Obama on immigration: We can't 'demagogue' the issue

By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/10 12:24 PM ET

In a CBS interview broadcast Sunday, President Obama slammed approaches to immigration reform he said "demagogue" a "national problem."

He also defended progress in the administration's suit against Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law -- an action that states that the controversial measure flouts the federal government's imperative under the 'supremacy' clause of the constitution.
SB 1070 in its full implementation would require police to verify the citizenship of individuals they encouter if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that one is an illegal immigrant. It would also make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work in the state.

Arizona governor Jan Brewer (R) responded last Thursday to a recent injunction against portions of SB 1070 by filing an expedited appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court may ultimately resolve the case.

Speaking with "Early Show" anchor Harry Smith, Obama criticized what he sees as political opportunism in Arizona's approach.

"What we can't do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, 'I'm going to be anti-immigrant, and I'm going to try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.'"
A CNN/Opinion Research poll released Wednesday revealed that 55 percent of Americans support SB 1070. 54 percent say it will lead to discrimination of Latino Americans.
Another recent poll, limited to Arizona, shows that 65 percent support the law, while 27 percent don't.
Arizona Republicans have denounced the federal suit, saying the Justice Department is overstepping its sphere.
"Attorney General Holder speaks of the 'federal government's responsibility’ to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility?" said Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in a July 6 statement. 

Poll: Plurality expect Obama tax hike

By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/10 01:40 PM ET

Forty-four percent of voters expect their taxes to increase under the current administration, according to a Rasmussen survey released Sunday. The figure has risen since the beginning of President Obama's term, when it was at 31 percent. It was recorded at 48 percent at its peak.
Anticipation of a tax hike is higher among mainstream voters than it is within the political class, of which forty-eight percent believe taxes are good for the economy. 
In general, voters increasingly see taxes as an important political issue, trusting Republicans over Democrats 52 to 36 percent.
Rasmussen figures show that Republicans have likely voters' trust on nine out of ten key political issues, including the economy, national security and healthcare. Democrats have led the GOP on government ethics since January, when the two parties were tied. Some speculate that the charges against Reps. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) may threaten Democrats' polling advantage on the issue.
The survey out Sunday polled 1,000 likely voters on July 26 and 27. 

Cheney hoping to leave hospital this week

By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/10 02:07 PM ET

Former Vice President Dick Cheney remains in recovery at a Northern Virginia hospital Sunday. He underwent surgery in early July after a heart attack -- his fifth in 32 years.
Cheney released a statement following the latest surgery announcing that he is experiencing "increasing congestive heart failure." The July procedure implanted a pump in his heart and left him in intensive care for several weeks.
Daughter Liz Cheney appeared on "Fox News Sunday" August 1 and said that he's already planning trips for later in the year. 

Fox News to move to front-row White House briefing room seat

By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/10 04:50 PM ET

The White House Correspondents Association voted unanimously Sunday afternoon to move Fox News to the front row of the White House briefing room.

The seating change was prompted by the resignation of veteran UPI reporter Helen Thomas.

According to Ed Henry, the senior White House correspondent for CNN and member of the WHCA board, the Associated Press will move to the front-row middle seat formerly occupied by Thomas. 

Fox News will replace the AP in its former seat, also in the front row, and NPR, which lobbied for Thomas' seat along with Fox and Bloomberg News, will take Fox's former seat in the second row.
The 2010-2011 WHCA board includes representatives from USA Today, Reuters, C-SPAN, the New York Times, Politico, Time Magazine, NPR and the DC Examiner.
Thomas, a longtime critic of Israeli foreign policy, had resigned in late May after a video clip in which she said that Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" -- to Europe, the United States and other places -- surfaced on the internet.
Liberal groups had lobbied for NPR's placement in the front row over Fox, which one petition called a "right-wing propaganda outlet."

MoJo Writer Imprisoned in Iran: 365 Days is Too Long

— By Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery

| Sun Aug. 1, 2010 1:04 AM PDT

— Photo: Shane Bauer and Sarah Shourd

As we enjoy a summer weekend with friends and family, it bears remembering that, for the families and friends of Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd, and Josh Fattal, this weekend marks a milestone of misery: As of Saturday, it had been exactly one year since the three were arrested while hiking in the scenic border region between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran. Theories differ on exactly how the arrest took place: the three may have accidentally crossed the border, or they may have been snatched while inside Iraq. (Their traveling companion, Shon Meckfessel, who stayed behind that day because he had a cold, sent us a wrenching account of the last call he got from his friends.) 
This much is for sure: They were not spies for the United States, as Iran has alleged (so far without pursuing the charge in its own courts). Bauer is a talented, muckraking journalist whose most recent story for Mother Jones looked at how the US government was using construction and other contracts to pay off corrupt ex-warlords in Iraq. (He also worked with the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute, the Center for Investigative Reporting, and New America Media.) Shourd--who became engaged to Bauer while in prison in Iran--was teaching English to Iraqi kids in Damascus, where she lived with Bauer prior to their arrest. Fattal had worked at a sustainability center in Oregon and taught overseas. All of them have been held in near-isolation (Shourd is being held by herself, while the two men share a cell), without access to the Iranian lawyer their family has hired to them or the rest of the outside world. Their only contact with their families came in May, when the mothers were allowed to visit; both Shourd and Bauer have reportedly struggled with illness while in prison.
It's no surprise that the three are being used as pawns by the Iranian government—that's a trick just about every country has used. But a year is enough, especially for three people who have committed no offense except being insufficiently paranoid in exploring a tourist region world-renowned for its beauty. Nothing good can come from their languishing behind bars, whereas once released, they would likely go back to their work for truth and human rights. We hope that day comes soon.
There are vigils and protests throughout this weekend seeking the hikers' release; you can follow the Free the Hikers campaign on Twitter and Facebook. Even President Obama has weighed in. Read his statement after the jump.

Statement of President Barack Obama on the Unjust Detention of Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer, and Josh Fattal
(July 30, 2010) Tomorrow marks one year since Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer, and Josh Fattal were detained by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sarah, Shane and Josh committed absolutely no crime. When they were arrested and detained, they were hiking in the region along the border of Iran and Iraq. Yet for a full year, they have been held in prison, causing extraordinary grief and uncertainty for them, for their families, and for their loved ones.
I want to be perfectly clear: Sarah, Shane and Josh have never worked for the United States government. They are simply open-minded and adventurous young people who represent the best of America, and of the human spirit. They are teachers, artists, and advocates for social and environmental justice. They have never had any quarrel with the government of Iran, and have great respect for the Iranian people.
I call on the Iranian government to immediately release Sarah, Shane and Josh. Their unjust detention has nothing to do with the issues that continue to divide the United States and the international community from the Iranian government. This is a humanitarian imperative, as these three young people are innocent of any crime. As a signatory to multiple conventions on human rights, the government of Iran should act in line with the principles of justice, and allow Sarah, Shane and Josh to be reunited with their families. This call has been echoed by people in many countries, and is shared by all who respect human freedom and decency.
I want to particularly acknowledge the suffering and advocacy of Sarah, Shane and Josh's families. Earlier this week, I spoke with the mothers of these three young people, who have worked tirelessly for the release of their children. The Iranian government's gesture of allowing these mothers to visit their children was welcome, but I cannot imagine how painful it was for these three courageous women to return home without their children. I told these three mothers that Sarah, Shane and Josh are in my thoughts and prayers, and that the U.S. government would continue to do all that it could to secure their release.
I also spoke earlier this week with the wife of Robert Levinson, who went missing in Iran over three years ago. We continue to have no information about his welfare, and reiterate our call for the government of Iran to provide any information that it has about his whereabouts. It is time to facilitate Robert Levinson's return to the family and friends who have suffered so greatly in his absence. We continue to have him in our thoughts and prayers, and to do all that we can to reunite him with his family.
Each of these cases reminds us of the dignity that is shared by all human beings, and the necessity of justice. All Americans stand together in support of our citizens who are suffering through unjust detention abroad, and we will not rest until they are home.

Andrew Revkin on the Death of the Climate Bill

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he will not bring comprehensive climate bill before the Senate this session. A bill, which called for a cap-and-trade policy to regulate carbon emissions, was approved by the House in June 2009 but the measure lost momentum in the Senate. Is this the end of cap-and-trade? PBS Need to Know's Alison Stewart asks New York Times Dot Earth blogger Andrew Revkin to share his reporting on the subject to find out what happened and what might be next.




This podcast was produced by Need to Know for the Climate Desk collaboration.




Click here to watch an animation by Zina Saunders illustrating how Congress gambled with our future when they killed the climate bill.

When the End Comes

— By Kevin Drum

| Sun Aug. 1, 2010 1:26 PM PDT

In the New Yorker this week, Atul Gawande writes about how badly we manage end-of-life medical treatment. Toward the end of his piece he mentions a study Aetna did with hospice care. In one study, Aetna allowed people to sign up for home hospice services without giving up any of their other treatments. Result: lots of people signed up for hospice care and ended up consuming less traditional care. In the second study, more traditional rules applied: if you signed up for home hospice care you had to give up on traditional curative treatments. Result: pretty much the same.

What was going on here? The program’s leaders had the impression that they had simply given patients someone experienced and knowledgeable to talk to about their daily needs. And somehow that was enough — just talking.
The explanation strains credibility, but evidence for it has grown in recent years.

I guess maybe I'm just weird, but this explanation doesn't seem to strain credibility in the least. It's exactly what I'd expect. Obviously there are lots of different people in the world and they have lots of different dispositions, but I'd guess that there's a huge chunk of them who are basically just scared when the end comes and mostly want to understand what's happening. Having someone take the time to explain — to really explain, so that they really understand — probably goes a hell of a long way toward making them feel better. And once they understand that what they're feeling is, under the circumstances, fairly normal, a trip to the ICU doesn't really look so inviting anymore. What's so hard to believe about that?

Some Comments 

What you didn't mention about

Submitted by g. powell on Sun Aug. 1, 2010 4:17 PM PDT.

What you didn't mention about that piece is that the HCR bill originally provided funding for doctors to sit down and talk to patients about end of life issues, and that's what was characterized by the GOP as "death panels." That item was then stripped from the bill.
So a humane, common-sense-based, and money-saving measure was found to be politically unacceptable.

Agree entirely

Submitted by bleh (not verified) on Sun Aug. 1, 2010 3:50 PM PDT.

And look at the contemporary piece in the Times about the Veterans Affairs suicide hotline. As one of the staffers said, contact matters, even at the end of life.
Americans do not discuss death; they deny it. And when the time comes, they have no sophistication in the subject, so they go for the simplistic. In our case, it is the technological -- throw devices, drugs, and procedures at it. The social/psychological aspect is entirely overlooked.
It's doubly sad that this is becoming noticed only because now, after all this time, it's more profitable to think about LIMITING expensive interventions at end of life than SELLING them.

"a good death"

Submitted by elisabeth on Sun Aug. 1, 2010 4:06 PM PDT.

Throughout out US history, there has been a desire for a "good death." In the 18th and 19th centuries, the focus was on a peaceful death that would indicate that one was in a state of grace, as if the "godly" would have fewer pains than a sinner. And, of course, there should also be a deathbed testimony of one's belief. A few atheists managed to provide their own model of a good death -- including a testimony that they had not had a deathbed conversion!
Now, a hospice-mediated death has become for many a similar goal. Partly because there is a widespread belief that there will be enough pain medications available and partly, I think, because it seems to promise a scene similar to those happy deaths in victorian novels, lots of loving family members around the bed and all tension and strife forgiven and forgotten.
Well, I too, hope for an "easy" death -- but I wonder what percentage of people actually get the option of planning ahead, even to the extent of choosing hospice. Certainly, death often comes as a surprise, or corrollary to some sequence of medical events that cascade until there you are, in the situation you didn't want or expect.

"Having someone take the time

Submitted by MaynardHandley on Sun Aug. 1, 2010 5:12 PM PDT.

"Having someone take the time to explain — to really explain, so that they really understand "
"What you didn't mention about that piece is that the HCR bill originally provided funding for doctors to sit down and talk to patients about end of life issues"
There is a second efficiency point here. My suspicion is that the people Aetna has talking to patients are not doctors. I have no problem with this. Personally I want my doctors selected on the basis of intelligence, not personality --- Dr House for me rather than Marcus Welby.
But I think it's an important point because one part of the myriad insanity that is the US health system is the idea that doctors should not just know something about the human body, they should also be a patient's best friend and psychiatrist/councillor/life advisor. This is silly --- there's no reason to have doctors repeating the same speech about hospices (or many other such canned speeches) when reasonably trained non-doctors can do the job just as well, in fact better if they are specifically chosen for empathy and people skills.
I don't know EXACTLY what that part of the health care bill said, but if it required doctors to perform this role, rather than allowing for a broader range of personnel, well that's just stupid --- and it's the kind of stupidity that our system is riddled with.

Netcast 8/1 Meet The Press

Aug. 1: Mullen, Bloomberg, Greenspan, Rendell, roundtable

  [Enhanced video] Did the leak of secret Afghan war documents endanger the lives of American troops and Afghan civilians? A special interview with Admiral Mike Mullen. Then an exclusive conversation with three key voices: NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Democratic Penn. Gov. Ed Rendell. Plus, a roundtable: presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and Time’s Mark Halperin.

Read the transcript  |   Clips

Admiral Mike Mullen

Ali Al-saadi / AFP/Getty Images

Security Breach: Did the leak of secret Afghan war documents endanger the lives of American troops and Afghan civilians? The President's top military adviser thinks so and will explain why. Also, the U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan: Does this leak expose a fatal flaw in our military mission there? A special interview with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen who just returned from the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bloomberg, Greenspan, Rendell

Getty Images file; AP file; Gett

Economic Uncertainty: Why the economy still feels a lot like the recession. How will Americans get back to work? An exclusive conversation with three key voices: the Mayor of the most populous city in the U.S., New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I); the man who served as Chairman on the Federal Reserve for 19 years, Alan Greenspan; and the Governor of the state with the 6th largest economy in the U.S., Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Meet The Press Take 2

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stockman: How the GOP Destroyed the U.S. Economy

Posted By Barry Ritholtz On August 1, 2010 @ 9:45 am In Politics, Really, really bad calls, Taxes and Policy | 97 Comments

Over the years, I have described myself politically as a “Jacob Javits* Republican.” For those of you unfamiliar with the Senator from NY, Javits ^[1] was a social progressive, a fiscal conservative, “a political descendant of Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Republicanism.”
After he “retired” in 1980, the GOP took a very different turn: The emphasis on Fiscal conservatism was lost. Balanced budgets were no longer a priority. In terms of electoral politics, the embrace with the Religious Right was a deal with the devil. It married the party to a backwards combination of social regressiveness and magical thinking. Ideology trumped facts, and conflicting data and science was ignored.
In short, the party became more focused on Politics than Policy.
I bring this up as an intro to David Stockman’s brutal critique of Republican fiscal policy. Stockman was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. His NYT OpEd ^[2] — subhed: How the GOP Destroyed the US economy — perfectly summarizes the most legitimate critiques of decades of GOP economic policy.
I can sum it up thusly: Whereas the Democrats have no economic policy, the Republicans have a very bad one.
The details are what makes Stockman’s take so astonishing. Here are his most important observations, of which I find little to disagree with:

• The total US debt, including states and municipalities, will soon reach $18 trillion dollars. That is a Greece-like 120% of GDP.
• Supply Side tax cuts for the wealthy are based on “money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesiansism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.”
• Republicans abandoned the belief that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — government, trade, central banks private households and businesses.
• Once fiscal conservatism was abandoned, it led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy.
• The Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement.
• Who is to blame? Milton Friedman. In 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold.
• According to Friedman, “The free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.” What actually occurred was “impossible.” Stockman calls it “Friedman’s $8 trillion error.”
• Ideological tax-cutters are what killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.
• America’s debt explosion has resulted from the Republican Party’s embrace, three decades ago, of the insidious Supply Side doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.
• The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine.
• It was Paul Volcker who crushed inflation and enabled a solid economic rebound — not the Reagan Supply Side Tax cuts.• Republicans believed the “delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.”
• Over George W. Bush 8 years in office, non-defense appropriations gained 65%.• Fiscal year 2009 (GWB last budget): Tax-cutters reduced federal revenues to 15% of GDP — lower than they had been since the 1940s.
• The expansion of our financial sector has been vast and unproductive. Stockman blames (tho but not by name): 1) Greenspan, for flooding financial markets with freely printed money; and 2) Phil Gramm, for removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation.
• The shadow banking system grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008 (see Gramm, above).
• Trillion-dollar financial conglomerates are not free enterprises — they are wards of the state, living on virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bets.
• From 2002 to 2006, the top 1% of Americans received two-thirds of the gain in national income.

I find it fascinating that the most incisive criticism of the irresponsible GOP policies has comes from two of its former stars: Bruce Barlett ^[3] and now David Stockman. Sure, Krugman, Stiglitz, DeLong and others have railed against Bush policies for years. But it seems to take an insider’s critique to really give the debate some punch.
Its funny, but when I criticize Bush, I get accused of being a liberal Democrat (I am not). I am simply giving my honest perspective of an utterly ruinous set of irresponsible policies that did lasting damage to America. The critiques of Obama ^[4] does not generate the same sort of reaction. I suspect brain damaged partisans of the left ^[5] suffer from somewhat different cognitive deficits than brain damaged partisans of the right ^[6].
Here’s to hoping that reality-based economic policies are somewhere in our future.
>
Note: Brain damaged partisan comments will be unceremoniously deleted

>
Source:
Four Deformations of the Apocalypse ^[2]
DAVID STOCKMAN
NYT, July 31, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

Democrats and Charlie Rangel

For Democrats – who promised to drain the swamp after Republican ethics violations – the political stakes are high now that Charlie Rangel has been charged with 13 counts of violating congressional ethics. Msnbc political analyst Karen Finney and Republican strategist John Feehery discuss.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ethics panel outlines 13 charges against Rangel

Committee is currently reviewing possible plea deal, but hurdles remain 

 

updated 7/29/2010 5:34:28 PM ET    

  WASHINGTON — House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.

The allegations — which include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and to report more than $600,000 in assets on his congressional financial disclosure statements — came as lawyers for Rangel and the House ethics committee worked on a plea deal.
One was struck, people familiar with the talks said, but Republicans indicated it was too late.
The deal between the lawyers will have little meaning if the committee members don't approve it, and Republicans said at the proceeding they were insisting on going forward with a trial. The panel is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Larry Downing / Reuters

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. has been under investigation for misuse of his office for fundraising, failure to disclose income, belated payment of taxes and possible help with a tax shelter for a company whose chief executive was a major donor.

"Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter. Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial phase," said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, the senior Republican on the ethics panel
Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., has made clear that she wants the committee to be unanimous — leaving little chance for agreement without Rangel capitulating on virtually all counts.
Many Democrats had urged Rangel to settle the case to avoid the prospect of televised hearings right before November congressional elections that will determine which party controls Congress next year.

However, as Thursday's public airing of the charges drew nearer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem resigned to the case proceeding.
"The chips will have to fall where they may politically," she told reporters. Pursuing ethics cases against House members is "a serious responsibility that we have," she said.
The alleged violations of House standards of conduct also include using congressional letterhead to solicit donations for a center for public service to bear Rangel's name on the New York campus of the City College of New York.

Rangel was also accused of accepting a rent-stabilized property in Manhattan for his campaign office and initially not paying federal taxes on the Dominican Republic property.
The ethics panel said Rangel failed to report rental income on his original tax returns for 1998 through 2006 from the Dominican Republic villa. It also said he violated federal laws in addition to House ethics rules, including the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, Postal Service laws and government service codes.
The ethics charges, agreed upon after a two-year probe, were read in a public session of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics committee is formally known.
Rangel, 80, did not attend.
The session set the stage for a committee trial, expected to be held in September. Democrats had hoped to avoid such a public confrontation as November elections approach.
"We live at a time when public skepticism about the institutions in our country is very high," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the ethics committee chair.
She said it had been the panel's goal "to by our actions rebuild and earn trust by the public and our colleagues."
Republicans have been trying to turn the case into an indictment of Democratic leadership. Rangel stepped down earlier this year as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, one of the top posts in the House.
But Bonner told colleagues, "No one, regardless of their partisan stripes, should rejoice."
"It is the duty of the House to punish its members for disorderly behavior. As such, this is truly a sad day," the Alabama Republican said.
Under the tentative plea deal, it was not immediately clear how many of the 13 charges of ethical violations Rangel agreed to accept.
The ethics panel that will judge Rangel's conduct held its first meeting Thursday.
It includes eight members, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. Thus, for any deal to be accepted it must be approved by at least one Republican.
In the frantic hours leading up to the meeting, Rangel's lawyer, Leslie Kiernan, talked to attorneys for the panel about how to avoid a trial for the 40-year veteran.
Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the panel that will try Rangel, said that the Democrat had been "given the opportunity to negotiate a settlement during the investigation phase."
However, he said, that phase is now over. "We are now in the trial phase," he said.
A congressional trial could be avoided only if Rangel admitted to substantial violations, or resigned.
Punishment could range from a report criticizing his conduct to a reprimand or censure by the House, or a vote to expel him — which is highly unlikely. Any agreement would have to be approved by Rangel and ethics committee members.
"Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I haven't had a bad day since," Rangel told reporters earlier Thursday. "But today I have to reassess that statement."
"I think everyone is looking forward to getting all the facts out in the open, and people will have to react once we know what we're dealing with," said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.
Rangel is tied for fourth in House seniority. He's still vigorous at 80 years old.
He had substantial influence as Ways and Means chairman. The panel handles taxes, trade, portions of health care, Medicare and Social Security.
But he stepped down from that post in March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case, saying he should have known that corporate money paid for two trips to Caribbean conferences.
Rangel had repeatedly said he looked forward to a public discussion of the current allegations. A four-member investigating panel, with separate members from the judging subcommittee, brought the charges.
The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has warned Democrats against a rush to judgment, and any lawmaker with a significant African-American constituency must consider whether it's worth asking Rangel to quit.
However, some Democratic House members in close races may think it's more important to distance themselves from Rangel. They don't want to have to answer negative Republican ads about Pelosi's promise to wipe Congress clean of ethical misdeeds.
Two Democrats didn't wait to hear the charges.
Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio, a second-term lawmaker who received 65 percent of the vote two years ago, said Rangel needs to resign to preserve the public's trust in Congress.
Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho, a freshman who got 51 percent of the vote last time, called for resignation if the charges are proven.
Congress adjourns for its August recess after this week.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.