Thursday, July 29, 2010
Republicans Go After Long-Term Care Insurance, Introduce Legislation To Repeal CLASS Act
First, some background. CLASS is a voluntary, government long-term care insurance program that will provide medical and non-medical services like dressing, bathing, and using the bathroom to adults who become severely functionally impaired. Working adults who enroll in the program will be able to receive the benefit — approximately $50 a day — after paying into the program for five years.
Long-term care proponents contend that the current system of financing long-term care is unsustainable. Americans spend more than $200 billion a year on long term care services in nursing homes, at home, or in assisted living facilities. “Medicaid is now the largest single provider of long-term care costs — it spent more than $100 billion last year, over one-third of its budget” and “paid more than 40 percent of the nation’s total long-term care bill.” Families and senior citizens (and Medicare to a lesser extent) pick up the rest of the tab, often spending down to “$2,000 in financial assets” to qualify for Medicaid coverage. By mid-century, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the nation will have to spend 16% of anticipated federal revenues on Medicaid to fund care for the baby-boom generation.
So the question becomes, how do we fix this system? How do we create a system that can both relieve the burden on families and relieve this burden on government? Republicans argue that the program will be overrun by sick people who desperately need long-term-care benefits, increase costs, and push out healthier enrollees. “Health economists call this an ‘adverse-selection death spiral,’ and it would likely end in program bankruptcy,” the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl noted in yesterday’s Washington Times, predicting that the government would have to consistently bail out the program with taxpayer dollars “to keep premiums low and pay out all benefits.”
But rather than repealing the program, as Boustany suggests, Congress should address some of its shortfalls. Back in November, I spoke with Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the Urban Institute and author of “Caring For Our Parents.” He admitted that the current CLASS Program has its pitfalls and suggested several solutions to keeping it sustainable over the long term:
- Make the program mandatory: If you have a mandatory program, you accomplish two things. The first is you of course eliminate the adverse selection problem, because everyone is in the program, and the other thing is, you are able to push down rates to level where they are pretty easily affordable for most of the population.
- Include CLASS in employer cafeteria plans: The tax deduction is not so important, but including long-term insurance insurance with other benefits raises its profile.
- Provide HHS with more money to market CLASS: The law only allows 3 percent of premiums for all admin costs. That is not enough and, in the run-up to initial sales, there are no premiums.
- Redesign premiums: In CLASS, they are fixed at the age at which you first enroll. Unless all premiums are raised (because the program is deemed insolvent) you always pay the same premium. Instead, they could adjust premiums for inflation. This would allow premiums to start very low (especially for young workers) and rise with their incomes.
As Gleckman noted just yesterday, “Fiscal conservatives such as Capretta and Riedl ought to be looking for ways to improve CLASS, rather than demanding its repeal. The millions of Americans who will need personal assistance, their families, and taxpayers would all be better off for it.” Those principles should outweigh whatever pressure Republicans are receiving from the long-term-care insurance lobby — which sees CLASS as a competitor to their private insurance product. (When in reality it may compliment the existing market place in which private insurers will be able to market supplemental “Medigap”-like coverage to CLASS beneficiaries.)
Recently Elected Dem Senators Want More ‘Passion,’ ‘Political Clarity,’ And ‘Fight’ For Green Economy
The Democrats described by Sen. Cardin as the “new class” overwhelmingly support strong green economy legislation, unlike the older generation peppered with climate peacocks. In fact, according to Politico, every one of the 12 Democrats elected in 2008would vote for cloture on comprehensive climate and energy reform. Of the ten Democrats elected in 2006, only Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) make polluter-friendly arguments against clean energy reform.“This is going to be a generational battle,” Merkley explained. “We’re going to have keep working and pushing because even our most optimistic bill has fairly weak goals for 2020. We’re going to have to be a lot more aggressive between 2020 and 2050 if we’re going to address carbon dioxide.”“We can’t give up,” Cardin said during his interview, “because the stakes are too high for our country.”UPDATEIn contrast to the above senators' frustration with Republican obstruction, other Democrats want to ensure its continuation. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI, elected in 1990), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, 1992), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE, 2000), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR, 2002), and one member of the newer classes, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MO, 2006), want to preserve the 60-vote threshold for all action in the Senate.
Cap-and-Trade is Dead; Long Live Cap-and-Trade
7.27.2010
@ 10:44 PM
I'm fairly pessimistic about the world's ability to address the global warming issue in a serious way without having first risked catastrophe; the Copenhagen summit, for instance, was a disaster. But I'm less pessimistic about the United States' ability to pass cap-and-trade legislation at some point in the next 2-6 years -- even though Senate Democrats have given up on their legislation this year and even though Democrats will probably not again enjoy the majorities they had this session for the for the foreseeable future.
Part of this is for the reason that Jonathan Bernstein points out: cap-and-trade, although it has been discussed in policy circles for years, is a relatively new part of the Democratic agenda, and major programs don't usually pass on the first try. Part of it is because it is probably now the major unfinished piece of the Democratic/Obama agenda, with financial reform and health care reform having passed. Part of it is because the issue isn't actually all that partisan: 8 Republicans voted for cap-and-trade in the House, which is obviously not a lot, but is certainly better than the goose-egg the Democrats got on health care or the stimulus and suggests that there might be less friction in an environment when obstructionism is deemed to be less politically advantageous. (This works both ways, of course: a relatively high number of Democrats in carbon-intensive states are sure to oppose the program.)
But the main reason is simply this: at some point, the country is going to have to raise revenues to fix the deficit. And cap-and-trade, if done the right way -- if permits are sold, rather than given away to the industry -- can produce quite a lot of revenues: $145 billion per year initially, the CBO estimated in 2008, with the number rising much faster than inflation as emissions targets become continually more stringent.
Most of those costs will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher energy prices -- although interestingly, the CBO analysis suggests that the public will bear less of the cost if the permits are indeed sold to produce revenue rather than given away.
But my premise is that tax increases are inevitable: it's a question of who bears those taxes and how they bear them. And at some point Congress -- which is surely headed for some massive showdowns over the budget at some point in the next several years -- might conclude that cap-and-trade is a more acceptable way to raise revenues than an omnibus tax increase. In fact, cap-and-trade actually polls rather well. That might change as the public learns more about policy and comes to grips with the fact that they're going to have to bear some of the costs personally. But other than increased taxes on the very wealthy, and some gimmicky stuff like sin taxes and windfall profits taxes that don't have all that much revenue-generating potential, it polls a lot better than other types of tax increases, and may be a more politically palatable compromise.
In the meantime, it's time for the environmental community to heed Clive Crook's adviceand think about its messaging and its science. Yes, most of the attacks on climate science are intellectually dishonest, and the Climategate scandal was much exaggerated. But I've come around to the position that it also exposed at least some real misconduct, and it certainly exposed some contempt for the public that is not as evident in most other scientific disciplines. There are real risks to the environmental community in engaging in a rhetorical arms race with the climate change denial crowd, which contains some individuals who are playing a healthy and even benevolent role in the long tradition of scientific skepticism, but is dominated by impetuous contrarians and, more dangerously, partisans who are seeking to exploit society's cognitive biases. It's time for them to reclaim the moral highground because the next crack and the cap-and-trade apple might come sooner than you would think.
Part of this is for the reason that Jonathan Bernstein points out: cap-and-trade, although it has been discussed in policy circles for years, is a relatively new part of the Democratic agenda, and major programs don't usually pass on the first try. Part of it is because it is probably now the major unfinished piece of the Democratic/Obama agenda, with financial reform and health care reform having passed. Part of it is because the issue isn't actually all that partisan: 8 Republicans voted for cap-and-trade in the House, which is obviously not a lot, but is certainly better than the goose-egg the Democrats got on health care or the stimulus and suggests that there might be less friction in an environment when obstructionism is deemed to be less politically advantageous. (This works both ways, of course: a relatively high number of Democrats in carbon-intensive states are sure to oppose the program.)
But the main reason is simply this: at some point, the country is going to have to raise revenues to fix the deficit. And cap-and-trade, if done the right way -- if permits are sold, rather than given away to the industry -- can produce quite a lot of revenues: $145 billion per year initially, the CBO estimated in 2008, with the number rising much faster than inflation as emissions targets become continually more stringent.
Most of those costs will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher energy prices -- although interestingly, the CBO analysis suggests that the public will bear less of the cost if the permits are indeed sold to produce revenue rather than given away.
But my premise is that tax increases are inevitable: it's a question of who bears those taxes and how they bear them. And at some point Congress -- which is surely headed for some massive showdowns over the budget at some point in the next several years -- might conclude that cap-and-trade is a more acceptable way to raise revenues than an omnibus tax increase. In fact, cap-and-trade actually polls rather well. That might change as the public learns more about policy and comes to grips with the fact that they're going to have to bear some of the costs personally. But other than increased taxes on the very wealthy, and some gimmicky stuff like sin taxes and windfall profits taxes that don't have all that much revenue-generating potential, it polls a lot better than other types of tax increases, and may be a more politically palatable compromise.
In the meantime, it's time for the environmental community to heed Clive Crook's adviceand think about its messaging and its science. Yes, most of the attacks on climate science are intellectually dishonest, and the Climategate scandal was much exaggerated. But I've come around to the position that it also exposed at least some real misconduct, and it certainly exposed some contempt for the public that is not as evident in most other scientific disciplines. There are real risks to the environmental community in engaging in a rhetorical arms race with the climate change denial crowd, which contains some individuals who are playing a healthy and even benevolent role in the long tradition of scientific skepticism, but is dominated by impetuous contrarians and, more dangerously, partisans who are seeking to exploit society's cognitive biases. It's time for them to reclaim the moral highground because the next crack and the cap-and-trade apple might come sooner than you would think.
It's Like Mathematically Unpossible for Republicans to Win the House, or Something
We're introducing a new scale tonight to "reward" polling and strategy memos which are vapid, disingenuous, jargony, or just plain fucking wrong. The scale is dubbed the Pennometer after former Clinton strategist Mark Penn, who was a master of the genre; it runs from 0 Penns for memos that are honest and persuasive to 5 Penns for something that could have been penned by Penn himself.Our contestant in this pilot episode is this memo, which was circulated to the Washington Post's Greg Sargent by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). It argues that it's like totally impossible for the Republicans to win the House, okay dudes?
Republicans will need to win 39 seats to take back the House. Democrats will win at least four Republican seats (the best opportunities include: LA-02, HI-01, IL-10, DE-AL, FL-25). As a result, the real number of seats Republicans will have to pick up to win a majority is at least 43. To win 43 seats, the NRCC would need to put 70 to 80 seats in play. The NRCC have simply not put that many Republicans seats in play and do not have the resources or caliber of candidates to do so.There's not really any there there. What does it mean for a seat to be "in play", for instance? Suppose it means a seat which the Republican has some tangible chance of winning. If that's the case, there are more than 70 or 80 seats "in play". In fact, there are 101 Democrat-held seats that as something other than safe by at least one of the "Big 4" forecasters (Cook, CQ, Rothenberg, Sabato). And if you include Real Clear Politics' forecasts in the mix, the total rises to 108.
That's a fairly liberal definition of "in play", but at least it's one with some concrete standard attached. By a slightly more conservative definition -- a seat is "in play" if at least three of the five forcasters noted above think it is -- the figure is 89 seats, still higher than the range that the DCCC memo suggests.
But I don't know that we should be erring on the side of conservativism in defining the number of seats that are "in play". Occasionally, in a wave election, a few seats that nobody was polling and nobody was paying attention to wind up switching sides: one instance I recall is the IA-2 district in 2006, which was won by a then-obscure political science professor Dave Loebsack, who edged out 15-term Republican incumbent Jim Leach (I was following the race intently because Leach, although a moderate Republican overall, was a leading proponent of the legislation to prohibit online poker, from which I was making a portion of my living at the time.)
The DCCC memo also argues that there's like no freaking way that the Republicans can win more than about 60 percent of the seats that happen to be "in play", however that's defined:
To win 43 seats, the NRCC would need to put 70 to 80 seats in play.I don't really know what the basis for this claim is. Would it be impossible for the Republicans to win 43 seats, for instance, if there were 69 rather than 70 in play? If you tossed a fair coin 69 times, there is only about a 3 percent chance that it would come up tails on at least 43 of those occasions. But elections to Congress aren't like that; the outcomes aren't independent of one another. If the pollsters aren't quite capturing the full magnitude of anti-Democratic sentiment, for instance, that's going to affect a lot of races, and a large fraction of the "toss-ups" could go to the Republicans.
Of course, we should be careful not to conflate the terms "in play" and "toss-up", which are not at all synonymous. Of the 108 seats "in play" seats that we described above, there are only 8 that the consensus of five forecasters thinks are more likely than not to go to the Republicans, and 27 which the consensus deems to be a toss-up. Conversely, 73 of the 108 "in play" seats are still thought to be more likely than not to hold for the Democrats.
Obviously, this is a question that begs for more systematic analysis, and we'll be rolling out our House forecasting model at some point next month. If our Senate model is any guide -- it tends to imply a more pessimistic forecast for Democrats than the qualitative forecasters like Cook do -- it might not contain good news for Team Blue. But the logic of the House forecasting model will be quite different than the Senate one, so there's really no telling.
The memo also asserts, quite confidently, that Democrats will win at least 4 seats currently held by Republicans.
Democrats will win at least four Republican seats (the best opportunities include: LA-02, HI-01, IL-10, DE-AL, FL-25).Again, this claim is dubious. There are only two Republican-held seats -- DE-AL and LA-2 -- that the consensus of forecasters think are more likely than not to go to the Democrats, but both are still highly uncertain. There are also two seats, HI-1 and IL-10, that the forecasters regard as toss-ups. Democrats certainly could win all four of the seats -- and they could win 5 GOP-held seats, or 6, or 8, if the sentiment turns out to be more anti-incumbent than anti-Democrat. But none of these seats are in the bag, and being completely shut out -- as happened to the Republicans in 2006 and the Democrats in 1994 -- is unlikely but not completely out of the question.
The second paragraph of the memo contains more further arbitrary math of the sort you see above, which I would address out of concern for flogging a dead horse. The third paragraph talks about the Tea Party potentially costing the Republicans a few opportunities where inexperienced and/or wacky candidates are nominated: I happen to agree with this point based on what we're seeing in some Senate races like Nevada and Kentucky, although bear in mind that in the macro view, the Tea Party has been a huge asset to the Republicans in the way that it facilitated a "rebranding" of conservative ideas.
***
It is, of course, an impossible task to argue that the Republicans have no chance of winning the House, something which betting markets -- and yours truly -- in fact consider to be somewhat more likely than not. Unavoidably, therefore, the memo was indeed vapid, jargony, and just plain fucking wrong in many places. However, because it largely avoided being disingenuous, we'll give it only 3.5 Penns rather than a full allotment of 5.Republican Governors Make a Movie Trailer Thing Too Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/417008/republican-governors-make-a-movie-trailer-thing-too#ixzz0v4Rx8E8V
14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.
OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF REPUBLICANS DO NOT KILL ALL OF THESE DEMOCRAT SPACE MONSTERS BEFORE THEIR MOTHERSHIP COMES! Yes, like the Democratic Governors Association, the RGA has come up with a movie trailer for this election to rile up their base. And it actually has much higher production value than the Democrats’ movie-thing? And it’s hosted on Vimeo? Oh no, they must have captured a librul and whipped him until he made them this video!
THIS IS THE BATTLE FOR FUCKING HUMANITY ITSELF, YOU GUYS.
Republican governors have never blown up an asteroid this big, but they did blow up New Jersey and Virginia, so they will give it a try. Help us, Republican governors! You’re our only hope!
And as this is a blockbuster movie, it will have a happy ending. Our nation will no longer be “governed by politicians in Washington, D.C.” after this election, you see! It will be governed by 600 Will Smiths wearing sunglasses, and they will live on the Moon. [Vimeo]
Healthcare.gov Is Your New YouPorn
The White House Blog has a lot to say about this new website, the Healthcare.gov (which has actually been online for like a couple months or something, whatever, perhaps it already had its “soft-launch” and this is its “hard-launch,” right here, on the Wonkette). Mrs. Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden even put up a neato snuff film for you to watch, in which they softly and seductively whisper the virtues of Healthcare.gov to innocent American children. I am a huge Michelle Obama fangirl (I have all the trade paperbacks AND the single issues!) but I must remind all of you that Grampa Joe Biden’s wife is also smoking hot. She is kind of like your Cindy McCain, with more Medical Training and less Glassy-Eyed Stare. Also, ha-ha, she is soon to be an Emmy-nominated actress, on the porn show for women whose husbands are deployed to Iraqistan!
Anyway, so after I watched Michelle and Jill roll out their saleswomanly charms, I tore myself away from the White House Blog for a moment (farewell for now, Arun Chaudhary!) and ventured over to this so-called “Healthcare.gov.” And boy, what a magical wonderland awaited me upon my arrival! Here is the first thing one sees when one goes to Healthcare.gov:
Ha-ha, this is not a real screenshot from that website. Alas, the real Healthcare.gov is just a bunch of boring and maybe-helpful information about Insurance Options, Prevention (of Fattie Disease, mostly) and other stuff. Go to it if you must, for a second, and then return to your Wonkette. Laughter is the best medicine! Or did you not know this, because of Nobama’s many terrible lies? [Healthcare.gov]
Judge blocks most controversial parts of Arizona immigration law
- 07/28/10 08:42 PM ET
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down key provisions of a controversial Arizona immigration law, stoking a divisive debate that hangs over this November’s congressional elections.
Democrats hailed the preliminary injunction by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton as protecting a federal responsibility, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other Republicans seized on it as an intrusion into states’ rights.
Nevertheless, Democrats hope the suit will benefit them by attracting Hispanic voters who think the law would lead to racial profiling by police.
One of the provisions struck down on Wednesday would have required police who stop individuals for other reasons to verify their citizenship if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” that the person stopped is an illegal immigrant.
The ruling also granted an injunction against a provision of the law that would force immigrants to carry proof of immigration status and make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek employment in the state.
In explaining her preliminary injunction, Bolton wrote that the law probably pre-empted federal law, the basis for the Justice Department’s argument.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” Bolton wrote.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose,” her decision read.
Republicans argue the administration’s decision to challenge the popular law will only intensify voters’ anger at the party in power.
A key part of the GOP argument is that the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have expanded the reach of the federal government with legislation on healthcare and financial reform that intrudes on state governments and private businesses. The suit against Arizona’s law plays into that argument.
“Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the federal government has failed to take responsibility,” McCain and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl said in a statement.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, predicted that her state would prevail in the fight with the government and vowed to appeal the ruling, which could land the matter in the Supreme Court.
Latino groups, many of which had urged boycotts against Arizona, rejoiced at news of the injunction.
“Not only did the judge side with the Latino community, she sided with the Constitution,” said Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza. “This is an unequivocal victory. The ruling enjoins the crux of the law that would have legitimized racial profiling.”
Hispanics were a key segment of Obama’s winning coalition in 2008, but the president’s support among that group of voters has fallen significantly since he has taken office, according to polls. If Hispanics do not turn out to the polls this fall, it could hurt candidates in states such as California, Colorado and Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) faces a tough reelection fight.
Advocates for Hispanic-Americans and key members of Congress such as Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) have voiced frustration with Obama for not doing more to push comprehensive immigration reform that would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.
“I’m glad to see the judge did enjoin what clearly is a federal responsibility, and I think it was important to do,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said on MSNBC shortly after the ruling. “I wish that the governor of Arizona and others would talk to their United States senators and say that we need that kind of comprehensive reform.”
Immigration is an issue that divides the Democratic Party, however, and some members were in no mood to celebrate the ruling.
“There are no winners here — no matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders will still not be secure,” said Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), who opposed the law.
She said the administration should focus on immigration reform instead of the Arizona law.
“The administration needs to stop pursuing this distraction and start working with us to get the border region under control and develop a national immigration strategy,” she said.
This story was originally posted at 6:13 p.m. and updated at 8:42 p.m.
Democrats hailed the preliminary injunction by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton as protecting a federal responsibility, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other Republicans seized on it as an intrusion into states’ rights.
One of the provisions struck down on Wednesday would have required police who stop individuals for other reasons to verify their citizenship if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” that the person stopped is an illegal immigrant.
The ruling also granted an injunction against a provision of the law that would force immigrants to carry proof of immigration status and make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek employment in the state.
In explaining her preliminary injunction, Bolton wrote that the law probably pre-empted federal law, the basis for the Justice Department’s argument.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” Bolton wrote.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose,” her decision read.
Republicans argue the administration’s decision to challenge the popular law will only intensify voters’ anger at the party in power.
A key part of the GOP argument is that the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have expanded the reach of the federal government with legislation on healthcare and financial reform that intrudes on state governments and private businesses. The suit against Arizona’s law plays into that argument.
“Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the federal government has failed to take responsibility,” McCain and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl said in a statement.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, predicted that her state would prevail in the fight with the government and vowed to appeal the ruling, which could land the matter in the Supreme Court.
Latino groups, many of which had urged boycotts against Arizona, rejoiced at news of the injunction.
“Not only did the judge side with the Latino community, she sided with the Constitution,” said Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza. “This is an unequivocal victory. The ruling enjoins the crux of the law that would have legitimized racial profiling.”
Hispanics were a key segment of Obama’s winning coalition in 2008, but the president’s support among that group of voters has fallen significantly since he has taken office, according to polls. If Hispanics do not turn out to the polls this fall, it could hurt candidates in states such as California, Colorado and Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) faces a tough reelection fight.
Advocates for Hispanic-Americans and key members of Congress such as Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) have voiced frustration with Obama for not doing more to push comprehensive immigration reform that would include a pathway to citizenship for the country’s illegal immigrants.
“I’m glad to see the judge did enjoin what clearly is a federal responsibility, and I think it was important to do,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said on MSNBC shortly after the ruling. “I wish that the governor of Arizona and others would talk to their United States senators and say that we need that kind of comprehensive reform.”
Immigration is an issue that divides the Democratic Party, however, and some members were in no mood to celebrate the ruling.
“There are no winners here — no matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders will still not be secure,” said Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), who opposed the law.
She said the administration should focus on immigration reform instead of the Arizona law.
“The administration needs to stop pursuing this distraction and start working with us to get the border region under control and develop a national immigration strategy,” she said.
This story was originally posted at 6:13 p.m. and updated at 8:42 p.m.
Dem senators want congressional approval for Afghan engagement
- 07/28/10 11:22 AM ET
Two Democratic senators wrote President Obama on Wednesday requesting that future agreements between the U.S. and Afghan governments be subject to Senate approval.
Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a staunch critic of the Afghan war, and Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Republican Secretary of the Navy, requested that any bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan with regard to “our long-term relationship and military operations in that country” be approved by the Senate in the form of a treaty.
”We do not believe that a long-term, open-ended presence of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan serves our national interest,” they wrote. “Most importantly, we believe that any consideration of such a prospect must be taken with the full advice and consent of the Senate.”
If such an agreement were put into the form of a treaty, two-thirds of the Senate would have approve it to have it go into effect.
The senators’ letter came one day after the House signed off on a $59 billion supplemental spending bill that included $33 billion in additional funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending it to Obama for his signature.
Skepticism of the Afghanistan war has heightened among some lawmakers since the release of 92,000 secret government documents by the organization WikiLeaks.
The documents say that Pakistani intelligence agents have assisted Islamic extremists operating in Afghanistan despite the fact their government receives anti-terror aid from the United States.
The doubts have created a divide most noticeably among Democrats. On Tuesday, 102 House Democrats voted against war funding, as opposed to 32 who voted against it last year.
Webb and Feingold noted that, as a senator, Obama supported legislation during the Bush administration that would have applied similar congressional approval to agreements between the U.S. and Iraq.
They wrote that the “failure to submit the [majority security agreement with Iraq] as a treaty ... entailed significant risks implicating our nation as a whole including operational constraints on one hand and a failure to specify an end-point for our security commitments on the other.”
Feingold voted against the supplemental funding for the troops, arguing that a hard deadline of troop withdrawal is needed.
Read the full letter here.
Reid moves closer to ending secret holds in Senate
- 07/28/10 09:58 AM ET
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added a bill to eliminate the practice of secret holds on nominees to the Senate calendar on Wednesday.
Reid added Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) legislation to do away with the longstanding Senate tradition of being able to anonymously halt a president's nominees in the Senate.
Adding the legislation to the calendar has the effect of moving the legislation closer to the point where Reid could bring it up for a vote.
If Reid does bring it up, it appears that he may have the votes to do away with the practice after Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) lobbied Senate colleagues to end it. Sixty-seven votes are needed to change Senate rules, and McCaskill, as of late June, had said she'd gathered 68.
The Wyden bill wouldn't do away with the practice of holds entirely; rather, it would require that senators publicly disclose when they have put a hold on a nominee.
Republicans have used the practice to some effect while doing their work as an opposition party. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) notoriously placed a blanket hold on 70 of President Obama's nominees, until relenting under public pressure. Democrats also used the policy aggressively against many of President George W. Bush's nominees during the past decade, as well.
Reid added Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) legislation to do away with the longstanding Senate tradition of being able to anonymously halt a president's nominees in the Senate.
Adding the legislation to the calendar has the effect of moving the legislation closer to the point where Reid could bring it up for a vote.
If Reid does bring it up, it appears that he may have the votes to do away with the practice after Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) lobbied Senate colleagues to end it. Sixty-seven votes are needed to change Senate rules, and McCaskill, as of late June, had said she'd gathered 68.
The Wyden bill wouldn't do away with the practice of holds entirely; rather, it would require that senators publicly disclose when they have put a hold on a nominee.
Republicans have used the practice to some effect while doing their work as an opposition party. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) notoriously placed a blanket hold on 70 of President Obama's nominees, until relenting under public pressure. Democrats also used the policy aggressively against many of President George W. Bush's nominees during the past decade, as well.
America's Top Mediator Heads to the Gulf
Kenneth Feinberg tackled executive pay and 9/11. Now for BP spill compensation.
| Wed Jul. 28, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Somewhere along the line, Kenneth Feinberg became the go-to mediator for the country. Most recently, he took a turn as executive pay czar [1], tapped by the Obama administration to oversee the compensation of executives at companies which received federal bailout money. He's officially done with that job at the end of this month. Then, he'll move into the job of Gulf oil fund czar full time, a role in which he'll be charged with making sure those hurt by the spill are properly compensated.
Add these two roles to an already lengthy list of high-profile mediations. After serving as special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, dispensing $7 billion to the more than 5,000 survivors and relatives of those lost in those attacks, Feinberg administrated the fund established in the wake of the April 2007 Virginia Tech shootings. In June, he was called in to help mediate disputes with Maricopa County, Ariz.'s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio [2]. All of this leads to an obvious question: Why him?
Add these two roles to an already lengthy list of high-profile mediations. After serving as special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, dispensing $7 billion to the more than 5,000 survivors and relatives of those lost in those attacks, Feinberg administrated the fund established in the wake of the April 2007 Virginia Tech shootings. In June, he was called in to help mediate disputes with Maricopa County, Ariz.'s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio [2]. All of this leads to an obvious question: Why him?
"I think there are millions of Americans that, if asked, could do just what I'm doing," Feinberg told an audience at Public Citizen on Tuesday, in one of his first public appearances since he was tapped as spill czar. He acknowledged that tackling touchy issues is a tough job. "I have experience. I think that's what people look to: Experience dealing with mass claims involving not only substance, but the emotion of people you're dealing with," he said.
He'll be handling claims with plenty of both when he moves his focus to the Gulf spill on August 1. BP has yet to make the first payment into what will be a $20 billion escrow fund that Feinberg is tasked with doling out. The company is supposed to set aside $5 billion a year for the next four years for the fund. Getting that up and running can't happen fast enough, as BP is already facing allegations [3] of cutting spill victims off from much-needed funds.
Feinberg has already been busy making stops around the Gulf region [4] in hopes of winning over residents who worry that the fund might yield less compensation than lawsuits against BP. He acknowledges that the job ahead of him is difficult, and possibly more complicated than other cases he's mediated where the liability has been more clear. In the Gulf, he'll have to deal with a litany of unknown environmental and health harms, most of which aren't going to be immediately apparent.
"One of the challenges I will have, as I did with 9/11, is calculating with a murky crystal ball what is a future claim worth," said Feinberg, citing health concerns that might manifest years later, or difficult-to-determine damages to the Gulf ecosystem. He offered a fishing example: If they determine fisherman will be out of work for a year and offer a $180,000 compensation, what happens when the fisherman argues that he might in fact be out of work for two years? "That individual will be offered $180,000, and if he or she doesn't want it, don't take it," he says.
Other challenges lie ahead. First, there's the question of what constitutes an eligible claim. "It's easy if there's a motel on the beach and no customers or no clients or guests because there's oil there. Or you're a fisherman who can't fish because of the oil," said Feinberg. "But what if you're a motel 40 miles from beach and say business is down a third because of perception of the spill, even though the oil never got to the beach? Is that a valid claim?"
The other major problem will be documentation, especially in a region where many work in an underground economy with little or no documentation of their wages. To deal with that, he said he expects to have to take "much less documentation than would otherwise be required," like letters certifying employment from ship captains rather than official tax forms or pay stubs.
He was also optimistic about holding BP accountable for reimbursing all injured parties with the $20 billion escrow fund. And, "if it's insufficient," he says, "BP has promised to honor any additional final obligations."
Even with BP footing the bill, Feinberg will have his work cut out for him in assessing short- and long-term damages.
"I'm trying to get the money out to these people," said Feinberg. "I'm the fiduciary for the people in the Gulf."
He'll be handling claims with plenty of both when he moves his focus to the Gulf spill on August 1. BP has yet to make the first payment into what will be a $20 billion escrow fund that Feinberg is tasked with doling out. The company is supposed to set aside $5 billion a year for the next four years for the fund. Getting that up and running can't happen fast enough, as BP is already facing allegations [3] of cutting spill victims off from much-needed funds.
Feinberg has already been busy making stops around the Gulf region [4] in hopes of winning over residents who worry that the fund might yield less compensation than lawsuits against BP. He acknowledges that the job ahead of him is difficult, and possibly more complicated than other cases he's mediated where the liability has been more clear. In the Gulf, he'll have to deal with a litany of unknown environmental and health harms, most of which aren't going to be immediately apparent.
"One of the challenges I will have, as I did with 9/11, is calculating with a murky crystal ball what is a future claim worth," said Feinberg, citing health concerns that might manifest years later, or difficult-to-determine damages to the Gulf ecosystem. He offered a fishing example: If they determine fisherman will be out of work for a year and offer a $180,000 compensation, what happens when the fisherman argues that he might in fact be out of work for two years? "That individual will be offered $180,000, and if he or she doesn't want it, don't take it," he says.
Other challenges lie ahead. First, there's the question of what constitutes an eligible claim. "It's easy if there's a motel on the beach and no customers or no clients or guests because there's oil there. Or you're a fisherman who can't fish because of the oil," said Feinberg. "But what if you're a motel 40 miles from beach and say business is down a third because of perception of the spill, even though the oil never got to the beach? Is that a valid claim?"
The other major problem will be documentation, especially in a region where many work in an underground economy with little or no documentation of their wages. To deal with that, he said he expects to have to take "much less documentation than would otherwise be required," like letters certifying employment from ship captains rather than official tax forms or pay stubs.
He was also optimistic about holding BP accountable for reimbursing all injured parties with the $20 billion escrow fund. And, "if it's insufficient," he says, "BP has promised to honor any additional final obligations."
Even with BP footing the bill, Feinberg will have his work cut out for him in assessing short- and long-term damages.
"I'm trying to get the money out to these people," said Feinberg. "I'm the fiduciary for the people in the Gulf."
Fear Factor: What's Keeping the President From Picking the Best Person to Protect Consumers?
Arianna Huffington
Posted: July 27, 2010 05:27 PM
On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs lauded Elizabeth Warren as "a terrific candidate" to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: "I don't think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her."
So why isn't the White House rushing to nominate her for the position? In a word: fear.
The same fear-based approach that caused the administration to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus before her name had even been uttered on Fox News is once again rearing its head in the decision-making process over Warren.
This time, it's not the ire of Glenn Beck that has Team Obama's backbone turning to mush -- it's the fear of angering the bankers by appointing a consumer advocate who might actually advocate for consumers (the same consumers who, in their role as taxpayers, have spent hundreds of billions bailing the bankers out).
According to the National Journal, the banking industry "privately grumbles that Warren would be their least favorite candidate to head the agency." Or, as Floyd Norris put it in the New York Times, "whether or not she is named to run the bureau may depend on how willing the president is to anger the banks."
Warren is far and away the best person for the position. Picking her is a no-brainer. For many high-level positions, such as a Supreme Court justice, a president will often say he's looking for the "best candidate" when, in fact, there isn't one "best candidate." But this is that rare occasion when there truly is a single best candidate. When it comes to heading the Consumer Bureau, there is Elizabeth Warren -- and there is everybody else.
Not only is she one of the country's foremost experts on bankruptcy law and the multiple ways in which banks trick and trap consumers, she's been the leading advocate for the creation of the agency, which the banking industry worked night and day to kill. In fact, it was Warren who came up with the idea for the agency in the first place, in a paper she wrote in 2007. Her entire career has been devoted to the issues the agency is being created to address.
So obvious is the choice of Warren as the inaugural head of the Consumer Bureau that nearly a dozen senators and over 60 members of the House have already publicly come out in her favor. And over 200,000 people -- i.e. consumers -- have signed a petition urging her nomination.
Here are a few examples of the support she's getting:
- Sen. Al Franken: "In my consideration, I think Elizabeth would be the best."
- Rep. Barney Frank (chair of the House committee that drafted the financial reform bill): "She's far and away the best candidate."
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: "No one in our nation could do a better job."
- Rep. Rosa DeLauro: "In my living room with many members of congress, she predicted what was going to happen several years ago. As she put it in 2007, consumers cannot buy a toaster that has a one in five chance of bursting into flames but they can enter into a mortgage that has the same one in five chance of putting them out onto the street...Professor Warren we cannot, Ma'am, do it without you."
- Sen. Jeff Merkley: "I support Elizabeth Warren...She has both the clarity of the need for an agency that has as its top mission protecting citizens against tricks, traps and scams, and she has the ability to articulate that vision. She has the leadership skills and the knowledge of the financial world. She has the full set of requirements to be an effective leader."
- Sen. Tom Udall: "Should [the president] decide to nominate her to lead the Bureau, it will be a clear sign that the Bureau will be a champion for the American consumer, will stand up to unscrupulous actors and will not shrink from...fulfilling its mission under pressure."
Then there was this argument in her favor:
She is an enormously effective advocate for reform. Probably the most effective advocate for consumer protection in the country. She has huge credibility and she played a decisive role in helping make the public case for reform and she was early on this, way ahead of everybody else.That, as it happens, was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking Sunday on ABC's This Week. So why has Geithner stopped short of endorsing Warren (and, indeed, privately argued against her)? And why, as HuffPost's Jason Linkins put it, is the White House still "hesitating, looking for all the world like it is going to veer away from tapping Warren for the sort of job she was born to do?"
Fear. You know what they say: give a man some fear, and you make him fearful for a day -- teach a man to scare himself, and you make him fearful for life. The administration has taken the lesson to heart.
And the courage-killing virus isn't confined just to one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Sen. Chris Dodd told NPR's Diane Rehm, "The question is, 'is she confirmable?' And there's a serious question about it." And today he challenged Robert Gibbs' assertion that Warren is "very confirmable": "How does he know that?" Dodd said to TPM.
Nothing fortifies your opponents like signaling your willingness to surrender. A different approach would be to do the right thing, welcome the fight, and make your case to the American people. "Are the Republicans, when we bring her name up, going to argue that she shouldn't be confirmed because she's too tough on the big banks and too tough on the financial industry?" asked Sen. Tom Harkin. "Boy, that'll get them a lot of votes in November!"
And if Senate Democrats don't have the stomach for the fight, there is a provision in the financial reform bill the president signed into law last week that allows the Treasury Secretary to name someone to head the Consumer Bureau until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee. And there is no clear deadline on how long the Secretary's appointee may serve. "The statute gives the Treasury Secretary the obligation to get it done, but doesn't tell him how to get it done," says Gail Hillebrand of the Consumers Union. "Consumers have been waiting a long time. The sooner we can get it off the ground the better."
So the administration has no excuses left for not nominating Warren -- including the threat of a Republican filibuster.
And given that her opponents, shameless though they are, can't just come out and say, "We're against her just because we're doing the banks' biding," what argument can they make? One currently being test-marketed is that because Warren is such a zealous advocate for consumers she would somehow be bad for "innovation." You know, the kind of innovation that brought us credit default swaps, teaser rates, 600 percent payday loan rates, and that led to widespread foreclosures and bankruptcies. This line of reasoning is akin to saying that we don't want our police force to be very vigilant, lest it diminish criminal innovation. Warren herself addressed this ludicrous claim in a paper in 2008:
Thanks to effective regulation, innovation in the market for physical products has led to greater safety and more consumer-friendly features. By comparison, innovation in financial products has produced incomprehensible terms and sharp practices that have left families at the mercy of those who write the contracts.Which, of course, is exactly why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the first place. If someone with Warren's skill set and perspective isn't named to head it, why even bother creating it? Just so another banking industry shill has a place to cool his heels before adding a few zeros to his salary when he quits and joins the companies he was ostensibly regulating? Given that this is the usual M.O. of how regulatory agencies in Washington work, it's all the more important to name Warren so she can start the Consumer Bureau off on the right foot -- as a true voice for the people.
So which way will Obama go? If he makes his decision on the merits, Elizabeth Warren will be the first head of the Consumer Bureau. If he makes his decision out of fear, she won't be. For guidance, he should listen carefully to these words:
All too often -- our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens -- fell silent... if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes.That was Barack Obama in May of last year, talking about the Bush administration's approach to national security in the wake of 9/11. As he finds himself in a different kind of "season of fear," will he use his insights as a guide to his decision?
Appointing Elizabeth Warren will demonstrate that the detour his administration took to Feartown with Shirley Sherrod was a lesson learned.
P.S. Check out this post by HuffPost's Social News editor Adam Clark Estes, to learn all about our new pairing with Meetup that, as Adam puts it, aims "to turn the conversations about the news on our site into face-to-face encounters."
Deal or no deal with Rep. Charlie Rangel
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is caught between a rock and a hard place. He’s scrambling to strike a deal with the House Ethics Committee over allegations that he violated some pretty basic rules. Meanwhile, whether he settles or not, the case against him will be made public tomorrow at a 1:00 p.m. hearing that will be the precursor to a September trial. Sure, Rangel would get to defend his tattered honor. But that could come at a higher price. The faint calls for him to resign his seat altogether, which haven’t gained any traction, would almost assuredly take off once a trial began.
Rangel’s fellow Democrats are already returning campaign cash he’s given them. And with the clock ticking to disclosure, some are being more blunt about what he should do. Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press does a great job deciphering House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) comments on the Rangel matter. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), told the New York Post, "I think it's best that he settle." With a trial set to run concurrently with the fall campaign and the Democrats poised to lose a ton of seats (and perhaps control of the House), I bet he does.
Like I’ve said before, Rangel has the uncanny ability to make a walk over hot coals seem like a stroll on the Mall. His bluster and defiance over the last week is a cover for the intense negotiations going on behind the scenes. Reports say Rangel is worried about his legacy. Well, it’s already tainted. Foregoing a deal the Democrats desperately want him to take runs the risk of a bad situation potentially getting worse for him.
Rangel’s fellow Democrats are already returning campaign cash he’s given them. And with the clock ticking to disclosure, some are being more blunt about what he should do. Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press does a great job deciphering House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) comments on the Rangel matter. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), told the New York Post, "I think it's best that he settle." With a trial set to run concurrently with the fall campaign and the Democrats poised to lose a ton of seats (and perhaps control of the House), I bet he does.
Like I’ve said before, Rangel has the uncanny ability to make a walk over hot coals seem like a stroll on the Mall. His bluster and defiance over the last week is a cover for the intense negotiations going on behind the scenes. Reports say Rangel is worried about his legacy. Well, it’s already tainted. Foregoing a deal the Democrats desperately want him to take runs the risk of a bad situation potentially getting worse for him.
By Jonathan Capehart | July 28, 2010; 11:08 AM ET
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)