Haley Barbour To Flood-Stricken Mississippians: You’re On Your Own
In the past week, the Mississippi Delta has been hit hard by flooding in the Mississippi River. The rising water wiped out crops, forced families out of their homes, and caused river-front casinos to shut down, costing the government up to $13 million a month. The Associated Press reported that the damage in Memphis was estimated at $320 million, but that “the worst is yet to come, with the crest expected over the next few days.”
Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) –- instead of pledging to do everything possible to help the people of his state deal with the flood -– called for the federal government to declare a flooding disaster, moved his furniture out of his lake house, and told flood-stricken families to rely on their friends to get to higher ground because the state wouldn’t help:
As the water rose, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour moved furniture out of his lake house outside Vicksburg on family land that was inundated during the 1927 flood. A week ago, he urged residents to flee low-lying areas, saying that the state wouldn’t assist the evacuations and that people should help one another secure their property and get out.
With Barbour’s staunch opposition to efforts to reduce climate pollution — which is driving the extreme flooding — it’s probably a good thing for America that he took his hat out of the ring for the presidency late last month.
- Comments
- View Comments
Rep. Hunter Ignores Service Chiefs’ Advice By Demanding Their Approval For DADT Repeal
Rep. Hunter Ignores Service Chiefs’ Advice By Demanding Their Approval For DADT Repeal
Our guest bloggers from the Center for American Progress are Lawrence Korb, senior fellow, Laura Conley, research associate, and Alex Rothman, special assistant.
When the House Armed Services Committee marks up the FY 2012 defense authorization bill today, among the proposed amendments will be an effort by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to slow down the repeal of the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” law.
Training to implement the repeal of DADT, which prohibits openly gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the armed forces, is already underway. The policy will be phased out 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that repeal will not undermine military effectiveness, a decision that could come as soon as next month. Hunter’s amendment would insert another unnecessary step in this already comprehensive process, requiring that all four military service chiefs also provide certification before repeal can be implemented.
Hunter claims that the service chiefs should weigh in because they “are far more closely connected to the day-to-day realities facing each respective service than those who are currently required to sign off on the repeal,” but this argument is misleading. The Pentagon has already completed an exhaustive survey of hundreds of thousands of members of the armed forces. On the basis of this survey, a high-level study group formulated recommendations for the type of pre-repeal training currently taking place across the military services. This unprecedented effort more than satisfies Hunter’s requirement for closer examination of the day-to-day realities of the troops.
Moreover, our military leadership, including the service chiefs, has repeatedly disagreed with the need for additional certifiers. In fact, General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army until last month, has noted that such a requirement could undermine the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he noted is designated by law as “the principal provider of military advice.” In a December 2010 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) asked each of the service chiefs to weigh in on their input in the certification process:
UDALL: I move to what Secretary Gates said yesterday. He said that the certification process is a critical piece of the legislation and that he would not sign any certification until he was satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs…that we had in fact mitigated, if not eliminated, to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion, and effectiveness. I’d like… to ask each of you if Secretary Gates’s comments alleviate some, if not all, of your concerns? General Casey, perhaps I could start with you…
CASEY: I would agree with that statement, Senator. And I would also agree with what I’ve said several times here already. I’m very comfortable with my ability to get my opinions and advice to Secretary Gates and have them listened to.
ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD (Chief of Naval Operations): I agree with that statement, sir.
GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT (Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff): I agree with that statement.
GENERAL JAMES AMOS (Commandant of the Marine Corps): Senator, I absolutely do agree.
GENERAL NORTON SCHWARTZ (Chief of Staff of the Air Force): Likewise.
ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP (Commandant of the Coast Guard): I agree too, Senator.
Hunter’s effort to insert additional certification requirements is nothing more than another attempt to slow-walk the process with the hope of keeping DADT in place in perpetuity. Hunter, a Marine himself, should instead listen to Cpl. David McGuire, a 24 year old Marine who spoke with Washington Post reporter Ed O’Keefe after a DADT training session last week. McGuire reported that his unit had fervently discussed the policy change. He concluded:
It doesn’t matter what you are, whether you’re black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, as a person, you deserve the respect. As a professional and as a Marine you earn the right to wear the Eagle Globe and Anchor and can’t ask for anything more or less than that.
Defending Oil Subsidies, Rep. John Fleming Says Green Jobs Are ‘Phony’
Defending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) claimed yesterday that the government is a “profiteer” who takes gas taxes and puts the revenues into “phony green jobs”:
Let’s talk about subsidies. We hear about subsidies. Well, you know, there is a profiteer when it comes to oil. 36 to 63 cents per gallon is swept off the top. And who profits from that? The government profits from it. And what does the government do with much of that money? It puts it into so-called “alternative energy,” with so-called phony “green jobs” that we’re yet to see being produced. Wind and solar, et cetera.
Watch it:
Fleming’s attack is doubly nonsensical. Firstly, the federal gas tax revenues go into the Highway Trust Fund, effectively subsidizing gasoline consumption. The small percentage of the fund that goes to alternative transit actually helps drivers by reducing congestion and lowering demand for gasoline, keeping prices low.
Secondly, green jobs are not only real, they’re providing economic power to Louisiana itself.
“We have trained over 2000 professional students without any federal money to do so,” Stephen Shelton, executive director of the Louisiana CleanTech Network, tells ThinkProgress. “All students paid for the class with their own money. Over 400 companies have developed solar businesses that employ real green jobs workers. We started a new company in Houston and last year sold over 50,000,000 of real solar panels that were installed by real solar workers on real buildings and are producing real electricity.”
As it turns out, the only thing that’s phony is Fleming’s concern for the future of the nation’s economy.
The Presbyterian Church Approves Ordaining Gay Clergy (Who Can Enter Into Relationships Too)
The Presbyterian Church Approves Ordaining Gay Clergy (Who Can Enter Into Relationships Too)
The Twin Cities presbytery casts the deciding vote. (Photo credit: Craig Lassig/Associated Press)
This week, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) officially approved the ordination of openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and people in same-sex relationships as ministers, elders, and deacons. The General Assembly has attempted to remove the ban against noncelibate gay and lesbian clergy four times since 1997, but the same change failed just two years ago. But now, a majority vote of the church’s 173 regional presbyteries have signed on, with 19 changing their votes in recent months.
The Book of Order from the church’s constitution will now read the following:
Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.
While individual presbyteries will still be able to apply their own criteria to who they ordain, the constitution will no longer require that those ordained live “either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman” or in “chastity in singleness.”
This change is only the latest indication that mainline Christianity and anti-gay attitudes are not synonymous as they once may have been. A majority of Americans now support marriage equality, and some polls suggest that individuals might even be further along in their support than the church they belong to, such as one that showed 63% of American Catholics support marriage equality.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joins the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Episcopal Church in welcoming gay clergy and leaders. As the paradigm continues to shift (especially at the rate it is shifting), it will soon be unChristian to be anti-gay.
Pawlenty Endorses Attaching Republican Budget Gimmicks To Debt Ceiling Increase
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) traveled to Manhattan on Monday to deliver a speech to the Economic Club of New York, during which he said that House Republicans will refuse to raise the nation’s debt ceiling unless government spending is reduced by “trillions.” (At the same time, Boehner admitted that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be “irresponsible.”) Yesterday, 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty released a statement praising Boehner’s call and adding that Republicans should demand two favorite Republican budget gimmicks — a balanced budget amendment to the Constution or a cap on federal spending — in return for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling:
While President Obama continues to offer America a false choice between more debt or default, I applaud Speaker Boehner’s comments yesterday. Speaker Boehner is right that we must offset any increase in the debt ceiling with trillions of dollars of real spending cuts. We also need a mechanism, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment or real spending caps to ensure that we never get into this debt mess again. Now is the time to say ‘enough’ and force Washington to make the hard choices to fix our budget mess.
A balanced budget amendment is a cockamamie conservative solution to all that ails the federal budget, but, as former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett has clearly explained, actually implementing one is a “phony” solution that would force the government to make recessions worse by slashing spending during a downturn. That Pawlenty would risk the country’s credit worthiness over such a scheme says something about his priorities.
Pawlenty’s second demand, a cap on spending as a percentage of the overall economy, is an idea that has been gaining steam in Washington recently. But, in addition to forcing the government into debilitating cuts to Medicare and Social Security, a cap in no way ensures, as Pawlenty put it “that we never get into this debt mess again.” After all, there are two sides to the federal ledger: spending and revenue. Capping one without paying attention to the other does not result in an instantly balanced budget. If government spending is consistently capped at 20 percent of GDP, but revenue is consistently lower, the debt goes up!
Failing to raise the debt ceiling would have widespread consequences for both the U.S. and global economy, but Republicans continue to play games, asking for any number of concessions in return for an action that all responsible parties agree is necessary. Pawlenty is merely encouraging this irresponsible behavior by laying out pie-in-the-sky demands that would require, as Paul Krugman noted, “savage cuts in federal programs.”
Supreme Court Unanimously Spanked Sixth Circuit Health Care Judge For Manipulating Law To Benefit GOP
Supreme Court Unanimously Spanked Sixth Circuit Health Care Judge For Manipulating Law To Benefit GOP
Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit announced yesterday that Judges Boyce F. Martin, Jr., Jeffrey S. Sutton, and James L. Graham will hear a conservative law firm’s appeal challenging the landmark Affordable Care Act. As numerous commentators have noted, the outcome of these cases has so-far been determined more by the partisan affiliation of the judges hearing the case than by the Constitution and precedent, which unambiguously establishes that the ACA is constitutional. Sadly, Judge Sutton’s presence on this panel is likely to enhance the perception that federal judges are placing politics before the law.
In 2008, just weeks before the presidential election, the Ohio Republican Party sued the state seeking to prevent as many as 200,000 registered voters from having their votes counted. Judge Sutton wrote an opinion that siding with the state GOP.
Three days later, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Sutton in a rare two-page order. That very brief order rested largely on a 2001 decision called Alexander v. Sandoval — and the attorney who successfully convinced the Supreme Court to decide Sandoval the way it did was none other than Jeffrey Sutton.
Indeed, before Sutton became a judge, Sutton was one of the nation’s leading advocates for conservative states-rights positions and for cutting off ordinary Americans’ access to courts. Sutton devoted much of his career to preventing people with disabilities, religious minorities and even children who are illegally deprived of Medicaid coverage from holding states accountable in federal court. Sutton also served as an officer in the conservative Federalist Society’s Federalism and Separation of Powers practice group.
Yet when the State of Ohio claimed the right to conduct its own elections, Sutton not only abandoned his commitment to states-rights in order to side with the Ohio Republican Party, he defied a Supreme Court decision that he himself won before the Supreme Court. It is simply unimaginable that Sutton was unaware of the Sandoval decision when he chose to ignore it in the Ohio GOP’s lawsuit.
Hopefully, Sutton will show more loyalty to the law and less to his political party when he hears the upcoming challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The federal judiciary’s legitimacy depends on judges who follow the law even when their own personal views or political interests conflict with it, and that legitimacy cannot afford another blow like the one Sutton dealt in the Ohio Republican Party’s case.
Romney Getting Energy Advice From Bush Pollution Lobbyist Jeffrey R. Holmstead
Politico reports that Republican presidential prospect Mitt Romney is “seeking counsel” from Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a top industry lobbyist who worked to corrupt air pollution laws at the Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration:
The mating dance has begun as top Republican presidential candidates try to snare seasoned energy exports for their campaign. Mitt Romney is off to a strong start, rubbing elbows with Mike Leavitt – a former Utah governor who led the EPA during the Bush administration – and seeking counsel from Jeff Holmstead, a fellow Mormon and former top Bush EPA air pollution chief who now works on K Street with Bracewell & Giuliani.
Holmstead has long been a top pollution lawyer for the Bush family, following in the footsteps of his mentor, C. Boyden Gray:
1989: Holmstead Joins Bush I Administration. In 1989, George H.W. Bush’s counsel C. Boyden Gray hired Holmstead, who had been clerking for Douglas Ginsberg, a Reagan-era anti-regulation official and judge. As Associate Counsel to the White House, Holmstead was involved in the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
1993: During Clinton Years, Holmstead Becomes Top Pollution Lawyer. With Clinton’s inauguration in 1993, Holmstead joined the “environmental” practice of corporate law firm Latham & Watkins. Clients included the Chemical Manufacturers Association, fighting pesticide regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. Holmstead also represented the Alliance for Constructive Air Policy, a coal-fired utility front group that coordinated state-level efforts to water down smog standards.
Holmstead Joins Koch Front Group. While at Lathan & Watkins, Holmstead became an adjunct scholar for the Citizens for the Environment, a spin-off of Koch Industries’ Citizens for a Sound Economy. CSE was founded in 1984 by the Koch brothers. C. Boyden Gray, Holmstead’s former boss, became chairman of CSE in 1993.
2001: Bush II Appoints Holmstead To Head EPA Clean Air Program. As Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, Holmstead drafted a mercury rule based on verbatim language from memos by his former firm Latham & Watkins. Holmstead’s mercury rule was thrown out by the courts. [Washington Post, 1/31/04]
2007: During Obama Years, Holmstead Returns As Top Pollution Lawyer. Since 2007, Holmstead heads the environmental strategies division at Bracewell & Guiliani, and is a lobbyist for Southern Company, Duke Energy, Arch Coal, and other industrial polluters. Holmstead advised Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) for her bill to block EPA authority to reduce greenhouse pollution. [Lobbying Disclosure Database]
Although Koch has said he won’t publicly support any candidate until next year, Romney is on the petrochemical billionaire’s inside track: Romney held a “meet and greet” at David Koch’s Hamptons estate last summer, and participated in a Koch-sponsored summit this April.
(H/T: Frank O’Donnell)
Sen. Pat Toomey’s Budget Includes The Medicare Cuts Candidate Toomey Opposed
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) released a budget proposal yesterday afternoon that would lower federal spending to 18.5 percent of gross domestic product and reduce federal debt to 52 percent of GDP by 2021. The proposal, however, does not significantly reform Medicare, handing a rebuke to Republican efforts in the House to privatize the program. At a press conference unveiling the document Toomey insisted that he would vote for the House budget — offered by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) — if it came to the Senate floor, but said that his proposal focused on balancing the budget over the short-term. “The focus of this budget is to demonstrate that we can reach a balance in 10 years, in part to buy us the time for the structural reforms that these other programs will need,” he said.
Still, Toomey may be doing more to Medicare than he lets on. Republicans have stressed that the proposal would not cut the program — in fact it would increase funding thanks to a provision that would address the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) — but as The Hill’s Julian Pecquet has written, this would mean that the $500 billion in cuts from the Affordable Care Act would remain in place. The GOP has repeatedly condemned these cuts throughout the health care reform debate, despite voting for them as part of Paul Ryan’s budget. During the 2010 election, Toomey even ran ads against Democratic challenger Joe Sestak for supporting reductions to the Medicare program. A press release accompanying the ad included the following facts about Sestak’s record:
- The health care bill includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade (CBSNews.com, 03/21/10).
- The health care bill will “slice an additional $60 billion from Medicare, with the privately run program known as Medicare Advantage targeted for particularly deep cuts, bringing the total reduction in projected spending on the program to more than $500 billion over the next decade” (The Washington Post, 03/19/10).
Watch the ad:
Lifelong Democrat from Pat Toomey on Vimeo.
Toomey has been a long time supporter of entitlement reform — i.e. making cuts to the Medicare program — and has accused President Obama of failing to lead on the issue. “To make matters worse, the president’s budget increases taxes and completely ignores the drivers of the country’s deficit problem—the entitlement programs. As we approach the statutory federal debt limit, it’s unfortunate that the president wants Congress to increase it without any budget reforms,” Toomey said.
The WonkLine: May 11, 2011
The WonkLine: May 11, 2011
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 9:30 a.m. roundup of the latest public policy news. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below. You can also follow The Wonk Room on Twitter.
Climate Change
“A TransCanada pipeline that carries tar sands oil into the U.S. from Canada had to be shut down for inspection Saturday after spilling about 21,000 gallons of tar sands oil in southeastern North Dakota,” according to news reports.
In a letter to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), “the physician leaders of the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association and other health groups pointed to a broad range of peer-reviewed studies that ‘establish a clear link between air pollution and a range of serious adverse human health effects.’”
“Flooding along the Mississippi River, already swamping cities and farmland and crimping business from river barges to casinos, could cost billions.”
Economy
Bloomberg notes that Speaker Boehner (R-OH), during his speech before the Economic Club of New York on Monday, made “several assertions that are contradicted by market indicators and government reports.”
General Motors announced yesterday that it plans to “invest $2 billion in its factories in the United States to meet gradually growing demand for its products in the aftermath of its government-sponsored bankruptcy.”
“The U.S. regulator for commodities trading threatened Goldman Sachs Group Inc. with possible civil-fraud charges over the firm’s role in clearing trades for a client,” according to a Goldman disclosure form.
Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education finds that teachers working for Kaplan’s for-profit colleges were pressured to falsify attendance records and grades, to keep student aid flowing to the school.
The Southern Poverty Law Center “has filed a federal complaint against Durham County schools, alleging a pattern of discrimination against Latino students.”
The Tennessee House has advanced a bill that, while not as draconian as previously considered measures, would still strip teachers of many of their collective bargaining rights.
LGBT Equality
The U.S. State Department, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), and the Archbishop of Canterbury have all condemned Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill, which may be approved this week, but also may end up not being considered.
Air Force Major Margaret Witt has settled her DADT suit with the Pentagon; she will retire with full benefits and her discharge will be removed from her record.
A new study shows that not protecting transgender citizens from employment discrimination is costing Massachusetts millions of dollars a year.
National Security
President Obama is preparing a fresh outreach to the Muslim world in coming days, “one that will ask those in the Middle East and beyond to reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and embrace a new era of relations with the U.S.”
NATO carried out its most forceful attacks in weeks against Muammar Qaddafi’s regime in an apparent coordinated push with rebels there to force the Libyan leader from power.
A confidant and cousin to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said the ruling elite will fight to the end to maintain power against those demonstrating for political reforms.
Health Care
“Health Care for America Now (HCAN) breaks down the state of play ahead of Tuesday’s appeal of the healthcare reform law in a new column this morning at the Huffington Post.”
“As Republicans inch away from their plan to reshape the nation’s Medicare program, their equally transformative ideas for Medicaid, now largely in the shadows of the budget debate, are moving front and center.”
“House Republican freshmen wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday urging him to get Democrats to ‘stop the political rhetoric‘ and abandon “Mediscare” tactics.”
Immigration
In yesterday’s immigration speech, Obama declared meaningful immigration reform is just as much an “economic imperative” as a moral one, arguing that innovation from immigrants was crucial to job growth.
A day after President Obama’s immigration speech in Texas, Senate Democrats plan to renew the fight for the DREAM Act.
Libyan students at American universities face an uncertain future after the U.S. froze $30 billion of the Qaddafi’s government’s assets, their main source of funding, last February. Without the necessary funds to keep student status, nearly 2,000 Libyan students could eventually face deportation.
Justice
Remember when the Republican Party first proposed the individual mandate in 1991 and then widely supported it in 2008? Thankfully, the Fourth Circuit appears to agree with the GOP circa 2008 and disagree with the GOP circa 2011.
A federal judge blocked a Utah law allowing police to check the citizenship status of anyone they arrest.
The Texas legislature refuses to repeal the state’s “homosexual conduct” law, even though it was declared unconstitutional eight years ago.
Navy Rescinds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling ‘Pending Additional Legal And Policy Review’
Chief of the Navy Chaplains Rear Admiral Mark Tidd
The Pentagon had insisted that DOMA “does not limit the type of religious ceremonies a chaplain may perform in a chapel on a military installation,” stressing that the Defense Department would still “not recognize those unions as valid marriages” under DOMA. Same-sex couples would also be prohibited from receiving any of the benefits — health, housing — offered to heterosexual married couples.
Legal sources have told ThinkProgress that while DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, it does not prevent the government from providing benefits to same-sex couples. Therefore, if the law allows Navy facilities to be used for recreational purposes — like celebrating family or “personal use as deemed appropriate by the base commander” — but does not use the word marriage, DOMA would not prevents the federal government from letting couples celebrate their marriage on Navy property.
Still, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — an organization that has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center — condemned the the administration for “trying to enlist the troops in its war on DOMA.” Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and 63 members of the Republican caucus in the House drafted a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus protesting the preliminary decision and Akin offered an amendment to the defense authorization bill prohibiting the practice. Akin’s office told the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson that the Congressman “may still offer” his amendment during the House Armed Services Committee’s consideration of defense budget legislation this week. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) has also offered a separate amendment reiterating that the Defense Department must apply DOMA “in determining the meaning of or applying any ruling, policy, regulation, benefit, or benefit program.” (H/T: Lez Get Real)
REPORT: 44 Million Americans Could Lose Coverage As A Result Of GOP’s Medicaid Cuts
REPORT: 44 Million Americans Could Lose Coverage As A Result Of GOP’s Medicaid Cuts
The Kaiser Family Foundation has released a state-by-state report analyzing the impact of the GOP’s proposal to transform Medicaid into a block grant program and repeal the Affordable Care Act. The Republican budget would eliminate health reform’s expansion in Medicaid coverage and transform the program’s matching rate financing structure — under which the federal government pays 50 to 75 percent of each state’s Medicaid costs — into a block grant that would be less than projected costs. Federal spending on Medicaid would fall by $1.4 trillion from 2012 to 2021 and states will receive less federal funding:
According to the new analysis of the plan conducted by researchers at the Urban Institute working with analysts at the Foundation, total federal Medicaid spending reductions over the next decade relative to current law would range from a 26 percent drop in Washington, Vermont and Minnesota, to 41 percent declines Oregon, Georgia and Colorado and a 44 percent decrease in Florida. The analysis also finds that hospitals could see their Medicaid payments fall by as much as 38 percent, relative to current projections, in 2021. [...]
Cuts in federal spending will translate into reductions in enrollment —
“even if states were able to achieve substantial efficiencies by adopting policies to reduce the rate of growth in spending,” the report found. Kaiser examined different scenarios for state responses to reduced federal Medicaid spending and estimated 31 to 44 million Americans could lose their health insurance coverage:
The reductions would be greatest in states with large coverage expansions and smallest in states where there is less of an expansion of coverage.” Therefore, the south and mountain regions — states like Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Oregon, Louisiana and Texas (the greatest beneficiaries of expanded Medicaid coverage under the ACA ) — will now see the greatest reduction in federal funding.
Hospitals would also be affected, as cuts in state payments “are inevitable if health care spending is to be reduced.” Consequently, “[b]y 2021, hospitals would face an annual loss of Medicaid revenue of $84 billion just as the number of uninsured and the need for uncompensated care increases.
All of this is in line with previous estimates of past Medicaid block grant proposals. For instance, an analysis of Newt Gingrich’s 1995 block grant proposal concluded that 48 states would have experienced a reduction in federal dollars and more than 6 million people would have lost Medicaid coverage in 2002.
Pat Toomey Releases Intentionally Vague Plan To Increase Middle Class Taxes
Pat Toomey Releases Intentionally Vague Plan To Increase Middle Class Taxes
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) today released a budget proposal, alongside a slew of ultra-conservative senators, including Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). Toomey’s budget document, unlike the budget proposed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and passed by the House Republican caucus, does not touch Medicare or Social Security.
However, Toomey did elect to co-opt Ryan’s tax “reform” plan, which involves lowering marginal rates, consolidating brackets, and supposedly paying for it all by getting rid of loopholes and deductions. (According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Toomey envisions a top marginal tax rate of 25 percent, though he doesn’t lay out specific rates in his budget.)
In Ryan’s case, as CAP’s Michael Linden pointed out, the catch is that preserving the Bush tax regime, but cutting rates (including the top rate), and having it all come out revenue-neutral necessarily implies a big middle-class tax increase:
For Ryan to cut the top rate by nearly one-third and still keep revenue the same as it would have been under the Bush tax cuts regime, he has to raise taxes somewhere else. And though he pointedly refuses to tell us where those tax hikes will come from, we can make an educated guess.
For one thing, the basic math makes a middle class tax hike unavoidable. The rate cut at the top, of course, benefits only those in the top brackets (the richest 2 percent of Americans), but to pay for it, Ryan says he will “broaden the tax base.” Broadening the tax base means removing some tax expenditures that currently benefit the middle class – the rich too, but they’re getting a huge rate cut.
Toomey’s budget is designed in exactly the same way as Ryan’s, hiding the tax increase under pleasant sounding talk of reform. Toomey actually settles on a revenue-level of 18.5 percent of GDP, below the level of revenue raised the last time the budget was actually balanced. Since he exempts Medicare and Social Security, nearly all of Toomey’s savings comes from draconian cuts to the non-defense discretionary budget and Medicaid, which Toomey turns into a block-grant system.
Adding insult to injury, Toomey — like Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) did last night — endorses changing the corporate tax code to allow corporations to never pay taxes on overseas profits, which, as Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out, gives companies a huge incentive to both move jobs offshore and employ tax havens to hide profits earned in the U.S. Of course, this isn’t all that surprising coming from someone who thinks its “not clear” that tax cuts reduce revenue.
Republicans Protest Navy’s Decision To Allow Same-Sex Marriages On Navy Bases
Republicans Protest Navy’s Decision To Allow Same-Sex Marriages On Navy Bases
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and 63 members of the Republican caucus in the House have drafted a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus protesting the branch’s recent preliminary decision to allow gay couples to wed on navy bases in states that allow same-sex marriages. The Navy announced the possible change in an April 13th memorandum about the procedures for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
“[I]t appears that the navy is preparing and training its chaplains to defy federal statute and ignore the provisions placed within the Defense of Marriage Act,” the Republicans wrote, noting that DOMA ensures that “the federal government would recognize only the union of one man and one woman as ‘marriage’”:
We find it difficult to understand how the military is somehow exempt from abiding by federal law. not only does this document imply recognition and support of same-sex marriage in opposition to DOMA, but it also implies that the Navy will now perform these marriages so long as they do not violate state statutes. [...]
Therefore Mr. Secretary we find it unconscionable that the United States Navy, a federal entity sworn to ‘preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States’ believes it is their place alone to train and direct servicemembers to violate federal law….[W]e agree with the vast majority of the American people that the preservation of marriage is critical to society’s stability and is in the best interest of the American families.
Akin has promised to offer an amendment prohibiting the practice, but the Pentagon insists that DOMA “does not limit the type of religious ceremonies a chaplain may perform in a chapel on a military installation,” and explained that while the marriages could be performed in the five states that recognize them, the Defense Department would “not recognize those unions as valid marriages” under DOMA.
Indeed, while DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, it does prevent the government from providing benefits to same-sex couples. Therefore, if the law allows Navy facilities to be used for recreational purposes — like celebrating family or “personal use as deemed appropriate by the base commander” — but does not use the word marriage, DOMA would not prevents the federal government from letting couples celebrate their marriage on Navy property.
TN Bill Calls Two Or More Observant Muslims A ‘Sharia Organization’
TN Bill Calls Two Or More Observant Muslims A ‘Sharia Organization’
After initial objections, lawmakers in Tennessee are moving a new version (pdf) of the most expansive anti-Sharia bill yet. The legislation has already been passed by committees in each chamber. The bill’s house sponsor has even cited defense against possible retaliation terror attacks for Osama bin Laden’s death to justify its breadth.
Tennessee is one of more than fifteen states trying to push laws banning Sharia — referring to the legal code of Islam. The bill says Sharia is “inextricably linked” to its “war doctrine known as jihad.”
The February version of the Tennessee bill was spiked for specific references to a particular religion, but caveats in the new incarnation make clear that only Islamic practices are in the cross-hairs. The bill says it:
neither targets, nor incidentally prohibits or inhibits, the peaceful practice of any religion, and in particular, the practice of Islam by its adherents. Rather, this part criminalizes only the knowing provision of material support or resources…to designated sharia organizations…or to known sharia-jihad organizations with the intent of furthering their criminal behavior.
So abiding privately by Sharia (ie, being an observant Muslim) is fine. But when a Muslim starts practicing Islam with partners or in a group, they are forming a “Sharia organization”:
“Sharia organization” means any two (2) or more persons conspiring to support of acting in convert in support of, Sharia or in furtherance of the imposition of sharia…
That means, in Tennessee, a Muslim could not form a non-profit that operated a mosque, a religious charity, or any other organization that goes beyond practicing religion in solitude.
Furthermore, the standard for demonstrating adherence to Sharia is absurdly broad. The bill says subscribing to “Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing.” Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i,and Hanbali are the only schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence. So following Sunni religious rules in concert with anyone else would be illegal.
The new version of the Tennessee bill maintains the minimum 15-year sentence for knowingly providing “material support or resources to a designated sharia organization.” However, if the support causes a death, the sentence becomes life imprisonment.
The Tennessee bill’s key sponsor on the Senate side, Sen. Bill Ketron (R), who’s mulling a run for Congress, is an eccentric lawmaker, having proposed that the state look into creating its own currency in case the Fed collapses. More than a sixth of the bills he’s sponsored in the current session deal with deregulating alcoholic beverages (which incidentally are prohibited by Sharia).
The sponsor of the bill in the House, Rep. Judd Matheny (R) has sought to promote the bill using potential retaliatory attacks for the killing of Osama bin Laden. “When developed it took into account several contingencies such as this,” he said.
Rep. Hartzler Wants Military To Have Its Own DOMA To ‘Protect Family Stability’
Rep. Hartzler Wants Military To Have Its Own DOMA To ‘Protect Family Stability’
Add a fourth anti-gay amendment to the pile today. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), who has proven to be one of Congress’s biggest opponents of LGBT equality, has offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would essentially create a separate Defense of Marriage Act just for the Department of Defense. Here’s the full text of her amendment (PDF):
Congress finds that the unique conditions of military service create a heightened need to protect marital and family stability, which are promoted by the adoption of this section. In determining the meaning of or applying any ruling, policy, regulation, benefit, or benefit program of the Department of Defense applicable to members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the Department of Defense, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
If Congress truly finds that marital and family stability depend upon denying more individuals access to marriage, then Congress did not look very hard. The American Psychological Association concluded years ago that marriage supports the mental health and well-being of not only same-sex couples but also their families.
Hartzler is trying to ensure that even when same-sex couples can finally be open about their relationships, they will still be treated as second-class families in the military. If military preparedness truly benefits when the Department of Defense treats some families as superior to others, Hartzler should consider advocating for reintroducing segregation as well.
Pawlenty: Let’s Pull A Bin Laden On Qaddafi
Pawlenty: Let’s Pull A Bin Laden On Qaddafi
The past week and a half has been tough for right-wing critics of President Obama’s foreign policy. Aside from the fact that the President’s decision to get Osama bin Laden pretty much put an end to the absurd neocon mockery of “leading from behind,” when it comes to killing the world’s most wanted terrorist leader, there’s really not much substantively one can get worked up over.
So how does a neocon criticize Obama now? There’s been some torture promotion and grumbling about the White House’s decision to not release dead bin Laden photos. But a pattern appears to be emerging on the right: chatter among the neocons that getting bin Laden means that this is perhaps time for the U.S. to go out guns blazing in the Middle East. Enter Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer last night on Fox News:
KRISTOL: I really hope the Obama administration sort of takes advantage of the moment and takes advantage of the momentum and really goes strong against our enemies. We could have a good few months in the Middle East despite places like Pakistan not being solved overnight. [...]
KRAUTHAMMER: [Obama] can make an argument and I think he will that this success shows how we’re winning and we can reduce our foot print. It’s a very stark choice — use it to accelerate and to increase the pressure on the enemies, our enemies.
Watch:
So Kristol and Krauthammer suggest that killing bin Laden presents a great opportunity for the U.S. to project its military might in the region. But potential GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty took this line of thinking a bit further last weekend. Seeming to have the bin Laden raid on the mind, Pawlenty attacked Obama for not doing the same thing with Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi:
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is exploring a run for president, said he would have used U.S. forces to remove Moammar Gadhafi rather than just bomb Libya as President Obama has done.
“I would tell Gadhafi he’s got X number of days to get his affairs in order and go or we’re going to go get him,” Pawlenty said in an interview with the Tribune-Review on Friday.
Now that Obama got bin Laden, it seems all conservatives really have on the President is that he’s not killing more people.
CHART: The United States Has The Worst Income Inequality In The OECD
CHART: The United States Has The Worst Income Inequality In The OECD
Last week, my colleague Zaid Jilani pointed out that America’s income inequality is worse than that in places like Pakistan and Ethoipia and roughly equivalent to that in Uganda and the Ivory Coast. Before its revolution, Egypt’s income inequality — which played a role in sparking the uprising against former President Mubarak’s regime — was actually better than that in the U.S.
This is some dubious company. And as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted today, America has the worst income inequality amongst the 34 nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development:
This chart measures inequality after taxes and all other government benefits, showing that the U.S. is doing a miserable job dealing with inequality through government policy.
Income inequality in the U.S. is currently the worst its been since the 1920s. Just the richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of Americans combined, and the richest 10 percent of Americans control two-thirds of the country’s net worth. Currently, the top one percent of households make nearly 25 percent of the total income in the country, after they made less than 10 percent in the 1970s. Between 1980 and 2005, “more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans’ income went to the top 1 percent.”
One of the manifestations of this inequality is hedge fund managers making as much in two minutes as Navy SEALs make in a year. Yet, Republicans in Congress are still content to whine about the unfairness of returning tax rates on the wealthy to the level at which they were under President Bill Clinton. And of course they consider new tax brackets for millionaires — like those proposed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — to be entirely out of the question.
GOP Will Attempt To Undermine Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal With Amendment Opposed By Military
GOP Will Attempt To Undermine Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal With Amendment Opposed By Military
Yesterday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) announced that he would “offer an amendment to require that all four military service chiefs certify that implementation of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)’ repeal won’t impact combat readiness and effectiveness” when the House Armed Services committee marks up the defense authorization bill later this week. “The amendment mirrors legislation previously introduced by Hunter—H.R. 337, the Restore Military Readiness Act,” his office said.
Republicans have long sought to include the Service Chiefs in the certification process of repeal as a way to slow down the elimination of the policy. Under the bill signed into law by President Obama in December, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” cannot be repealed until 60 days after the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for open service. Despite recent testimony that they had not run into any major problems in training the Armed Forces for repeal, the Chiefs have generally been less sanguine about eliminating the policy than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and the GOP has exploited their opposition to try and maintain the policy. Whatever their personal positions, however, all four Chiefs have said they trusted Gates to address their concerns before eliminating the policy and warned Republicans that expanding the certification process could actually undermine the chain of command:
THUNE: Do you believe that the implementing legislation, if in fact this moves forward, should allow for the chiefs, the servicemembers, any of you, to certify? [...]
ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF CASEY: Senator, as I said to Senator Lieberman, I am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to Secretary Gates and to the Chairman that will be listened to and considered. So you could put it in there, but I don’t think it’s necessary. [...] It might take it up a notch. But believe me, I will make sure that my views are heard. The other thing. If you put that into the law, I think it undercuts the Goldwater-Nichols, that we’ve been trying to put the Chairman as the principal provider of military advice. So that’s something for the committee to consider.
THUNE. Anybody else care to comment on that?
NAVY CHIEF OF STAFF ROUGHEAD. Sir, I’m very comfortable with the access and the input that we’ve had. In fact, as the report came along I could see the changes that we were recommending. So I have no concerns whatsoever about my advice not being heard.
Watch it around 4:30:
Hunter introduced this bill back in January and the measure now has 25 co-sponsors, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA). “I think it makes it a better process,” McKeon told C-SPAN last month. “I think the way this process was rammed through, it was done politically.”
McKeon employed a far softer tone several days earlier, when speaking to the Service Chiefs testifying before his committee. “[M]y concern was more the procedure of how it was all laid out,” he said, describing his opposition to the policy. “But that’s past and now we’re moving forward,” he told them. By accepting this amendment, however, McKeon is indicating that he is far too happy to re-litigate the fights of last year.
What Romney Will Say In His Health Policy Address
What Romney Will Say In His Health Policy Address
Although he claims to have had nothing to do with it, Jonathan Cohn’s excellent defense of Massachusetts’ health reform law has seemingly compelled Mitt Romney to deliver a major policy address on health care later this week, during which the former governor will undoubtedly distance himself from his Massachusetts reforms and “lay out plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.”
Expect Romney to call for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, amplify the failures of Massachusetts reform, argue that one state’s experiences shouldn’t be transferred to the nation. He will likely put forth a proposal that deregulates insurance markets, allows insurers to circumvent consumer protection laws by selling policies across state lines and offers individuals a tax credit to purchase insurance on the open market. It will likely hedge very closely to what Romney offered in 2008:
Deregulate State Markets. Encourage states to eliminate the cumbersome insurance regulations that drive costs up and providers out of the market.
Fix The Tax Code. Level the playing field by making all health care expenses tax deductible, eliminating the special treatment afforded employer-provided health plans.
Stop The Free-Riders. Use some of the money currently spent on providing expensive “free care” for the uninsured at emergency rooms to instead help the truly needy buy private insurance.
Reform The Medical Liability System. Institute federal caps on non-economic and punitive damage awards to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and bring an end to the practice of defensive medicine.
Promote Innovation In Medicaid. Give states flexibility to spend their Medicaid dollars in whatever way they find most efficient and effective.
Bring Health Care Into The 21st Century. Improve quality and enhance transparency by introducing the same competitive forces that drive innovation in other sectors of the economy.
Note the lack of any serious solution for expanding access to the 32 million Americans who will lose health insurance coverage if Romney successfully repeals health reform. The GOP has offered to expand the state-based network of high-risk insurance pools to cover individuals who would be denied coverage in the individual market because of chronic conditions and Romney may very well back a similar solution in his new plan. But creating large risk pools of sick people does not a sustainable health solution make, as the government will have to spend billions of dollars to insure the costly sick patients who private insurers view as unprofitable,
What would work of course, is the kind of moderate approach that Romney championed as Governor of Massachusetts (and Obama adopted nationally) — establishing regulated exchanges, offering comprehensive benefits, and an individual mandate to ensure that there aren’t any “free riders” in the health care system. Unlike the theoretical plan that Romney will likely offer, that kind of solution has proven successful. It has extended coverage to almost everyone in the state, increased the percent of private companies offering health insurance to their employees and lowered the amount of money spent on uncompensated care. In fact, here is a video of Romney making his case for it.
The Affordable Care Act Had A Very Good Day Today
The Affordable Care Act Had A Very Good Day Today
Fourth Circuit Judge Diane Gribbon Motz
ThinkProgress filed this report from Richmond, Virginia.
A Fourth Circuit panel of Judges Diana Gribbon Motz, Andre Davis and James Wynn just finished hearing oral arguments in two lawsuits challenging the landmark Affordable Care Act. The first case was brought by Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and the second by Virginia’s right-wing Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. While the court will likely not release an opinion for several weeks or months in these two cases, early signs are that the Affordable Care Act had a very good day.
The Text of the Constitution Actually Matters
The ACA’s opponents challenge the provision of the ACA which requires most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay slightly more income taxes. They claim, falsely, that Congress has never before passed a law that imposes a consequence on people who don’t buy a product, and that somehow makes this law unconstitutional.
The judges, however, were clearly bothered by the fact that this supposed ban on laws compelling people to take an action has no basis in the actual text of the Constitution. As Judge Davis put it, the “Constitution does not talk about activity.” Instead, the Constitution provides that Congress may “regulate Commerce . . . among the several states,” and the very first Supreme Court decision interpreting this language made clear that this power is “plenary,” meaning that Congress may choose whatever means it wishes to regulate interstate marketplaces such as the national health care market, so long as it does not violate another textual provision of the Constitution.
The ACA’s opponents dug themselves in a hole because they were unable to cite a single word of the Constitution that supports their claim that Congress cannot pass laws that supposedly “regulate inactivity.” Liberty University’s attorney dug himself even deeper when he tried to add yet another extra-textual limit to Congress’ power. Claiming that Congress can only regulate “tangible” product and not things like health insurance which are not physical. This claim directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s opinions, and earned no sympathy from the three judges.
What Was Not Said
Cuccinelli doesn’t just claim that the ACA’s insurance coverage requirement must be struck down, he also claims — wrongly — that the entire statute must be struck down because it is not “severable” from that requirement. Significantly, however, the judges made no mention whatsoever of this claim — indeed, severabilty was not mentioned once during two hours of arguments. This is as clear a sign as any that the court will uphold the law, because the only reason to ignore the severability question entirely is if you think that it’s not going to come up because the whole law will be upheld.
Cuccinelli also has a “standing” problem. The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Constitution “prohibits” states from suing the federal government “to protect her citizens from the operation of federal statutes”—and Virginia’s lawsuit clearly tries to “protect” its citizens from the operation of a federal law. Nearly 100 percent of the arguments on Cuccinelli’s case were devoted to this standing question — a clear sign that the judges do not intend to reach the merits of his case.
Smoke and Mirrors
Ultimately, however, it’s not clear why this argument was anything other than smoke and mirrors, since it is very unlikely that the ACA’s opponents can find five votes on the Supreme Court. This reality was driven home by a few incredulous comments Judge Motz made about a case called United States v. Comstock.
Motz is considered a liberal judge, but she wrote the court of appeals decision in Comstock striking down a federal law permitting civil detention of sex offenders because the law exceeded Congress’ constitutional authority. The Supreme Court reversed, with Roberts in the majority. In other words, conservative Chief Justice Roberts takes a view of federal power that is much more expansive than the view embraced by one of the Fourth Circuit’s most liberal members.
Motz clearly felt burned by this experience. When one of the attorneys tried to explain the basis of the Court’s Comstock decision, she expressed fairly clear disagreement with the Court’s reasoning in Comstock. It also seemed that she felt burned by her experience being reversed by the Supreme Court, and spent a lot of time playing Devil’s advocate with the United States’ attorney to make sure that her understanding of the case was airtight. She even asked whether the word “regulate” in the Commerce Clause might provide a textual basis for the activity/inactivity distinction, although the Solicitor General ably deflected this concern by pointing out that there are two other provisions of the Constitution that allow the ACA to be enacted.
Ultimately, however, it is likely that Motz was merely trying to anticipate the inevitable attacks on her court’s decision when it does what it appears likely to do — uphold the ACA. Moreover, given Roberts’ vote in Comstock it is difficult to imagine that the Supreme Court will knock this law down.
RSS
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
