Adventures in cynical finger-pointing

by: desmoinesdem

Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:25:00 AM CDT

New thread on the debt ceiling sellout

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 21:59:43 PM CDT

After the jump I've posted the ludicrous White House talking points on why this deal is "a win for the economy and budget discipline." They brag about putting the U.S. "on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President," as if that's a good thing. No economist would endorse big domestic spending cuts, given the current state of the economy. The deal calls for many of those cuts to happen in 2013 or later, but unemployment is not going down in any significant way before 2013--more likely, it will increase. Some Democrats claim the president will hold the line on extending the Bush tax cuts in late 2012, but that is a sick joke. Obama has no credibility on these issues. Only two weeks ago he said he would reject a $2.4 trillion spending cut plan that did not include any tax increases. Look where he is now, serving up a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich" and thanking Republican leaders for doing their part.

House Speaker John Boehner is trying to sell the deal to the House Republican caucus with this slide show (pdf file). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hasn't committed to supporting the deal, but I assume a significant number of House Democrats will be stupid enough to go along. Any Democrat who votes for this deal deserves to lose.

I will update this post with comments from the Iowans in Congress as those become available. Recent statements from most of the Iowa delegation are here, along with details on how our representatives in the U.S. House and Senate voted on the debt ceiling proposals offered since Friday.

UPDATE: The deal passed the House easily on August 1, but all of Iowa's representatives voted against it.

Obama takes worst stance possible in debt ceiling talks

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 11:01:56 AM CDT

Congress still far from deal on 2011 spending

by: desmoinesdem

Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 14:58:50 PM CST

After the jump I've posted statements on yesterday's votes from Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin. Grassley voted for the House Republican proposal and against Inouye's amendment, while Harkin voted the opposite way.

Today Senate Democratic leaders called on House Republicans to compromise:

"The lesson that Sen. Reid was referring to, the lesson that we're all referring to, is that H.R. 1 can't pass, and if you insist on H.R. 1 we're going to be gridlocked, so give us some alternatives," [Senator Chuck Schumer] added, in reference to the package of House-passed spending cuts.

Schumer accused Republicans of intransigence and said Boehner must come forward with a new proposal for fiscal 2011 spending levels to avert a government shutdown.

"We are now asking Speaker Boehner to go talk to his 89 freshmen who seem to say they just want H.R. 1 or nothing, show them that that can't happened and come back and say 'what are you willing to put on the table,' " he said.
Schumer later corrected himself to note there are 87 Republican freshmen in the House.

House Speaker John Boehner told reporters today,

"I think it's time for them to get serious - and they're not serious, and it's time to get serious about cutting spending, and the talks are going to continue but they aren't going to get very far if they don't get serious about doing what the American people expect them to do," Boehner told reporters.

House Republicans are now working on a new three-week continuing resolution, which would cut about $6 billion in current-year spending. It needs to pass by March 18 to avoid a federal government shutdown. Four of Iowa's five House representatives voted for the last continuing resolution; Steve King rejected it "because some of ObamaCare is funded by it and the Pence amendment to block Planned Parenthood is not in."

I don't think "meritocracy" means what Steve King thinks it means

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 19:04:51 PM CST

   "I'm going to be OK with it. I'm going to be OK," King told National Journal in a 40-minute interview. Even in the wake of the "unbelievably tragic" news of the Arizona massacre, King was obviously still smarting from the subcommittee rebuff. He didn't mince words in placing the blame directly at House Speaker John Boehner. "The speaker holds the big gavel, and he decides who gets the other gavels," King said. "It makes it very clear that it's not a meritocracy." [...]

   "John Boehner isn't very aggressive on immigration," King said, noting that the GOP "Pledge to America" barely mentions immigration or border security. "It's the tiniest section," he said.

Not a meritocracy?

Did Boehner demote King to help "buddy Latham"?

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 07:15:14 AM CST

Speaking to the Des Moines Register's Thomas Beaumont Friday, King tried to put a positive spin on his new role ("I'm a member with fewer limitations than I might have had otherwise"). His other comment intrigued me:

King declined to say why he was not selected, except that [House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar] Smith likely received guidance from new House Speaker John Boehner. [...]

"There's an agenda that's true of all committees that is driven by the chairman of the overall committee, and the chairman of the overall committee takes his marching orders from the top leader," King said in an telephone interview.

King's habit of saying offensive things about immigrants gives Boehner ample reason to put him in a less visible role. Latinos are an important voting bloc in many House seats Republicans need to hold to stay in the majority. Then again, knocking King down a peg also serves Boehner's "buddy Latham" quite well. The speaker and Latham have been close friends for many years.

I expect Latham to run in the redrawn third district in 2012 against Leonard Boswell or some other Democrat. But our state's new map might create unfavorable conditions for a Republican in IA-03 (say, including Polk, Story, Marshall and Jasper counties but not Madison, Dallas or others to the west). In that case, Latham might be tempted to duke it out with King in a primary in the new IA-04. Latham represented most of northwestern Iowa during the 1990s and could move from Ames back to Franklin County if necessary. A typical GOP primary would favor "loud and proud" King over the low-profile Latham, whose voting record is a tiny bit less conservative. But now Latham has a powerful post on one of the top House committees, while King got left out in the cold.

Any relevant speculation is welcome in this thread.

Top Republican: Make Social Security recipients pay for endless war

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:28:07 PM CDT

Boehner had praise, however, for Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan and stepped-up drone attacks in Pakistan. He declined to list any benchmarks he has for measuring progress in the nine-year war, at a time of increasing violence and Obama's replacement of Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus.

Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner said. He'd favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.

"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke," Boehner said. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with people."

Boehner handed our president the opportunity to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Last year Boehner advocated a federal spending freeze, which would have made a severe recession much worse. Now this guy still doesn't understand how serious the 2008 financial crash was. President Barack Obama plans to slam Boehner's comments about financial reform at a town-hall event today.

Ideally, Obama would also bash Boehner's plans for entitlement reform. The top House Republican wants to reduce Social Security benefits for future recipients in order to keep us on a war footing indefinitely. In other words, make working Americans pay the bills for endless war.

Unfortunately, our president seems less and less committed to a timeline for ending the war in Afghanistan. David Dayen predicts, probably correctly, that the July 2011 deadline for drawing down troops in Afghanistan will disappear now that General David Petraeus has replaced General Stanley McChrystal as commander in the theater.

Obama's unlikely to go to the mat to preserve Social Security either, having just appointed Republican Alan Simpson to co-chair a deficit commission. Simpson wasn't serious about addressing the budget deficit as a U.S. senator, and his "zombie lies" about Social Security are notorious.

I never expected Obama to be a partisan warrior, but if he can't be bothered to help build the Democratic brand, could he at least protect Social Security, one of the greatest programs the Democratic Party ever created?

UPDATE: The president shouldn't count on Americans supporting endless war in Afghanistan.

A lot of Republicans owe Pelosi an apology

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 16:00:00 PM CDT

"She made this claim and it's her responsibility to either put forward evidence that they did in fact lie to her, which would be a crime, or she needs to retract her statements and apologize."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the Republican talking heads who demanded Pelosi's resignation. According to Gingrich's, Pelosi's assertion was "stunning" and "dishonest."

Representative Steve "10 Worst" King (IA-05) accused Pelosi of "actively undermining our national security" and called for suspending the speaker's security clearance:

Speaker Pelosi has accused the CIA of committing a federal crime - lying to Congress. The CIA and other American defense and intelligence agencies cannot trust Nancy Pelosi with our national secrets, let alone our national security, until this matter is resolved. If true, there has been a serious violation of federal law. If false, American national security requires a new Speaker of the House. The severity of Speaker Pelosi's accusations leaves no middle ground, and her security clearance should be suspended pending investigation.

Now we have learned that

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency's director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday. [...]

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

So not only was Congress misled, CIA staff did not even inform Panetta about the program until four months after he was sworn in. Charles Lemos is absolutely right that it's time for a special prosecutor to investigate this matter.

Republicans who trashed Pelosi in May and June owe her an apology, but like Rude Pundit, I'm not holding my breath. They've always been easygoing about Bush administration law-breaking while throwing fits about Democrats who criticized it.

Ten answers to Boehner's question on health care

by: desmoinesdem

Mon May 18, 2009 at 09:46:11 AM CDT

"We've got the greatest health care delivery system in the world," he added. "Why do we want to jeopardize that with a big government run health care system?"

Because our health care delivery system directs about 31 percent of total health spending to administrative costs.

Because our health care delivery system makes Americans more likely to go without certain medical procedures despite astronomical per capita spending on health care.

Because our health care delivery system leads to overuse of emergency rooms by insured as well as uninsured Americans.

Because our health care delivery system leaves uninsured trauma patients 50 percent more likely to die than trauma patients covered by insurance.

Because our health care delivery system causes uninsured people to be denied organ transplants on the grounds that they will lack the capacity to pay for anti-rejection medications.

Because our health care delivery system prompts insured as well as uninsured Americans to delay medical treatment for chronic illnesses.

Because our health care delivery system makes uninsured people much more likely than insured people to be diagnosed with "advanced cancers [...] that could have been detected early through proper screening."

Because our health care delivery system puts paperwork from insurance companies rather than a doctor's recommendation in charge of the timetable for cancer surgery.

Because our health care delivery system can force cancer patients to forgo radiation or chemotherapy if they lose their insurance.

Because our health care delivery system can leave insured as well as uninsured people with crushing debts after completing cancer treatment or care for a medical emergency.

Feel free to add your own answers in the comments.

UPDATE: MyDD user Trey Rentz adds that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.

How Iowans voted on the bonus tax for bailout recipients

by: desmoinesdem

Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 15:56:27 PM CDT

Here is the roll call. All three Democrats representing Iowa in the U.S. House (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack, and Leonard Boswell) voted yes on retrieving most of the taxpayer dollars being squandered on excessive Wall Street bonuses.

Steve King was among the 87 House Republicans who voted no. It would be interesting to hear his reasoning. House Republican leader John Boehner claimed to be against the bill because the excessive bonuses were to be taxed at 90 percent rather than 100 percent. Riiiight.

Tom Latham, who voted against the Wall Street bailouts last fall, was one of 85 Republicans who joined the Democratic majority in voting yes today. I am curious to know when Latham cast his vote. According to Chris Bowers, "Republicans were running 2-1 against the bill for a while, but are now changing their votes in the face of overwhelming passage."

UPDATE: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put out a press release slamming King for this vote. I've posted it after the jump.

How to turn a severe recession into a depression

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 12:47:48 PM CDT

No, seriously, House Republican leader John Boehner is now proposing a federal spending freeze. Like Josh Marshall says,

I'm not even sure it's fair to say that this is a replay of the disastrous decisions the magnified the Great Depression between 1929 and 1933. It's more a parody of it. When the crisis is a rapid and catastrophic drop off in demand, you handcuff the one force that can create demand (i.e., the federal government) in the throes of the contraction. That's insane. Levels of stimulus are a decent question. Intensifying the contraction is just insane and frankly a joke.

Paul Rosenberg has some good comments and a Rachel Maddow clip on this topic.

Republicans have long advocated dumb ideas on economic policy, like Congressman Steve King's proposal to boost investment by eliminating capital gains taxes. To state the obvious, investors are not staying away from stocks because they're worried about paying taxes on huge capital gains. On the contrary, investors fear that they will lose money because the market has not hit bottom yet and the recession will bring down more companies.

Similarly, fear of taxes on corporate profits has little to do with why businesses are not investing in production now. Business owners are not worried about finding money to pay taxes on profits. They are worried about losing money because skyrocketing unemployment reduces consumer demand for the goods or services that businesses sell.

In fairness, if we followed bad Republican advice on cutting corporate and capital gains taxes, we'd only be giving wealthy Americans tax breaks with a very small economic stimulus "bang for the buck" (see this data compiled by the chief economist for Moody's). If we followed Boehner's "new and improved" Republican advice to freeze federal spending, we would send the economy into a meltdown.

I have to wonder whether Republicans even believe in their own talking points. A spending freeze, really? That's not what George W. Bush and the Republican majority in Congress did during the previous recession.

I think they may be beating the drum on spending to scare some Democrats out of supporting Obama's budget proposal. What worries me is the scenario outlined by Open Left user Master Jack:

1. Obama submits a budget with the spending necessary to avoid a depression.

  2. Blue Dogs bitch and bleat and whine.

  3. Obama caves to the blue dogs and waters down his budget.

  4. Depression ensues.

  5. Democrats get clobbered in 2010.

  6. Liberals get blamed.

  This is what the Republicans are trying to make happen. And it wouldn't stand a prayer of working of not for their blue dog enablers.

Democrats from President Obama on down need to push back hard against the Republicans' idiotic new line.