ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Tom Coburn”

Health

Tom Coburn Inadvertently Calls Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney ‘A Liar’

By Igor Volsky on Feb 3, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) inadvertently referred to prominent Republicans like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor as liars during an interview with Oklahoma’s News on 6 Thusday night. “Any politicians that stands up and says, ‘We’re not going to touch your Medicare’ is a liar,” Coburn said, apparently forgetting that the GOP has used the talking point as a center piece in their campaign to sell Medicare premium support to the public. Watch Coburn’s remarks:

The GOP has repeatedly argued that it would preserve benefits for existing seniors:

– PAUL RYAN: “If you take a look at our reforms…[they] don’t change any Medicare benefits for a person 55 or above.” [Fox News, 1/29/2012]

– MITT ROMNEY: “We will never go after Medicare or Social Security. We will protect those programs.” [TPM, 1/31/2012]

– ERIC CANTOR: “To today’s seniors, those 55 and older, we’re not going to touch those programs. For the rest of us, we realize these programs won’t be around in their current state and we have to change the nature of those programs for the rest of us.” [CNBC, 4/13/2011]

It’s very very likely that beneficiaries 55 and older would see changes in their Medicare benefits under Ryan’s plan. In 2022, newly-eligible seniors would have to enroll in a private plan, but existing beneficiaries (those who are over 55 today) would also have the option of leaving traditional Medicare. That opens up the possibilities of private plans trying to lure away the healthiest beneficiaries (as is currently the case in Medicare Advantage) and of health care providers abandoning traditional Medicare patients for the higher reimbursement rates of private insurers. For chronically ill seniors who are more likely to remain in fee-for-service Medicare this means two things: higher costs (as the healthier beneficiaries exit the risk pool) and fewer doctors.

Security

Sen. Coburn Blocks Funding For September 11th Memorial, Demanding More Cuts

By Marie Diamond on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm

The reflecting pool at the national 9/11 memorial.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has a habit of trying to prove his fiscally conservative bona fides by making mountains out of mole hills. A few months ago, he literally made a federal case out of a non-existent $16 muffin “scandal.”

Now Coburn is holding hostage $20 million in funding for the September 11 Memorial & Museum at Ground Zero, trying to force Democrats to make deep cuts to other programs by pushing an emotional hot button:

Sen. Tom Coburn is blocking legislation that would provide $20 million a year in federal funding for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at ground zero, demanding that co-sponsors of the bill come up with cuts to pay for the spending, his office confirmed to POLITICO.

“Our debt is our greatest national security threat, and Dr. Coburn makes no apologies for forcing Congress to make choices and avoid unnecessary borrowing,” said John Hart, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Republican. “If providing federal funding for this effort is a critical national priority, the sponsors should pay for this effort by reducing spending on lower-priority programs.

“It is also important to question why we need a $20 million earmark for a 9/11 memorial when private and patriotic Americans across the country are generously supporting this noble cause,” Hart added.

If Coburn believes the memorial is such a “noble” and “patriotic” undertaking, the more obvious question is why doesn’t he believe the government should support it with more than just words. By using the loaded term “earmark” to describe the project, his spokesman effectively lumped it together with wasteful boondoggles like the infamous bridge to nowhere.

This disparaging characterization of the 9/11 memorial (with phrases like “unnecessary borrowing”) makes it clear that Coburn does not consider it a “critical national priority,” as sponsors of the bill do.

Moreover, it’s deeply ironic that Coburn’s office cites his concern for “national security” to defend his opposition to commemorating the lives lost in the worst act of terrorism on American soil.

Political Correction points out that Coburn’s grandstanding is “substantively meaningless.” $20 million represents less than 0.001 percent of the federal budget, so contributing to the memorial would have virtually no effect on national debt. Last year Coburn also blocked a bill to provide health care and other benefits to 9/11 first responders who were sickened by dust from the attacks.

Green

Five U.S. Senators Are Perfect Koch Servants, Americans For Prosperity Reports

By Brad Johnson on Jan 11, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Five senators and 39 representatives received a perfect 100 percent score from the Koch brothers’ Astroturf group Americans For Prosperity for the first half of the 112th Congress. AFP judged Congress on their votes to protect the Koch brothers’ right-wing petrochemical empire on such issues as the repeal of President Obama’s new health care law, preempting EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget to end Medicare, ending ethanol subsidies, several Congressional Review Act resolutions of disapproval to overturn new regulations and the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills.

The Koch Five are Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ron Johnson (R-WI), who have received a combined $187,400 in campaign contributions from the Koch empire:


THE KOCH FIVE
Senator Koch Contributions
Coburn (R-OK) $56300
Crapo (R-ID) $42000
Hatch (R-UT) $26500
Rubio (R-FL) $34700
Johnson (R-WI) $27900

The Kochs were the top contributors to Ron Johnson’s successful campaign to unseat Russ Feingold in 2010. Like first-termers Rubio and Johnson, Coburn has a perfect lifetime Koch score.

Alyssa

Tom Coburn: Not a Video Games Fan

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Dec 28, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Sen. Tom Coburn is displeased that a museum that charges admission is getting federal money to preserve old video games for future study. In his annual list of wasteful government projects, he complains:

According to the grant notification, the $113,277 in federal funds will be used to ―conduct a detailed conservation survey of approximately 6,900 of the 17,000 e-games in [the museum‘s] collection to determine the current condition of both the physical artifacts and their virtual content. The study is designed to ―better position the museum to make its International Center for the History of Electronic Games collection available to visitors, researchers, and a broad public audience by providing images, videos of e-game play, and interpretation of the collection via exhibits and the Online Collections feature of its Web site. Admission to the museum costs an adult $13.

Things like this drive me crazy for two reasons. First, they don’t assume that there are new investment costs a museum might want to make, like storage equipment and facilities, that might not be covered by an admissions fee that covers operating costs. Building storage that actually preserves artifacts, rather than sticking stuff on Ikea shelves, costs money. As does cataloguing. As does bringing in researchers. As does designing exhibits. And second, just because video games are comparatively new doesn’t mean that they’re not worth studying. There’s technology there that’s applicable elsewhere. There’s interesting storytelling and visual art. And if nothing else, there’s the question of what it was that fueled a big industry and took up a lot of Americans’ time. That all sounds like a pretty reasonable use of $113,277.

Economy

GOP Sen. Coburn: My ‘Most Liberal’ Colleagues Are ‘More Intellectually Honest’ Regarding The Deficit

By Pat Garofalo on Dec 14, 2011 at 11:50 am

As Senate Republicans continue to stand against raising taxes on millionaires — even if it means the current payroll tax cut that’s benefiting every working American expires — Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) took to C-Span today to say he believes that, when it comes to discussing the deficit, his “most liberal” colleagues are “more intellectually honest,” due to their willingness to look at both spending and revenue:

All of us are going to give a little something if we’re going to get out of the hole we’re in. Everybody’s going to see something different…I think it’s better for us to take the pain that we’re going to have to take and make sure it’s meted out in the proper order than take much more severe pain. When I talk to my colleagues on the other side, and some of my closest colleagues are the most liberal, I find them more intellectually honest oftentimes, the very people they want to help, unless we change these [government programs] now are the very people who are going to get hurt if we don’t fix it.

Watch it:

Coburn is absolutely a staunch conservative with whom we disagree on most budgetary issues, but to his credit, he has consistently said that new revenue needs to be a part of any realistic deficit reduction package, acknowledging what the vast majority of his Republican colleagues won’t. He has said it’s “pretty stupid and naive” for Republicans and anti-tax zealots like Grover Norquist to think that a budget deal won’t include new revenue, accurately pointing out the depths to which government revenue has plunged in recent years.

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.

Politics

With Gingrich Surging, Coburn Still ‘Will Have Difficulty Supporting Him As President Of The United States’

By Ben Armbruster and Igor Volsky on Dec 4, 2011 at 12:05 pm

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is not a fan of Newt Gingrich. Last year, Coburn said at a town hall meeting that the former Speaker is “the last person I’d vote for president of the United States.” “His life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president,” Coburn said. And again last March, two months before Gingrich officially declared his run for the GOP nominiation for president, Coburn reiterated his anti-Gingrich sentiment, saying, “We need somebody that’s…stable.”

Now that Gingrich is surging in the polls (he leads in the latest Iowa poll) and is emerging as the GOP’s new frontrunner, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Coburn if he may have changed his mind:

WALLACE: As Speaker Gingrich takes the lead do you still have those questions about his fitness to be president?

COBURN: Chris, there is a lot of candidates out there. I am not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership. … because i found it lacking often times. … There are all types of leaders, leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people they are leading and a different standard for themselves. I just found his leadership lacking and I’m not going to go into greater detail on that and if you poll the group of people that came in to Congress in 1994, which he did a wonderful job in organizing that and he’s brilliant and has a lot of positives, but I still, I will have difficulty supporting him as President of the United States.

Watch the clip:

NEWS FLASH

Coburn: ‘Not Surprising At All’ That Personhood Was Defeated | Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) dismissed last night’s defeat of Mississippi’s personhood amendment — which defined life as beginning at fertilization and could have banned common forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization — during a Politico event this morning and admitted that the measure was poorly worded. “I think it probably wasn’t written well to accomplish what they wanted, created some doubt in terms of oral contraceptives and other contraceptive devises and I think when you raise that question and put it up, you’re going to run into some difficulties,” he said, adding, “It’s not surprising to me at all.” Watch it:

Health

Coburn Doesn’t Think He Has To Offer Coverage Alternatives To Seniors He Kicks Out Of Medicare

By Igor Volsky on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:30 am

Politico’s David Nather pressed Tom Coburn on his proposal to raise the Medicare eligibility age and wondered if the senator was at all concerned that younger seniors (those between the ages of 65 and 67) would go uninsured if the exchanges in the Affordable Care Act were also repealed. Coburn notes that his latest proposal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) assumed that the law remains enact, but said he wouldn’t mind increasing eligibility even if seniors had no clear alternative for obtaining coverage:

NATHER: You say you made a choice to assume that the Affordable Care Act survives in your legislation with Sen. Lieberman, but you don’t have to. What is your feeling if the eligibly age becomes a point of compromise on the deficit, is it necessary for Republicans to assume that at least the exchanges and guarantee issue survive?

COBURN: It doesn’t have to. The fact is we have a difficulty right now with people who are retiring — if they’re retiring before 65 or they’re retiring before 67 which we would propose eventually getting to — they have a difficulty buying an insurance product. But again, our big problem in health care is that a third of the dollars we spend in health care doesn’t help anybody.

Watch it:

Note that rather than discussing strategies for expanding coverage to those he would literally push out of Medicare, Coburn embarks on a rant about identifying waste in the system and reducing spending. One wonders if Romney — who also repeals the health law while increasing the Medicare age — would agree with this answer.

Older

Switch to Mobile