By Ryan Koronowski, ACP Research Director and Josh Nelson, ACP New Media Director
This week, CNN’s “Parker Spitzer” spoke with Tim Phillips, the head of the front group Americans for Prosperity that’s funded by the oil company Koch Industries. Mr. Phillips was up to his old tricks. While acknowledging that he is not a scientist, he said that to believe climate science isn’t “far from settled” would be “arrogance.”
Of course, his claim is the furthest thing from the truth. This was simply another attempt by an oil industry-funded, climate denial mouthpiece to try and convince Americans that climate change isn’t happening. But this particularly insidious brand of snake oil has no basis in reality. In fact, there’s overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening now and is caused by pollution from fossil fuels.
Americans for Prosperity has a seemingly harmless-sounding name, but they are heavily funded by foundations run by David Koch, co-owner of the oil refinery and pipeline company Koch Industries.
While you might not have heard of Koch Industries before they won Repower America’s Snake Oil Award for Public Deception, the Koch brothers are doing everything they can to mislead the public and influence our political leaders. And it doesn’t stop with backing third party smear machines; Koch has also spent nearly $17 million lobbying Congress in the past two years.
It’s not over yet. In January, Koch Industries executives and high finance head honchos will be meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society,” which evidently includes “climate change alarmism.” A similar meeting this year featured a presentation on voter mobilization by none other than Tim Phillips.
The fight to solve climate change is about more than just a back-and-forth debate about scientific issues that have long been settled. Instead, we should acknowledge that facts don’t have a political party, and get to work building a clean energy economy that can create millions of jobs for Americans.
Tim Phillips may claim not to believe in climate change, but as Upton Sinclair once wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Thanks to the Wonk Room over at Think Progress for first catching this story.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Nov. 22, 2010, at 8:06 AM ET In case you haven't heard, there's a big holiday coming up. No, I don't mean Thanksgiving. I mean the day before it. Wednesday is the busiest air travel day of the year, and a horde of paranoid zealots—techno-libertarians, Tea Partiers, rabble-rousers, Internet activists, and congressional demagogues—has decided to make it even worse. They're calling it "National Opt-Out Day." Rather than endure an electronic scan of your body at the security gate, they want you to "opt out" and force the Transportation Security Administration to physically inspect you. Their hero is John Tyner, the man who recorded himself a week ago as he warned a TSA officer not to "touch my junk."
Ignore these imbeciles. Their plan would clog security lines and ruin your holiday for no good reason. They don't understand the importance of the electronic scans. They're wrong about the scanners' safety. And from the standpoint of dignity, their advice is insane. If you opt out of the scan, you'll get a pat-down instead. You'll trade a fast, invisible, intangible, privacy-protected machine inspection for an unpleasant, extended grope. In effect, you'll be telling TSA to touch your junk.
Here's what one of Opt-Out Day's instigators, an outfit calling itself We Won't Fly, is telling the public:
If you have to fly on November 24, opt out of the virtual strip search body scanners for your own health and privacy. Say "I opt out!" Tell your friends, family and community so they know how to protect themselves, too. Be prepared for delays and intimate TSA groping. At least you will avoid the risk of cornea damage and skin, breast and testicular cancer and the humiliation of a virtual strip search.
It's hard to know where to start with this idiocy. The body scanners aren't dangerous. Their safety has been certified by the Food and Drug Administration, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, and other scientific reviewers. You get more radiation from being at flying altitude for two minutes than you do from a scan.
Second, a "virtual strip search" is nothing like a real one. According to We Won't Fly, the fact that airport scans "are automated and mechanical in no way changes the fact that when a government agent looks beneath your clothing you are being strip searched." Are you kidding? It changes everything. In an airport scan, the only person who sees your naked body (it looks like this on the viewing screen) is an officer in a room away from where you're standing. He or she never sees your face and has no idea whose body is on the screen. Conversely, the officer who's standing in front of you, awaiting word that you've passed the scan, never sees you naked. This separation of your identity from your nude image is what protects your privacy. In a pat-down, there's no separation. The same officer who looks you in the eye slides his hand up your groin.
Did I mention the cost in time? A scanner can clear you in 10 seconds. A pat-down can take four minutes—or longer, if you accept TSA's offer of a private screening room. Imagine how long you'll have to wait at the airport Wednesday if half the people in front of you refuse to be scanned. TSA "won't have the manpower to reach into everyone's crotch," exults a WWF co-founder. The group urges followers to "jam TSA checkpoints by opting out" and "slowing down their security theater."
And for what? If Opt-Out Day grinds air travel to a halt and forces the government to withdraw the scanners, WWF's next goal is to abolish TSA. It claims the agency isn't "agile" enough to match al-Qaida. That's hilarious. Naked scanners are exactly the kind of agile response al-Qaida requires. Last year's underwear bomber showed that metal detectors can't handle non-metallic explosives concealed on the passenger. Hence the scanners.
Tyner proves the point. Read his account of how he plotted to evade the scanners:
I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines … Not wanting to go through them, I had done my research on the TSA's website prior to traveling to see if [San Diego's airport] had them. From all indications, they did not. … After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector … I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so."
In a follow-up post, Tyner writes, "I tried to avoid the … scanner machine by getting in the metal detector line. I was actually relieved when the person in front of me was pulled out of line."
Those words could just as easily have been written by the underwear bomber. Research the airports, look for the weak link, and pray that you don't have to go through a scanner that can see what's between your legs. So, yes, Mr. Tyner. Before you board my plane, I want the guys from TSA to look at your junk. And if you refuse, I want them to touch it. Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Human Nature's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:
Latest Twitter Updates
After all the blah blah, I'm still waiting for TSA administrator Pistole to explain what an "enhanced" pat-down entails. http://j.mp/dlyA4Tabout an hour ago
Microsoft yields to the unpredictable creativity of the collective human mind. http://j.mp/d0KTB5 This, not R&D, is the future of innovationabout 4 hours ago
General on DADT, war & sex: "nothing more intimate than young men...sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death." http://j.mp/djDTlH11 days ago
Having lost House seats in districts Obama won, Dems now brag that the GOP in 2012 must defend those districts. Pathetic. http://j.mp/d9ODvI12 days ago
Groped by a TSA agent or zapped by harmful radiation?
That may well be the real airport screening debate. But in the past weeks, there's been an uproar in the media only over the new intrusive examinations being used at airport screening by the Transportation Security Administration. And this past weekend, the Obama administration officials sent signals that these policies could be eased. On "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she wouldn't submit to such a pat-down: "I mean, who would?" Yet on CNN, John Pistole, the TSA administrator, said, "No, we are not changing the policies because of that, because of the risks that have been identified because of the current threat stream." Yet hours later, he throttled back on the rhetoric, telling Politico that screening procedures "will be adapted as conditions warrant" to make them "as minimally invasive as possible, while still providing the security that the American people want and deserve." And during the NATO summit in Lisbon on Saturday, President Barack Obama said, "You have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety. And you also have to think through, are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive?"
This all suggests the administration may be worrying about a popular backlash against the more intrusive pat-downs that began three weeks ago. This controversy has been fueled by such pat-down horror stories as the one involving a 61-year-old fellow who survived bladder cancer and who uses a ursotomy bag. On his way to Orlando, Florida, he was searched by a TSA agent who hit the bag, causing it to break open. Urine spilled and dribbled down his shirt to his pants, and ran down his leg. (This episode raises the question: Do we really need to have pee-soaked passengers in order to keep terrorists at bay?)
The fuss over pat-downs seems to have displaced the fuss over the full-body scanner images that can show more than TSA agents really need to know about passengers. (Travelers declining the full-body scans are being subjected to the new, too-close-for-comfort physical exams.) Yet the true worry may not be an invasion of privacy but chromosome damage and cancer.
Last April, four scientists at the University of California-San Francisco sent John Holdren, Obama's top science adviser, a letter declaring their "concerns about the potential serious health risks." The four scientists -- a biochemist, a cancer specialist and two X-ray experts -- noted, "This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary
screening step for all air travel passengers." They maintained that that the dose of radiation delivered by these machines would appear to be safe "if it were distributed" throughout the traveler's entire body. But, they contended, because most of the dose "is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue ... the dose to the skin may be dangerously high." This quartet of scientists said that "real independent safety data" about these scanners "do not exist." They insisted that the devices could cause breast cancer in a "fraction of the female population," damage white blood cells, induce cancer within HIV and cancer patients, and cause "mutagenic effects" -- that is, chromosome damage that could lead to cancer, particularly among older travelers. They also asserted that men are "at risk for sperm mutagenesis." They added, "The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated," and they suggested that pregnant women could be at risk. The four asked, "have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?" And they raised the possibility of a glitch in the scanner's hardware or software causing "an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin."
In other words, oh boy, there's a lot to worry about:
There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.
They called on Holdren to set up an impartial panel of experts to study the potential health consequences of the scanners.
By the way, there are now almost 400 body scanners deployed at 68 airports. By the end of 2011, that number is supposed to reach about 1,000 machines, with 2 out of 3 passengers being screened by these devices.
The White House did not set up that independent scientific panel. It took Holdren three months to reply to the scientists. In July, he wrote them a short note, asserting that "the issues you have raised have been studied extensively by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ... for many years, as well as by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)." Yet he didn't refer to any particular studies or tests. He noted that FDA and DHS representatives would "craft a detailed and clear description of the evidence for the safety of the devices in question, addressing all of the points raised in your letter."
On Nov. 8, the White House posted that FDA/DHS response. These agencies essentially said, no problem. They claimed that "the issue had been studied extensively for many years" by federal agencies and that the dose to the skin is "at least 89,000 times lower than the annual limit." But John Sedat, who leads the four UCSF scietnists, says this response is in "error" and based on "many misconceptions." Sedat and the three other scientists are preparing a response to the response.
But this matter deserves more than a ping-pong match. Instead, the National Academy of Sciences or another independent body ought to convene the inquiry the UCSF scientists requested. By the way, the UCSF scientists are not alone. David Brenner, the head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, who helped write the guidelines for security scanners, says he wouldn't have approved those rules had he known the scanners would be used on almost every air traveler (though he doesn't agree with the UCSF scientists' claim that that these machines could cause cancer, prompt sperm cell mutations, and harm fetuses). Earlier this year, Brenner said: "There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It's really unprecedented in the radiation world."
In the meantime, the TSA is marching ahead with its plan to install full-body scanners in airports across the country. And if you're asked to enter one, what's a person who can't navigate the periodic table to do? Do you trust your government when it says there's nothing to fret about? Or is it prudent to take heed of this not-yet-resolved dispute between the UCSF scientists and the agencies and decline politely -- and face a prodding in the privates?
It's a no-brainer: I'd rather accept a demeaning squeeze than a dose of radiation -- before being allowed to proceed to friendly skies. In either case, I'll be thinking: The terrorists won.
>> joining us from washington, tsa administrator john pistole. sir, thank you very much for being on the show this morning.
>> you're welcome. that's quite a lead-in.
>> yes, it is: it's certainly been the source of a lot of joking. i'll start off with a dead serious question for you. these new rules or guidelines have been put in place for the past couple weeks. have they proven effective? have they found anything? are they worth snit.
>> let me start with the advanced imaging technology machines, we can go back several years with those. we have found all types of things that we would not have picked up through the walk-through metal dedeck tors. the whole purpose of the enhanced pat-downs is to address the challenges we see from the christmas day bomber last year, using a nonmetallic device which would not have been picked up, a bomb that would have killed all the people on the aircraft, of course. so the enhanced pat-downs are designed to identify and disrupt that type of plot. so that's the challenge. how do we best balance the security that everybody wants, everybody wants to get home for the holidays safely.
>> this has become the butt of jokes on "saturday night live." and you went right to the body scanner machines. there are separate issues with that. in terms of the enhanced pat-downs, first of all rnlgs was there a problem with the way we transitioned into them that has led to this conversation getting out of control? then it's like to know if they are working in any way?
>> the two issues there that you addressed is how could we have best rolled this out f you will. we did a couple of pilot projects if you will in two airports, las vegas and boston. the concern was, if we advertise, if you will, that we're doing this in two airports, that meant we had 451 airports around the country where we were not doing that. terrorist whose provide may be ready to do something, by the way, we're not thoroughly screening people for the nonmetallic bombs such as we saw on 12/25. the other part, yes, we have found some things, whether contraband -- typically drugs, of course, whether in the underwear or wherever it might be. that's been an age-old issue.
>> mike barnicle?
>> mr. pistole, mark happen pri halperin is here, some people are reluctant to go through the body scanners because of perceived dangers with radiation, what are the dangers, if any, with radiation?
>> the scientific study that we commissioned before we ever rolled these machines out showed there's complete think safe amount of radiation emitted. that's by national institute of standard technology, fda and john hopkins. we rely on those. we want to work with industry to make sure we have the safest machines available. that is the bottom line. they are safe for everyday use.
>> sir, let me ask you two questions about the two pieces of. this you say the machines are safe for use. would you be willing to go through it four times a week?
>> yes. i travel quite a bit. guy through security screening every time. i have full confidence they're safe and secure.
>> have you been subjected to the full pat-down?
>> yes, i have.
>> and how did you feel about it?
>> well, i felt it was thorough. i felt it was doing exactly what it's designed to do to try to detect somebody is trying to kill hundreds of people on an airplane.
>> okay. guys, what is he supposed to do, seriously? what is he supposed to do given the fact that people are hiding bombs in their underwear or anywhere else?
>> that's what i would like to ask him. mr. pistole, let me ask you this, what do you think it says about us as a culture, as a nation, where we are all up in arms over the past week or so about getting frisked at airports and potential radiation from these machines much more so than we are about the fact that we're engaged in two wars in afghanistan and have a 10.5%, 15% real unemployment rate in this country? what does it say about us?
>> the threats are real. we're facing a determined en any who has proven adept at building, concealing, designing bombs that are going to kill hundreds of people on one aircraft. think eve also done the same on cargo aircraft to effect our economy. so that's the bottom line for me. how can we work in partnership with the american people to provide the safest travel possible and especially this week so people can get home to enjoy time with loved ones.
>> mr. pistole, i was in the airport and people in line with me were saying this can't go on. is there a better way? what are other options? what else have you looked at?
>> i think the key is to look at this as one player as security that we hope to be and are informed by intelligence from around the world such as we saw with the saudi intelligence about the cargo plot. every morning i receive an intelligence brief that helps inform the judgments and actions. the idea is to have as much intelligence as possible about those who may pose a risk before they ever get to the airport. absent that, we try to apply common sense which has not been heard in discussions in the last few weeks. we exempt chish 12 and under because we don't assess they pose a risk to aviation security. we obviously are trying to work through the best intelligence, how that can inform our actions n. final analysis, reasonable people can disagree as to what's proper for them as to privacy and security. everybody wants to make sure everybody else on that flight you're on has been properly screened just as they want to make sure you and i have been properly scleen.
>> tsa administrator john pistole, thanks very much. we appreciate your coming on the show this morning.
Congressman Grayson (D-Fla.) gives more ideas of what the rich can do with the extra $83,000 they will get each year from the Republican's plan for tax cuts. But Rep. Grayson prefers to vote for jobs.
Nov 17, 20010
Congressman Grayson (D-Fla.) gives some ideas of what the rich can do with the extra $83,000 they will get each year from the Republican's plan for tax cuts. But Rep. Grayson has a better idea.
[Enhanced video] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joins us from the NATO Summit in Portugal. Then Gov. Bobby Jindal joins us to discuss the future of the Republican Party, and his new book "Leadership and Crisis". Plus, a roundtable: Robert Draper, who takes us "Inside Sarah Palin's Inner Circle" in New York Times Magazine, Paul Gigot, Rep.-elect Allen West, R-Fla., and Richard Wolffe.
The Associated Press reports that TSA administrator John Pistole hassoftened his position following his CNN appearance earlier Sunday, in which he said there would be no change in the agency's passenger screening policy.
The head of the federal agency responsible for airport security says screening procedures should be as minimally invasive as possible, shifting his position that there would be no change in controversial scans and pat-downs.
The head of the Transportation Security Administration, John Pistole, said in a statement Sunday afternoon that the agency is constantly evaluating and adapting security measures and there is a continual process of refinement and adjustment to ensure air safety.
CNN: STATE OF THE UNION - TSA chief: No change to pat-down policy
Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole acknowledged that new TSA screening procedures are "invasive" and "uncomfortable," but he denied that the agency is considering changing its policy. "No," Pistole said. "Not going to change."
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, said he is "encouraged" by the results of last week's NATO summit in Lisbon. He singled out the agreement that the Afghan government would assume responsibility for internal security by 2014. Mullen said he is "confident" that a drawdown of NATO forces would begin in 2011. Mullen described the U.S relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai as having "had its ups and downs," and reiterated President Obama's comments that "we need to listen to him, but he also needs to listen to us."
Mullen described reports that North Korea has unveiled a new nuclear plant as "belligerent behavior" that "validates the concern we've had for years about their enriching uranium, which they've denied routinely." On a new U.S.-Russia START treaty that is currently facing Republican opposition in the Senate, Mullen said "here's an opportunity to get this done now. And from a national security perspective, I really believe we need to do that." Mullen said Marine Commandant James Amos -- who has said the military should not lift its ban on allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly -- would be in lockstep with the administration if the law changes.
------
FOX NEWS SUNDAY - Clinton: Ratify START by end of year
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that last week's agreement among NATO leaders on an exit strategy for Afghanistan "was a great vote of confidence in President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan." On the issue of the new START treaty, Clinton said that the administration is "continuing to work with all of our Democratic and Republican senators to try to get to a point where we can hold that vote this year." Clinton also defended the civilian trial of Ahmed Ghailani, the terror detainee who was convicted last week on only one of 285 counts, saying that "more terrorists are serving time in prison right now because of Article III courts than military commissions." And asked whether she's done with elective office, Clinton responded, "I am."
Texas governor and incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association Rick Perry discussed the authority of the federal government. Perry said that it's important to "devolve power out of Washington, D.C., back to the states," which he called the "laboratories of innovation." Perry also took aim at Social Security, calling it a "Ponzi scheme," and charged that Washington "made a serious mistake" in bailing out failing banks and businesses. Asked about a study last week that showed millions of jobs were saved or created by the GM and Chrysler bailouts, Perry pointed to the fact that Texas created 850,000 jobs during the last decade. Perry also said that he disagrees with George W. Bush on "what Washington's role should be," and reiterated that he's not running for president, because "the action is down here in the states."
------
NBC: MEET THE PRESS - Jindal says no to 2012 bid
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the decision on whether to ratify the START Treaty "goes beyond politics; this should be nonpartisan, not just bipartisan." On Afghanistan, Clinton reiterated that the transition to Afghans taking the security lead "begins next year in 2011." Clinton also weighed in on the recent TSA screening controversy, saying that the "vast majority" of flyers are "law abiding citizens," but that "terrorists are adaptable;" she added that she's "absolutely confident" that the process will get "better and less intrusive." Clinton also again pushed back on the notion that she may one day run for president, saying that she's "out of politics."
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said that he's not running for president in 2012, but he didn't rule out the possibility of serving as the Republican nominee's running mate. "I'm not gonna turn down something that's not been offered," Jindal said, noting that he's running for re-election as governor in 2011. Jindal sharply criticized the TSA's new screening process, charging that the Obama administration "rolled this out right before the busiest travel time of the year, never making their case to the American public." He also took aim at the administration's response to the Gulf oil spill. "The frustration was actually getting a response, actually getting moving assets on the ground," he said.
------
ABC: THIS WEEK - Mullen: START ratification is a national security issue
Mullen said North Korean President Kim Jong-Il is "predictable in his unpredictability" and "constantly desires to destabilize the region." Mullen said North Korea has defied multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and described reports that the country has a new nuclear plant are "a huge concern for all of us." He added that "the assumption ... is that they continue to head in the direction of additional nuclear weapons." Mullen described the new START treaty as "a national security issue." He said he was comfortable with virtually all aspects of the agreement, but declined to accuse Senate Republicans of playing politics by holding up ratification of the treaty. However, "the sooner we get it done, the better," he said.
Mullen said he "absolutely" supports repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and said it "belies us as an institution." He said he would prefer that Congress pass a law to end the policy rather than leaving it to the court system.
------
CBS: FACE THE NATION - Hoyer: Create civilian courts at Gitmo
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said "there is no doubt the START treaty is in the interest of the United States." She suggested that she is not surprised the treaty is facing opposition in the Senate. "It's always difficult to get these treaties through," Clinton said. "It always takes a lot of presidential effort." Clinton said Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "fully in support" of the NATO strategy in his country following the NATO summit. She said "the very legitimate questions" Karzai's raised with his recent criticism of the U.S. military's use of night raids is getting "blown out of proportion." She said the White House is listening to Karzai's concerns. Clinton said she would not submit to a TSA pat-down if she could avoid it. "I mean, who would," Clinton said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he thinks the government could create civilian courts at Guantanamo Bay and hold civilian trials there. He said bringing high-profile terror suspects to the United States for trial is "probably not going to happen" given the current political climate. Hoyer said he is willing to work with Republicans to reach an agreement on extending middle-class tax cuts. He said that he would have run for minority leader if Pelosi hadn't, and he thinks he would have won.
------
CSPAN: NEWSMAKERS - Clyburn: Rangel was treated fairly
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the incoming Assistant Leader, said that it's not "essential" for the Bush-era tax cuts to be extended, because "you've got a big deficit reduction taking place, which is also a good thing." He said that he hoped both parties would soon reach an agreement on extending the cuts, adding that he is "not going to budge" on providing a middle class tax cut. On the ethics trial of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), Clyburn said that he believes Rangel would agree with him that "for the past two years, things have gone along relatively fairly" in the trial; he also said that Rangel is being held to a higher standard due to his standing as former Ways and Means Committee chairman.
Clyburn also argued that Democrats lost the House by a total of less than 250,000 votes, and promised that many Democrats who were defeated earlier this month will be back. "I guarantee you that if we can speed up this recovery from 25 miles-per-hour to 55 miles-per-hour and we keep growing the private sector as we have been, we will have the wind at our backs two years from now, and a lot of these people will be back," he said. He defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling her a "very focused organizer," a "prolific fundraiser" and a "great tactician."
By Matt DeLong and Felicia Sonmez | November 21, 2010; 1:42 PM ET
Earlier this month, several states — led by Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) — floated the idea of resisting the requirements of the health care law by opting out of the Medicaid program. Relying on a Heritage Foundation study, the states argued that they could save money by sending back million of dollars in Medicaid matching funds and designing more efficient alternatives for covering their poorest residents.
Health care wonks and economists questioned the feasibility of the scheme and this morning, during an appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Kaiser Health News reporter Marilyn Werber Serafini explained why it would only increase costs for the federal government:
SERAFINI: There is a proposal out there right now coming out of the Heritage Foundation that talks about one possible option for doing this and under this option he says 40 out of the 50 states would actually come out ahead by dropping all that federal matching funding. [...]
The states would take full responsibly for their long term care, their nursing home coverage and also for helping the folks who are on Medicare the senior citizens who still need help paying their premiums and with cost sharing. But the rest of the folks [below 133% of the poverty line] they qualify for subsidies. They buy private insurance through the exchange and therefore you’re essentially giving them full responsibility to the federal government…. If they did drop out of Medicaid, if these folks did qualify for the subsidies and were turned over to the federal government, it would meet a lot more spending by the federal government.
Watch it:
The federal government would have to spend more and so would the Medicaid population. Even if the poorest residents were eligible for subsidies in the exchanges (which as Serafini points out is debatable), they would have to contribute 2% of their incomes to health insurance and would likely be spending a lot more on health care than if they had stayed in the Medicaid program.
States would also have to stretch their contribution to cover individuals with disabilities and long term care services in the face of rising health care costs. Even if they somehow managed to do that, they would likely be confronted with an uptick in uncompensated care and that would and that — along with the fact that the proposal would take billions out of the state economy that goes to support hospitals and other providers — would ensure a revolt from the provider community. Hospitals and doctors would have to swallow the costs of caring for uninsured individuals who will continue to use the emergency room as their primary source of care.
As former Bush HHS Secretary Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-WI) told the New York Times this morning about Wisconsin’s expanded Medicaid program, “The program is very popular, and I don’t want the Republicans to do things that will damage them in the future.”
Conservatives would be undermining state Medicaid programs and increasing federal government expenditures on health care — which, ironically, is exactly what they say they’re trying to reduce.
Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence, who has been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2012, delivered a sharp-tongued critique of the American presidency on Friday, saying that the office had become “symbolic of overreaching.”
In a speech in Washington, DC at the annual conference of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization, Pence used the remarks of two top Obama administration officials to suggest that the president’s team had been complicit in that overreach.
He cited Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett’s November 2008 statement that “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one” and the more recent comments of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adviser Elizabeth Warren, who said: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field.”
“Take power, rule, leveling,” Pence said. “Though these are the terms of the day, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president.”
He added, “No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects. We are citizens.”
Jarrett used the word “rule” in passing in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” shortly after Obama was elected president and Warren’s full quote in a Sept. 17 White House blog post notes that the president wanted to “level the playing field again for families" and create consumer "protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American.”
Pence’s speech amounted to a series of presidential guiding rooted strongly in the Constitution.
“The president should regard the Constitution and the Declaration like an obsessed lover,” Pence said. “They should be on his mind all the time.”
The Indiana Republican fit in several more jabs at Obama, including a reference to an incident in November 2009 when the president bowed to Japanese Emperor Akihito during a visit to Tokyo.
“You do not bow to kings. Outside our shores, the President of the United States of America bows to no man,” Pence said. “When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States.”
His comments are not new -- Pence delivered a similar speech in September at Hillsdale College in Michigan -- but they do offer window on how the outgoing chairman of the House Republican Conference, who is considering a presidential run, views the nation’s highest office.
Pence told ABC News on Thursday that he would make up his mind about his next political move “sometime early next year.”
“Our decision is going to be wholly dependent on taking the time to prayerfully consider where we can make the most difference on the conservative values that brought us to Washington to begin with,” he said.
The following audio was recorded on November 19, 2010.
Address by Congressman Michael R. Pence 11-19-10Running Time: [Full Audio - coming soon!] [ Video on YouTube]
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19
Address 2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Hon. Michael R. Pence, United States House of Representatives, Indiana
Introduction: Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown Row & Maw, LLP and Vice-Chairman, The Federalist Society
The Mayflower Hotel Washington, DC
Our Purpose
Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
This video was originally presented during the 25th Anniversary Gala on Thursday, November 15, 2007. The Gala was part of the 2007 National Lawyers Convention.
It’s not at all clear [] whether Bernanke realizes that the same political pressure that has brought fiscal policy to a standstill in Washington is very likely to be applied to the Fed if it decides to move forward. With Republican policymakers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory this November, there is every reason to expect that the GOP will be equally as opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.
On Monday, Matt Yglesias chimed in, suggesting that the White House needed to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from Republicans. On Friday, after taking note of recent Republican attacks on the Fed's quantitative easing program, Paul Krugman agreed:
The core reason for the attack on the Fed is self-interest, pure and simple. China and Germany want America to stay uncompetitive; Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Steve Benen collected these quotes today and added his concurrence: "We're talking about a major political party," he said, "possibly undermining the strength of the country — on purpose, in public, without apology or shame — for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012."
Strong statements! But here's what's really remarkable: virtually no one in any position of authority has picked up on this since Collender first suggested it. On the Republican side, practically everyone from the party leaders on down is thoroughly convinced that Barack Obama is one or more of: a socialist, an appeaser, a Chicago thug, a racist, a would-be killer of grandmas, and a president who wants to undermine everything that makes America great because he's ashamed of his country. This is just standard rhetoric from Fox News pundits, radio show hosts, rank-and-file members of Congress, and party poobahs. It's hardly even noteworthy anymore.
But the mirror image of that — Democrats saying that Republicans are deliberately sabotaging economic recovery — is virtually invisible. Krugman finally said it yesterday, but that's it among high-profile liberal leaders. For the most part they're just not willing to go there. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the conservative noise machine and the liberal noise machine. One is noisy, the other is....restrained. We'll see if that changes now that Krugman has brought his cannons to bear. POSTSCRIPT: For what it's worth, my own view isn't that Republicans are consciously trying to sabotage the economy. Rather, I think it's really easy to convince yourself of things that are in your own self-interest, and that's mostly what they've done. A bad economy is in their self-interest, so they've convinced themselves that every possible policy to improve things is a bad idea.
Of course, excuses like that from mushballs like me are the reason the liberal noise machine is sort of anemic in the first place.
The fuss over pat-downs seems to have displaced the fuss over the full-body scanner images that can show more than TSA agents really need to know about passengers. (Travelers declining the full-body scans are being subjected to the new, too-close-for-comfort physical exams.) Yet the true worry may not be an invasion of privacy but chromosome damage and cancer.
stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.