over the next four years as Americans come to grips with what Priebus paints as the dire consequences of health care reform.

Priebus was reacting to a just-released Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report with updated projections on the federal budget and Americans’ insurance coverage under Obamacare. The report reassessed the number of Americans who will no longer receive employer-sponsored health insurance as the health law takes effect, increasing it from 4 million to 7 million Americans. This led Priebus to forecast a slippery slope in which more and more Americans lose their health coverage, indelibly tainting Obamacare’s — and President Obama’s — public image:

PRIEBUS: I think over time people are going to see, over the next four years, that this is not going to be a new story, this is going to be — next year — another story is going to come out and instead of seven million people dropped off the health care rolls, you’ll find it’s going to be 14 million… And more people aren’t going to be able to keep the insurance that they were promised. Businesses are out there saying, wait a second, this is too expensive and so we’re not going to provide this to our employees, so what we’re going to do is drop the insurance, pay the fine and it’s cheaper, and people are going to be left out in the cold. We knew this was going to happen, and we said it’s going to happen, and I think over time the Obama brand — the next four years — the reality of what the truth is going to be under his signature program, which was Obamacare, is going to go down in flames and people aren’t going to like it.

Watch it:

But there isn’t actually any evidence supporting Priebus’s claim that the number of Americans losing employer-sponsored insurance will somehow double next year. As Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff explained on Wednesday, the reason the CBO increased its projections of Americans who would lose employer-provided coverage is due to the recent “fiscal cliff” deal that set low income tax rates on those making less than $450,000. As Kliff noted, “providing health insurance as a tax-free form of income becomes less attractive when marginal tax rates are lower — and when a publicly-subsidized option becomes available.” Ironically, this problem would have been exacerbated even further if GOP leaders like Priebus and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) had gotten their way and codified lower tax rates for millionaires and billionaires.

And it’s misleading to equate Americans losing their employer-sponsored insurance with Americans losing any form of insurance — particularly since Americans who lose employer-sponsored coverage can still receive federal subsidies to help them purchase private insurance on the individual marketplace. Predictions of how many employers will drop coverage may also be overblown, as studies have shown that Obamacare only modestly increases large businesses’ health care costs while actually lowering costs for small businesses.

As part-time workers, the poor, and Americans with pre-existing and costly medical conditions learn more about the law’s substantial benefits for them, support for repealing Obamacare has plunged to an all-time low. In the meantime, however, it appears that reform critics will continue their misleading smear campaigns against the health care overhaul.

Justice

Supreme Court Will Not Disturb Anti-Voter Intimidation Order Against The Republican Party

In 1981, the Republican National Committee allegedly engaged in an illegal campaign to intimidate minority voters, in some cases even enlisting armed, off-duty law enforcement as part of a “National Ballot Security Task Force.” The RNC eventually settled the lawsuit by agreeing to several conditions, including a promise that they would “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts” for the purpose of targeting voters by race and discouraging them from voting.

Last year, a federal appeals court rejected the RNC’s request to lift this ban on voter intimidation. Under the lower courts’ decisions, the anti-intimidation order will remain in effect until at least 2017. The Supreme Court turned down the RNC’s petition to review this case Monday. Thus the Republicans will likely remain subject to the order’s ban on voter intimidation for at least one more presidential election cycle.

Although the RNC remained subject to this court order last November, other Republican Party groups actively partnered with Tea Party organizations to target African-American neighborhoods for anti-voter fraud witchhunts. Similarly, the Tea Party group True The Vote encouraged its members to circumvent the court order by engaging in voter suppression tactics independently of the Republican Party.

Politics

Indiana GOP Lets Glenn Beck Set Legislative Agenda: Introduces Bill To Fight U.N. Conspiracy Theory

You’d be forgiven for having not heard of Agenda 21. Developed at a summit in Brazil in 1992 with support from President George H.W. Bush, Agenda 21 is a series of non-binding UN recommendations for ensuring that economic growth does not undermine the environment. The agreement aims to encourage “international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries” through voluntary actions by UN member-states. You can read the full, innocuous text here.

But right-wing Republicans have somehow come to believe that Agenda 21 contains a secret, nefarious plot to destroy American life and society as we know it, birthing a cottage industry devoted to spreading misinformation about the UN proposal. The most recent evidence of this movement’s reach is a proposal by two Indiana lawmakers to ban the implementation of any Agenda 21-inspired initiatives in the state. The Republican state legislators, Rep. Tim Neese and Sen. Dennis Kruse, proposed laws prohibiting the implementation of Agenda-21 inside Indiana. Neese worried that the document — which has no legal power to reshape American law — was a “mandate” that threatened his freedom:

I don’t see it as a battle with environmentalists, as long as people have the ability to choose. So when any type of special interest tries to — through a policy whether it be a legislative body or local or state official — to mandate that a specific type of material has to be used. That’s where I think the Agenda 21 policy is going beyond what is neutral.

As far as Agenda 21 fearmongering goes, however, Neese is on the moderate side. Last October, Georgia Republicans fretted that President Obama was using CIA-developed mind-control to implement Agenda 21′s plot to establish a dictatorship and ban suburbs. Sen. Ten Cruz (R-TX) deemed the it to be a paramount threat to America’s golf courses. The Republican National Committee called Agenda 21 “destructive and insidious,” and the 2012 party platform condemned it as “erosive of American sovereignty.” And this isn’t just idle talk – Alabama and Tennessee have already passed bans on Agenda 21 implementation, and five states (including Indiana) will consider them this legislative term.

Sadly, GOP paranoia about the United Nations isn’t limited to fear of Agenda 21. During the campaign, former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested the United Nations was planning to force American parents to raise their children according to UN guidelines and override the Second Amendment. The latter fear is widespread among Republicans — Senate Republicans spiked the UN Arms Trade Treaty, a convention regulating the international arms trade with no effect on domestic law. Senate Republicans did the same thing, on similarly paranoid grounds, to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disability and the Law of the Sea treaty.

Justice

True the Vote Outraged That The RNC Agreed Not To Cage Minority Voters In 1982

After sending poll-watchers to record any suspicious activity at polling locations on Election Day, Tea Party group True the Vote is apparently having some trouble proving their allegedly widespread reports of voter fraud in the presidential election. According to their newsletter, the organization is “still collecting reports of election fraud and process failure” and is waiting for local election officials to respond to their requests for data. While they wait, True the Vote is switching gears to attack a 30-year-old agreement by the Republican and Democratic National Committees meant to stop the Republican Party from caging African American voters.

In a post-election webinar, Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, reported a meeting with RNC chair Reince Priebus in which he explained the RNC could not directly do anything to combat voter fraud because of this agreement. In 1982, the RNC and the New Jersey Republican State Committee agreed not to pursue “ballot security activities” in minority districts, or to target suspected voter fraud based on racial or ethnic criteria. This agreement was necessary because the RNC was caught compiling lists of mostly Black and Latino voters to challenge at the polls and hiring armed guards to police polling places. The consent decree has been employed many times since to protect minority votes. But True the Vote claims the consent decree “robs” poll watchers of their power:

First, the decree effectively robs poll watchers (and the ballot stakeholders that put them there) of their most important function: spotting and neutralizing attempted voter fraud.Indeed, poll watchers will mostly make note of procedural errors that could have negative impacts on voters. However, poll watchers also improve overall faith in the system when electors know that ALL of the rules are being enforced…The RNC is effectively jammed: choosing between developing a system that the federal court and the DNC agree would be flawless or spending time and energy on developing issue ideas or get out the vote efforts. Time and money being finite, the RNC picks GOTV over “Ballot Security.” [...] However, in this Decree comes opportunity. The RNC, DNC and federal courts have basically created a void where true, disinterested election integrity and ballot security can be created. The answer is in YOU. Should citizens fight to have the Decree overturned? No – such action only legitimizes the agreement. Federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 in particular, empowers you to fight for clean registrations and fair elections in your own communities. Take this whole episode for what it is: an example of how the established political parties and governing interests jockey to consolidate power.

True the Vote is encouraging its volunteers to circumvent the consent decree while distancing itself from the legally-handicapped GOP. Yet the group had no problem coordinating with the GOP during the election, even providing poll watchers for Republican candidates. This coordination could prove complicated not only for True the Vote, which is currently under criminal investigation, but for the RNC. Brentin Mock at Colorlines notes that the RNC could have violated the consent decree through the actions of True the Vote and Tea Party surrogates. A Pittsburgh Tea Party group working for the local Republican Party actively trained poll watchers to target African American neighborhoods as “historical places of fraud” — closely resembling True the Vote language on minority communities. The RNC has not disavowed these surrogates.

Meanwhile, party members not constrained by the decree seem to be jumping at the chance to accuse minorities of voter fraud. Since the election, state-level GOP members have complained that the turnout of “people of color” and “dozens of black people” alone is cause for suspicion.

Justice

Republican Party Paid $3.1 Million To Firm Under Investigation For Voter Registration Fraud

The Republican National Committee is cutting ties to Strategic Allied Consulting, a voter registration firm under investigation for turning in fraudulent voter registration forms in Florida. The RNC hired the firm to do voter registration drives for $3.1 million this year.

The firm’s founder, Nathan Sproul, is a longtime Republican strategist whose reputation was tarred by widespread accusations of voter registration fraud and attempts to suppress Democratic voter turnout. George W. Bush’s campaign reportedly paid Sproul over $8 million for his work in the 2004 election. Sproul, now under new scrutiny, claims he started Strategic Allied Consulting because the RNC wanted to hide his past:

Sproul said he created Strategic Allied Consulting at the RNC’s request because the party wanted to avoid being publicly linked to the past allegations. The firm was set up at a Virginia address, and Sproul does not show up on the corporate paperwork.

“In order to be able to do the job that the state parties were hiring us to do, the [RNC] asked us to do it with a different company’s name, so as to not be a distraction from the false information put out in the Internet,” Sproul said.

The committee is now scrambling to distance itself from Sproul after Florida launched a criminal investigation into the company. Strategic Allied Consulting submitted 106 “questionable” voter registration forms to the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, and several other counties have discovered fraudulent forms as well. The Florida GOP fired the firm on Tuesday night.

Republicans have launched relentless efforts to prevent in-person voter fraud, which is exceptionally rare, yet seem to have ignored the real threat of voter registration fraud by their own consultant. In a twist one Florida Supervisor of Elections called “ironic,” Sproul’s organization was in fact registering dead voters as Republicans, even as Republican lawmakers all over the country justified discriminatory voter purges with the threat of dead voters showing up to the polls.

NEWS FLASH

GOP Senate Candidate Ted Cruz Thinks Billionaires Should Be Able To Give Him Unlimited Campaign Contributions | Former Texas Solicitor General and current Senate nominee Ted Cruz (R) told Politico Thursday that campaign finance limits should be eliminated entirely so donors can give as much as they like directly to candidates. Cruz said “I believe in free speech. If it were up to me, I would eliminate all the limits and require immediate disclosure.” This is not a unique view in his party: Mitt Romney has proposed the same concept and this week the Republican National Committee adopted a platform asserting a First Amendment right to devoting “one’s resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports.”

Economy

7 Facts About Mitt Romney’s Economic Plan He Doesn’t Want You To Know

Mitt Romney will officially accept the Republican nomination for president at the party’s national convention tonight, and in his speech, he will undoubtedly talk about the economy and his supposed plan to spur growth and speed up the recovery. Romney’s plan is notorious for its lack of specifics, but through the few details he has provided, ThinkProgress compiled seven facts about his economic policies that he likely won’t mention in his speech tonight:

1) It gives the rich and corporations a massive tax cut. Romney’s proposal to give every American a tax cut is a giveaway to the rich that is four-times larger than the Bush tax cuts. Half the benefit would go to the richest five percent of Americans, and each member of the top 0.1 percent would get at least a $264,000 cut. Romney says he will balance the cuts with the closure of tax loopholes, but he can’t name which ones he’d close and even if he did, the plan wouldn’t generate enough revenue to offset revenue lost to tax reductions. His corporate tax plan, meanwhile, results in more than $1 trillion in tax cuts.

2) It raises taxes on the middle class. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that Romney’s plan would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 if he were to keep his promise to maintain the current level of revenue. A later analysis that added in the cost of Romney’s corporate tax cuts nearly doubled the size of the tax hike on the middle class to as much as $4,000 for a family of four.

3) It won’t balance the budget. Romney’s tax plan would add more than $10 trillion to the national debt if he doesn’t balance it with tax increases on the middle class or with spending cuts that are too impossibly large to fathom. Even if Romney closed every loophole for the rich, as he has promised to do, he would need 6.5 percent economic growth for five years to avoid adding to the debt. The economy hasn’t grown that fast over a five-year period since the early 1960s.

4) It won’t lead to economic growth. The last Republican president promised that supply-side policies like tax cuts for the rich would boost the economy and lead to job growth. They didn’t. Romney is trying the same policies (Bush, “just updated,” as one RNC official put it), despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t work.

5) It will make it easier for corporations to dodge taxes and outsource jobs: Romney’s plan to switch to a territorial tax system will make it easier for corporations to stash their profits in off-shore tax havens. It would also make it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs. In all, economists estimate the plan could cost America 800,000 jobs.

6) It would put bankers between you and your student loans. Obamacare included a provision in the law that removed bankers from the federal student loan process, eliminating a middle-man and allowing borrowers to deal directly with the government. That reduced costs, saving students $100 billion. By repealing the healthcare law, Romney would put those bankers back in between students and government lenders, handing big banks billions of dollars in the process.

7) It won’t address the housing crisis. Romney’s economic plan had 59 points, but it failed to detail a plan to help America’s struggling homeowners. Instead, Romney says we should let the housing market “run its course and hit the bottom,” and that America shouldn’t “try to stop the foreclosure process.” His plan wouldn’t help the millions of Americans who are facing foreclosure or are underwater on their mortgages. It also ignores simple steps the government could take to help housing, and it has been criticized by Republicans in high-foreclosure states. Romney has since tried to reverse course, but he still offers no specifics.

LGBT

Anti-Gay Republican Platform Was Retaliation For Log Cabin Republicans’ Presence

Casey Pick, Log Cabin Republicans

Gay Republicans have had their own dim spotlight at the Republican National Convention as they peddle apologetics for their party while trying to advance LGBT equality from within. Log Cabin Republicans were proud to have been part of the platform drafting committee, but the GOP ended up approving one of the most anti-gay platforms ever. One member of LCR, Casey Pick, admitted to NPR that the platform might very well have been a “hostile” retaliation to their presence:

PICK: When you back someone into a corner, they fight back twice as hard. The platform is ugly and harmful. We lost, and you could say the social conservatives in our party dropped the hammer harder because we were there.

Former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), who is openly gay, believes 2012 will be the last year for such vitriol, but Pick’s comments suggest otherwise. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins had a prominent leadership role on the drafting committee and personally drafted much of its social policy. Though LCR has achieved visibility at this year’s convention, their contributions seem particularly unwelcome in contrast. Though the group admitted the platform was “bad with a capital ‘B,’” it continues to defend the Romney/Ryan ticket, compromising its supposed commitment to LGBT equality in favor of party politics.

GOProud has also taken advantage of the convention’s publicity, but unlike LCR and despite being a gay Republican group, they never purport to support any aspect of LGBT rights.

LGBT

Tony Perkins: Only A ‘Very Small Minority’ Supports Marriage Equality

(Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.)

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins has had a prominent role in shaping the Republican Party’s platform, including support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The Bridge Project noticed an interview Perkins did with CNSNews.com today in which he claimed that only a “very small minority” of Americans support marriage equality:

PERKINS: I think this is the year of contrast.  This is the year of contrast when you look at the party platforms. The Republican Party has very strong language as it pertains to natural, traditional marriage.The Democratic Party going the way of a very small minority in this country and embracing same-sex marriage, which undermines the 32 states that have voted on this, the 30 states that have constitutional amendments. I think that’s in your face to those states that have constitutional amendments.

Watch it:

Apparently Perkins believes a “very small minority” means the same thing as a “consistent majority” and “the Democratic Party.” Over the past two years, polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. Of course, the Democratic Party has also endorsed this position, in stark contrast to the platform Perkins helped draft. Like all other issues related to LGBT people, Perkins has convinced himself of something that contradicts with the reality of the world around him.

Justice

GOP Platform Suggests Billionaires Should Be Able To Give Unlimited Donations To Mitt Romney

The Republican National Convention Tuesday adopted a party platform that embraces the highly unpopular Citizens United ruling, opposes meaningful campaign finance disclosure, and actually calls for allowing donors to give more money to politicians.

In a section entitled “The First Amendment: Speech that is Protected” the platform states:

The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. They include the free speech right to devote one’s resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals. As a result, we support repeal of the remaining sections of McCain- Feingold, support either raising or repealing contribution limits, and oppose passage of the DISCLOSE Act or any similar legislation designed to vitiate the Supreme Court’s recent decisions protecting political speech in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that free speech does not mean one can give as much as he or she wants to political candidates. Even in his 5-4 Citizens United majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged that the Buckley v. Valeo ruling found that unlimited contributions directly to a political candidate can “give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

In the same opinion, Kennedy wrote that disclosure “is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.” But by opposing the DISCLOSE Act and other efforts to disclose who pays for independent expenditures, the GOP is endorsing a system in which voters cannot determine and evaluate who pays for political speech.

With groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spending millions on ads attacking Democrats without disclosing any of their donors, it is no wonder that the Republicans are embracing the status quo.

Three quarters of Americans believing there is too much money in politics. The Republican delegates are apparently among the only people in the country who think things would be better with more of it.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up