 |
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Relentless Christian Crusade to Prevent Kids from Learning Science
Understanding Obama
| Tue Jul. 12, 2011 8:51 AM PDT
Josh Marshall asks a question that I've been asked via email a few times:
There are many things I do not understand about the progress of this so-called debt negotiation. But of many here's one that perplexes me the most. If Hill Republicans will not allow the government to continue borrowing money beyond the current statutory debt limit, I think there's probably a decent constitutional argument that the president must shut down parts of the government....And the most logical places to start are with Social Security payments and Medicare reimbursements. Stuff like cutting Social Security checks in half starting the following week.There are plenty of ways you could piece it together. But I think it's fair to say that there's no way to do it without immediate and huge cuts to entitlements and the military. Discretionary spending just isn't a big enough piece of the pie. So why the adamant refusal to put this in front of the public?
I think that this fundamentally misjudges Obama. Eventually things may come to this, but the fact is that he genuinely wants a deal. If he can't get one, then obviously he wants to maneuver things so that Republicans get the blame. But that's a fallback position. His primary position is that he really, truly wants to make a significant deal that includes both large spending cuts and moderate (but still substantial) tax increases. Once you understand this, a lot of seemingly inexplicable things suddenly make sense.
So why isn't Obama making it clear that Social Security checks will dry up if Republicans refuse to do a deal? Because that would put pressure on Republicans to simply cave in and raise the debt ceiling. But that isn't what Obama wants. He wants a deal.
I don't know all the reasons for this. But my guesses are fairly conventional. (1) Obama truly believes that the long-term debt is a problem, and this is a good opportunity to do something about it with bipartisan cover. (2) He wants Republicans on record as supporting a tax increase. Why? Perhaps he believes that once he's forced Republicans away from an absolutist position, that position is gone for good and it will make future negotiations less hostile. (3) He's courting independents, and independents want a deal that gets concessions from both sides.
But the reasons don't matter much. Just do this: whenever you think Obama has done something dumb or weakminded or inexplicable, remind yourself that he doesn't necessarily have the same goals as you. He sincerely wants a deal that involves concessions from both sides, and once you understand that his actions will suddenly seem a lot less dumb, weakminded, and inexplicable. In fact, they'll seem pretty obvious.
The 10 Scariest GOP Governors:
Bringing a Radical Right-Wing Agenda To a State Near You
By Sarah Jaffe, AlterNet
Posted on July 6, 2011, Printed on July 13, 2011
Ranking the worst Republican governors is next to impossible. Since the Tea Party sound and fury swept the Class of 2010 into power in swing states and even true-blue states like New Jersey, it's been more like a horse race between the main contenders. One will propose a law that seems so terrifying it could never make it through the legislature, let alone be topped. Then it passes, and in the blink of an eye another state's trying to outdo it.
These governors all have some things in common. Most of them were elected in 2010 while progressive turnout was depressed and conservative anger, particularly the virulent anti-government type springing from the Tea Party movement, spilled over at the polls. Many of them took over swing states from Democratic administrations. Most of them did not run on promises to take away collective bargaining from workers, slash pensions and health care and outlaw abortion. Instead, they focused on jobs—and, admittedly, their own solution to creating jobs, which is, of course, cutting taxes.
A year or more into their terms, taxes have been cut, the wealthy are doing fine, and working people, particularly immigrants and women, are struggling. The promises of jobs have given way to Shock Doctrine-style cuts, attacks on unions, public services, and voting rights. Since it can be hard to keep up with the moves by different governors around the country, we've compiled a list of the 10 scariest GOP governors and their proposals.
Who knows what target will be next? Will someone attempt to give fetuses voting rights, or perhaps decree that employees should pay employers for the privilege of working?
Lest you think we're unfairly picking on the Republicans, we've thrown in honorable mention for a couple of Democrats in the nation's biggest blue states who seem to have taken a page from our right-wing friends.
But first, how about a few governors you may have missed?
10. Robert Bentley, Alabama. Bentley has been one of the quieter governors among the new class, but his lack of Chris Christie-like bluster has allowed some of Alabama's scarier provisions to sneak by unnoticed. A dermatologist who was accused of using his title “Dr.” on the ballot to sway voters, Bentley is also an evangelical Christian who declared on the day of his inaugurationthat “anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."
No word if undocumented immigrants who happen to be Christian are his brothers. Alabama passed the nation's most restrictive immigration law just last month, surpassing Arizona's SB 1070 as the worst place in the country to be an undocumented immigrant—or be mistaken for one. The bill, HB 56, was called a “wish list of restrictionist immigration provisions at the state law level,” by Kevin Johnson, dean of the law school at the University of California, Davis.
The bill not only makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be in the state, but attempts to criminalize every aspect of their existence. It requires schools to ask students about their immigration status, and bans undocumented students from state universities; it makes it illegal to rent housing to immigrants, and allows police to ask for papers using “reasonable suspicion.” HB56 also makes contracts that undocumented people sign unenforceable—so if employers do break the law and hire immigrant workers, they can treat them as badly as they like without fear of repercussions. And that's just one possibility.
9. Nikki Haley, South Carolina. Nikki Haley, daughter of immigrants, is South Carolina's youngest governor, its first woman, and its first person of color. So we should be proud, right?
Not so much.
Haley defeated the good ol' boys on the campaign trail despite rumors of a sex scandal, mostly by outflanking them to the right. She used her status as the child of immigrants to tout a new, extreme anti-immigration bill, and took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal to decry a decision by the National Labor Relations Board that Boeing was not able to circumvent its union workers by building new planes in non-union South Carolina. “It's called capitalism,” she wrote.
It's actually called union-busting. Boeing decided to move the assembly line to South Carolina after repeated strikes by the union workers in Washington State, and the NLRB ruled that the statements by company executives made it clear the move was in retaliation for union activity. Which is illegal.
Haley pushed for a picture ID law that would require voters to show ID at the polls before voting. In a state with a long history of disenfranchising people of color, the requirement, which makes it difficult for those without drivers' licenses to vote, brings back unpleasant memories.
Haley made national news before she'd even won her primary, but these days the news close to home isn't so good for her. “I believe she is the most corrupt person to occupy the governor’s mansion since Reconstruction,” John Rainey, a longtime Republican power broker told Corey Hutchins at the Nation. She's been replacing the old boys she promised to sweep out with confidantes and campaign contributors, and the only jobs she's created so far have been for close allies. Yet Sarah Palin-like, she remains popular on the national scale and appears to have far-reaching ambitions.
8. Jan Brewer, Arizona. It's Barack Obama's fault that we have Jan Brewer. Janet Napolitano was governor of Arizona, a popular Democrat in the state that gave us John McCain and Barry Goldwater. When she was tapped to become the new Homeland Security secretary, a border state with boiling-hot tension over immigration was left in the hands of the former Secretary of State, a Republican who went on to sign into law SB 1070, the “Papers Please” law that spawned the copycats in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and other states around the country.
Brewer likes to talk about the violent crime immigrants are responsible for, claiming “beheadings” despite absolutely no evidence, let alone links to immigrants, and blaming them for nearly every crisis her state (and the country) face.
She's also signed a law that aims to prevent unions from using member dues to fund political activity, and just for good measure cut funding for children's health care. She cut more than $72 million from health services, spearheaded a bill to eliminate KidsCare, the state's Medicaid program for children (though that failed, she pushed through an enrollment freeze on the program), and proposed eliminating the Early Childhood Development and Health Board. (Twenty-three percent of Arizona's children live in poverty).
In the interest of fairness, it is worth pointing out that Brewer has vetoed some of the more extreme bills coming out of the Arizona legislature this year. A “birther” bill that would have required candidates for office to submit a “circumcision certificate” or a “baptismal” certificate if the “long form” birth certificate constantly demanded of President Obama was unavailable was too much even for Brewer. And after the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Brewer shot down a bill that would allow guns on “public pathways” close to state schools. State Senator Kyrsten Sinema told the Daily Beast, though, that it's all part of a plan where legislators pass bills to satisfy extremist primary voters, and Brewer, who is not up for re-election, vetoes them.
7. Paul LePage, Maine. LePage, Maine's new governor, first made headlines when he told the NAACP to “kiss my butt” on local television. The civil rights group had expressed anger that the governor would not be taking part in local Martin Luther King Day events. He then joined the ranks of the anti-union crowd when he ordered a labor-themed mural moved away from the state's labor department, claiming that it was not “balanced.”
But LePage's animosity toward labor history extends well beyond art. He recently signed into law a bill that eases child labor laws, lowering restrictions on the hours and days teenagers can work. No word as to what he plans to do about those 8 percent of adult Mainers who are looking for work as well—they want pesky things like health insurance, benefits, full-time hours, and are more likely to know their rights and complain about them than 16-year-olds.He's been so vitriolic that eight state senators from his own party wrote an op-ed published in three Maine newspapers, asking him to tone it down. "Belittling comments, whether they come from the governor or his opponents, have no place in Maine public life," they wrote.
And while conservatives in Congress take aim at Barack Obama's health care reform, LePage signed into law a rollback of consumer protections against health insurance companies, which can now raise premiums on individuals up to 10 percent a year. Previously, the state had to grant permission to insurance companies before they could hike premiums. Maine progressives are organizing against this move.
LePage is one of many who have also targeted the voting process, aiming to make it more difficult to register to vote and to cast a ballot. First the state eliminated its nearly 40-year-old same-day registration process, a process that was used by 60,000 in 2008 and is credited with being the reason behind Maine's high voter turnout rates. A bill that would have required photo ID to vote did not make it through the legislature. Voter ID laws disproportionately target the elderly, students and poor people who are unlikely to have drivers' licenses; they add one more layer of difficulty between voters and the ballot box. Conveniently, those are all constituencies that usually lean left.
6. Rick Perry, Texas. Oh, Texas. You've given us so much: Ann Richards and Molly Ivins, as well as George W. Bush. And now you have given us Rick “Goodhair” Perry, as Ivins used to call him.
Perry and his hair have been governing Texas since Bush left, and unless he succeeds in seceding from the union or running for president, it looks like he'll be there for a while. So he's had the time to rack up a truly unfair list of achievements, from executing at least one innocent man to hostingTed Nugent at a concert where Nugent wore a Confederate flag shirt and shouted insults about non-English speakers.
But what has Perry done for us lately? Plenty.
He's signed a voter ID bill, making it harder for elderly Texans, students, and others without drivers' licenses to vote, passed a budget with $15 billion in budget cuts, and a bill requiring women to have sonograms before they can obtain abortions. While a woman can refuse to look at the sonogram, her doctor is required to describe it.
Perry also pushed a bill that would ban so-called immigrant sanctuary cities, putting yet more pressure on Texas' large immigrant population, and a bill that would prohibit “intrusive” airport pat-downs, to curry favor with angry libertarians. Both bills died in the legislature.
Maybe next he'll combine his legislative achievements and require that fetuses have photo ID. If he doesn't hit the national campaign trail, that is.
5. John Kasich, Ohio. Ohio's one of those states that becomes tremendously important to the national political scene come presidential election time. In between elections, it's often forgotten.
But Kasich has done his part to keep Ohio in the news, first by choosing an all-white, mostly-male cabinet (and defending that choice by saying "I don't look at things from the standpoint of any of these sort of metrics that people tend to focus on, race or age, or any of those things"), then killing Ohio's high speed rail project, which would have created jobs and provided faster, greener transportation for Ohioans and those traveling across the state.
The move that drew thousands to protest in the Ohio capitol, though, was SB 5, a bill that eliminates collective bargaining over health care and benefits, bans strikes, and institutes so-called merit pay for the state's public workers. Ohio drew some energy from Wisconsin's labor protests, but has created its own movement to fight back against the law. Just last week, workers marched in a “People's Parade” to deliver their petition to repeal the bill to the Secretary of State; 1.3 million signatures were collected on the petition, more than five times the number required to get the repeal on the ballot in the fall.
Of course, no right-wing governor worth his salt would pass up an opportunity to sign the country's most restrictive anti-abortion bill, right? A bill that would ban all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected just passed the Ohio House and heads to the Senate.
Kasich's approval ratings have been the lowest for a first-term Ohio governor since 1983, dropping to a low of 33 percent, and Democrats are moving for a recall, though it's unlikely to happen while Republicans still control the legislature. Still, an unpopular Republican governor in the state spells good news for Democrats both on the state and national level.
4. Rick Scott, Florida. Rick Scott wins the award for being the least popular governor in the country. A mere 29 percent of Floridians think their governor is doing a good job.
The good news is Scott is so unpopular that even his party is abandoning their support of his agenda. State Senator Dennis Jones said of his state: “This is certainly not the ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ that the public expected. If we added everything up, we’re probably in the negative this session for jobs, not the positive.” The bad news is that Scott might actually be the most extreme governor in the country, and he's not giving up on his agenda just because the legislature dislikes him.
Suzy Khimm at Mother Jones wrote:
In 1997, Rick Scott was implicated in the biggest Medicare fraud case in US history, stepping down as CEO of Columbia/HCA after the hospital giant was fined $1.7 billion and found guilty of swindling the government. As Florida's new governor, Scott is now trying to kill off an anti-fraud database that would track the fraudulent distribution of addictive prescription drugs in Florida, over the protestations of law enforcement officials, Republican state lawmakers, and federal drug policy officials.And that's just one step. Scott was the founder of Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which was out to torpedo health care reform any way it could, and he rejected first $2.4 billion in federal funds for high-speed rail and then $1 billion to implement health care reform. He's slashed 10 percent from the state's education budget, and couldn't even get his own party to vote for an SB 1070 copycat anti-immigrant bill. And like Rick Perry, he's signed a bill that requires pregnant women to get a sonogram before they can get an abortion.
Like in Ohio, a deeply unpopular GOP governor in Florida could be the key to Barack Obama's reelection. Democratic strategists credit anger at Scott for surprise victories in mayor's races, and hope the anger will still be there in 2012.
3. Rick Snyder, Michigan. Michigan has given us one of the most frightening power grabs in a year of power grabs. Snyder's “emergency manager” legislation gives him the power to appoint a unilateral authority over a city or school district, who can then fire officials, close schools, void union contracts, and otherwise assume near-total control.
AlterNet reported recently:
In March, the Michigan legislature passed an update to state law that gave “emergency financial managers” expanded powers over cities and school districts facing financial distress. The provision drew protests immediately, with thousands converging on the Capitol on March 16, the day the law was signed. Unions and community organizations recognized the law as a threat, not just in the cities where emergency financial managers were imposed, but around the state, where unions would be pressured to make concessions in order to keep a financial manager from being imposed on them. Since financial managers have the power to wipe away a union contract with a pen stroke, the unions are left with an impossible choice—concede great chunks of hard-won benefits and wages, or risk losing it all.That would be enough to land Snyder near the top of this list, except of course it's not all. Snydereliminated the Michigan Business Tax and replaced it with a flat tax of just 6 percent for corporations, which essentially handed them a $1.8 billion tax cut. To pay for that cut, he cut education spending and of course public workers—and then eliminated the exemption that allows senior citizens not to pay taxes on their pension income. Yes, he taxed old people and cut funding from children to lower the corporate income tax rate.
Of course there are anti-choice bills moving in Michigan, as well as anti-immigrant legislation, and swipes at domestic partner benefits for university employees. But the “emergency manager” law is a unique accomplishment for Snyder, one that warrants the recall campaign against him.
2. Chris Christie, New Jersey. Chris Christie seems to have watched a few too many episodes of "The Sopranos." The New Jersey governor relies on bluster and swagger, taking shots at teachers and legislators and engaging in a very public name-calling match with the very sameDemocratic State Senate president who helped him pass what has been called the worst anti-union bill in the country. He's made himself a YouTube star, prompting cheers from the right and sending chills up the spine of the left, who fear Christie on a national level.
Christie was the advance guard for the class of 2010, knocking out former Governor John Corzine in 2009 amid cheers from the Tea Party and shivers from Democrats, who were sure this guy couldn't possibly win in New Jersey. He could, and he did, and even though 51 percent of voters now say they'd support someone else, the damage has been done. He's pulled money out of renewable energy and cut $820 million from education budgets—a move ruled unconstitutional because it “fell more heavily upon our high risk districts and the children educated within those districts.”
The reason his former buddy Steve Sweeney is so angry with Christie? After cutting a deal with the Democrats for the anti-union law, Christie used his line-item veto to slash programs Democrats had bargained for:
He mowed down a series of Democratic add-ons, including $45 million in tax credits for the working poor, $9 million in health care for the working poor, $8 million for women’s health care, another $8 million in AIDS funding and $9 million in mental-health services. But the governor added $150 million in school aid for the suburbs, including the wealthiest towns in the state. That is enough to restore all the cuts just listed.No wonder Sweeney called him a “mean old bastard.”
1. Scott Walker, Wisconsin. We really ought to be grateful to Scott Walker. Because of him and the Wisconsin state legislature, dominated by the Fitzgerald brothers, progressives and especially the labor movement were reenergized. The Tea Party became yesterday's news as protesters thronged the capitol in Madison, refusing to leave for days while the Democratic state senators hid out in another state to prevent a vote on Walker's bill, which eliminated collective bargaining for the state's public workers.
Without Walker, public sector unions wouldn't have become a rallying cry for the left, that's for sure. But he picked the wrong fight in a state with a proud history of organized labor—a state that teaches labor history in the public schools.
Still, the bill passed, Walker's still in charge, and he's been taking aim at those who could defeat him. He got his way with a vicious voter ID bill and his budget cuts hit everything from the state university to the public schools to the state's health care program, one of the best in the country. He targeted rural broadband, people with disabilities and reproductive health care, and he's even messing with craft beer. (He really should know better on that one, but it seems there isn't a fight Walker's unwilling to pick.)
Walker's not eligible for recall yet, but the state senators who're supporting him are, and theelections are already moving forward. And like most of the other states on this list, the results in Wisconsin could have a big impact on the race in 2012.
The rightward shift in the country in 2010 didn't just bring us Tea Party-backed governors salivating over a chance to enact their agenda on the bodies of women, union workers, and immigrants. It also brought us some Democrats who seem to be buying into the same pro-corporate, anti-working people policies. So honorable mention here goes to:
1. Andrew Cuomo, New York. I know, I know, he just passed marriage equality, right? Well, he's taking a bit too much credit for that, since the Republican-dominated state legislature wound up bringing up and passing the bill simply because it was actually really popular right now to do so in New York. Meanwhile, Cuomo's refused to keep the popular “millionaire's tax” and cut a third of homeless youth shelter beds instead. Cuomo too has made enemies within organized labor, freezing workers' salaries and calling for cutbacks, mounting a political campaign even after taking office aimed at demonizing labor.
And this is the leading Democrat being discussed as a presidential candidate for 2016?
Research assistance on this piece came from Charles Monaco at the Progressive States Network.
WI, Beware:
It's Recall Election Day, and Right-Wingers Are Reportedly Robocalling Voters to Tell Them to Stay Home
I'm not shocked by this, but I am appalled. The blog WI Voices published a postthis morning warning Wisconsin voters to beware of robocalls telling them not to vote in today's recall election.
Robocall Election Fraud in District 10Registered Democrats from all over the district are reporting the same thing. They are receiving a robocall from a group claiming to be a Right to Life group explaining that they don’t have to go to the polling station to vote, “You don’t need to worry. Your absentee ballot is in the mail.”This is NOT true. Today, Tuesday July 12, is the last day to vote in the Democratic Primary. You DO NOT have time to mail in your ballot at this point. If you intend to vote, go to your nearest polling station today to vote or to deliver your absentee ballot in person. This robocall is illegal activity and election fraud at its worst. If you receive this call from phone number 703-410-3201, or any other number with area code “703″ (Virginina) – RECORD it and report it.
Wisconsin progressive blog Blue Cheddar is following the story as well, and notes, "I googled 703-410-3201 on the chance something would turn up and it did. Several people reported that a ‘Joe the Plumber’ message was left - which came from that number - asking them to support Scott Walker in March this year."
So it seems likely that there are indeed right-wing shenanigans going on here. And this recall election process has seen it's share of right-wing shenanigans already. The Green Bay Press Gazette:
Today is the first of four recall election days in the next six weeks that could decide the fate of nine senators and change the balance of power in state government. Democratic primary elections will take place in six Senate districts GOP lawmakers control — including that of Sen. Rob Cowles, R-Allouez.A process that has been marred with controversy from the start grew even more contentious when Republican operatives admitted they were recruiting party members to run as fake Democrats. Now six hopeful contenders must get through a primary election before facing a sitting lawmaker.
We'll all be watching and waiting.
Update: In happier news, a number of firefighters, including some who were at Ground Zero on 9/11, are apparently rallying behind the recall effort. Stand with the firefighters!
New Hampshire Defunds Planned Parenthood, Leaving Thousands Without Primary Care
by Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check
July 12, 2011 - 9:36am (Print)
In New Hampshire, a group of "executive councilors," elected officials who approve contracts and gubernatorial appointments as a check on the governor's power, voted two weeks ago against renewing a contract that would have provided Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire with $1.8 million in state and federal money for the next two years starting this month.This was a routine contract in place for about 30 years. Some pointed to abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides as the reason for their 'no' votes, though evidence suggests a much deeper agenda.
As a result, six Planned Parenthood centers in New Hampshire have now stopped dispensing contraception last week.
According to the Concord Monitor, Planned Parenthood had operated under a limited retail pharmacy license that was contingent on having a state contract. That contract accounts for approximately 20 percent of PP New Hampshire's annual budget, and would have paid for sexual health education and counseling, distribution of contraceptive supplies, and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. While Planned Parenthood New Hampshire provides abortions, no public funding can be or is used for these, which are covered by individuals seeking abortion and through private donations. To ensure a firewall, PPNH conducts regular audits to ensure no money is used.
Last year, according to Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New Englan, Planned Parenthood provided contraception for 13,242 patients in New Hampshire, while also providing 6,112 breast exams, 5,548 screenings for cervical cancer and 18,858 tests for sexually transmitted infections. If the contract is not renewed, Planned Parenthood will drastically reduce its services, Trombley told the Monitor. The organization employs 80 people in New Hampshire.
Planned Parenthood treats 52 percent of patients whose care is subsidized by the New Hampshire state family planning program, Trombley said. It provides its services on a sliding scale based on income, with 70 percent of patients paying nothing or near nothing for birth control pills because they earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty line. The federal poverty guidelines vary with the number of people in a household, with a single person qualifying at $10,890 per year and a family of four qualifying at $22,350 a year.
The center has been turning away 20 to 30 patients a day who have arrived to refill their birth control prescriptions.
According to the Monitor:
At the Planned Parenthood center in West Lebanon yesterday, Laura Caravella arrived to pick up her patient file to bring it to a physician. Caravella, a 25-year-old paraprofessional at an elementary school in Vermont, had tried to refill her birth control prescription last Friday and learned she could not.She said she was concerned about the cost of her prescription without the sliding scale offered by Planned Parenthood."Financially it's really stressful," Caravella said. "I'm already living almost paycheck to paycheck as it is."Stephanie Hiltunen, a 26-year-old who lives in Hanover, said she picked up a monthlong supply of birth control last Thursday, the day before the center stopped dispensing it. But future refills will require an inconvenient trip to Enfield, she said. Hiltunen said she would like to have a child but cannot afford it, and she worries there will be a public cost if contraception is inaccessible to low-income women."If they can't afford to have a baby, then we'll be paying for them in the long run," she said.
As PPNH staffers have noted, some women have said they will stop taking birth control because they cannot afford the higher prices charged by pharmacies, especially since 70 percent of the center's patients lack private health insurance. Women with breast and cervical cancer will go longer without a diagnosis, both because of direct cuts in funding for examinations and because many women are drawn to the center to pick up their birth control and then receive checkups.
"For most of our patients Planned Parenthood may be the only medical visit they have in a year," a staffer said. "I think a lot of patients really rely on that as their yearly checkup."
Anne Hildreth, a practitioner at the West Lebanon center who has worked for Planned Parenthood for 22 years, questioned the rationale of limiting access to contraception in an effort to prevent abortions.
"It's crazy to not give women birth control if you want to stop women from having abortions," Hildreth said.
So let's review the situation: A public health service that provides basic primary public health care services to people who otherwise can not afford them, enabling those people to stay healthy, get treatment when needed, and to plan their families, has been defunded. Eliminating these services will cost the state of New Hampshire untold amounts of money in curative health care and in unwanted and untenable pregnancies, and will abrogate women's rights to basic health care. And the decision was made... why?
Ostensibly because of opposition to abortion. But a comment made by one of the councilors makes clear the real agenda: limiting women's ability to gain access to contraception in the first place and making women "pay" for having sex.
Executive Councilor Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester, said he had asked if the contract could exclude the issuance of condoms. Wieczorek said he supports paying to test for sexually transmitted diseases but does not believe the state should subsidize contraception.
"If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" he said.
Tim Geithner’s forceful default warning: ‘They have to act’
In at least three letters to Congress since January, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has warned about the consequences if the United States were to default. Yesterday on “Meet the Press,” he aired those consequences to a wider audience. There was no panic in his voice that would spook the markets. But there was a sense of urgency in his tone and demeanor when moderator David Gregory asked for specifics on what would happen if the nation’s debt limit isn’t raised by Aug. 2. His answer made that much more urgent given House Speaker John Boehner pulling the plug on a long-term deal Saturday night, the short meeting at the White House meeting on Sunday evening and a new round of talks and presidential press conference on Monday.
On August 2, at that point we run out of the ability to borrow to meet our obligations. Remember, we spend — we have to borrow now 40 cents for every dollar we spend. Now, on August 2, if Congress hasn’t acted, we’re left with the cash we have and the cash we’re going to take in. And every week starting the week of August 2, we have to go out and finance roughly $100 billion in maturing obligations of the government. We make 80 million checks a month to Americans, 55 million people on Social Security benefits, millions more Americans on veterans benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, people who supply our troops in combat. Eighty million checks a month. So on August 2, we’re left with the cash on hand and the cash we take in. And we have to convince people to come and refinance $500 billion in maturing principal payments that come due in August.
I hope folks are finally paying attention. Failure to raise the national debt limit is not akin to a government shutdown. Whereas a government shutdown would prevent Social Security checks from being issued until the impasse were resolved, default would stop Social Security checks cold as the federal government moved first to pay the debts it has already incurred with the cash it has or will collect. The damage from a default would be far-reaching and long-lasting.
Republicans continue to balk over making tax increases part of the needed balanced approach in a deal to raise the debt ceiling while imposing fiscal discipline on the federal government. Such intransigence could lead to tax increases in different forms if the limit on the nation’s borrowing isn’t lifted by Aug. 2. “A default would impose a substantial tax on all Americans,” Geithner wrote in his Jan. 6 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Because Treasuries represent the benchmark borrowing rate for all other sectors, default would raise all borrowing costs.”
The Geithner letter points out that “Interest rates for state and local government, corporate and consumer borrowing, including home mortgage interest, would all rise sharply.” And it goes on to say, “Equity prices and home values would decline, reducing retirement savings and hurting the economic security of all Americans, leading to reductions in spending and investment, which would cause job losses and business failures on a significant scale.” As if that weren’t bad enough, default would ruin the dollar’s “dominant role in the international financial system,” which would jack up interest rates further for and reduce the willingness to invest in the United States.
On “Meet the Press,” Geithner squelched any talk that Aug. 2 is a fungible deadline or that President Obama could invoke Section 4 of the14th Amendment, which notes that “The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.” Acknowledging that leaders in Congress understand that “failure is not an option,” Geithner said, “There is no credible way to give Congress more time. There’s no constitutional option. There’s no delay option. There’s no creative financial option. They have to act by the second.”
This echoes what Geithner told a House appropriations subcommittee when he was urging Congress to raise the debt ceiling as soon as possible. “There’s no alternative,” he said. That was in March. With 21 days left on the default clock, nothing has changed. There’s still no alternative. And there’s still no deal. Despite Sunday night’s meeting between President Obama and congressional leaders and the one set for Monday, not to mention Obama’s press conference later Monday morning to discuss the debt-deficit talks, “assume the crash position”remains a valid suggestion.
Boehner rallies GOP on debt limit
 | |
 Boehner told Republicans they could lose leverage in the debate as the deadline nears. | Jay Westcott/POLITICO | |
| Speaker John Boehner told a closed gathering of House Republicans on Tuesday morning that he was “pissed” over being unable to reach a “grand bargain” with President Barack Obama to make sweeping entitlement changes in return for an overhaul of the U.S. tax code. But Boehner also accused Obama of failing to lead on the impending crisis over boosting the $14.3 trillion debt limit, according to people inside the GOP meeting. But while Boehner was trying to rally his Republican troops Tuesday morning, he did warn them that they will quickly lose leverage in the debate as the country grows closer to the Aug. 2 debt default deadline and Wall Street and business leaders pressure them to cut a deal. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who opposed Boehner’s efforts to cut a “grand slam” deal with Obama, was just as blunt as the speaker. Cantor told rank-and-file Republicans that unless Democrats drop their insistence on tax increases as part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, there may be no compromise possible with Obama and Democratic congressional leaders. “If the Democrats continue to insist on tax increases, there is no viable path forward,” Cantor warned, according to sources. The overwhelming sentiment from House Republicans, according to those present in the room, was that even $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years — roughly what is being discussed at the White House meetings — isn’t sufficient. Republicans want even more cuts, and they want them immediately. Moderate Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, a 22-year veteran of the House, stood up and said $2.5 trillion wasn’t enough for a deal. Florida Rep. Allen West emerged from the meeting to say that he didn’t want “fairy dust spending cuts” that are projected over the next decade. Boehner said in a press conference after the meeting that the debt ceiling increase is “his problem” — referring to Obama. Boehner escalated his rhetoric against the president, saying that Obama “talks a good game, but when it comes time to actually putting these issues on the table, making decisions, he can’t quite pull the trigger.” “Finding an agreement certainly has been elusive,” Boehner added. Boehner and Cantor's comments came as the two prepared to head to the White House later today for a third straight day of high-level talks over a debt compromise. Boehner, Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl have flatly refused to consider any tax increase as part of the deal to boost the debt limit. They have dug in over this issue, refusing to give any ground to Democratic demands that some tax increases — including closing corporate loopholes and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — must be part of the package. In fact, Boehner told the gathered lawmakers in the Capitol basement that “at no time, ever, during” discussions with Obama “did I agree to let taxes go up.” The speaker said that when it was clear Obama would only reform entitlement if it was accompanied by tax increases and he would only reform the tax code “to maintain many of the current code’s flawed features,” he walked away. “I haven’t spent 20 years here fighting tax increases just to throw it all away in one moment,” Boehner said, according to a source in the room. Lawmakers who attended the Tuesday briefing said Boehner and Cantor were not hopeful that an agreement can be reached before the Aug. 2 default deadline. “Are they optimistic? No,” Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh said of the leadership. Walsh accused the White House of being “clueless on the severity of the problem.” During the almost two-hour meeting, Boehner walked through the details of what would have been in the “grand slam” package he explored with Obama. The speaker insisted that he would never support tax increases, despite media reports saying he was open to changes to the tax code that would have yielded as much as $1 trillion in new revenues over the next decade. Boehner and Cantor openly split on this issue, forcing Boehner to back away from his secret talks with Obama. The Ohio Republican said he wanted to simplify the tax code and have just three rates for taxpayers as part of a tax-reform package, which would have been implemented by early 2012. Boehner said Obama wanted more “progressivity” in the tax rates than the speaker would accept — meaning higher taxes on upper incomes and more layers of tax rates. Boehner told his colleagues that it became clear to him that Obama wouldn’t agree to major changes in Medicare and Medicaid “for the near and short term,” including lifting the age eligibility for Medicare benefits. Boehner said the GOP position has three major points — restraints on federal spending, including enforceable caps; no tax increases; and more spending cuts than the increase in the debt limit. Cantor, who gave a presentation laying out his take on what is being discussed at the White House, said Obama and the Democrats are pushing three options: a “skinny” proposal put forth by Nevada Sen. Harry Reid with no entitlement cuts or tax increases, discretionary cuts and amounts to less than $1 trillion, which Cantor suggested is dead in the water. He also laid out “Obama’s version: Biden Framework,” which had savings of $2 trillion, some changes to Medicare, nothing done with Social Security and $1.1 trillion in discretionary cuts. Cantor went on to lay out the “Biden framework details,” with between $264 billion and $332 billion in mandatory cuts and between $334 billion and $353 billion in health savings — the majority leader said the Biden group cuts amount to savings between $1.9 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Obama’s big deal, as Cantor laid out in a presentation, de-coupled the Bush tax cuts, added $1 trillion in revenue and “comprehensive tax reform by date certain.” On the spending side, he adjusted Medicare age, increased means testing, the consumer price index and $1.2 trillion in discretionary cuts. Cantor suggested Democrats were “not serious” about reaching a bipartisan agreement at this point. Rank-and-file GOP lawmakers then blamed the media for playing up divisions between Boehner and Cantor, and they bashed Obama for what they claim is a leadership failure. “Clearly, there’s a large gap between where the president is and where we are,” said Alabama Rep. Martha Roby. Asked whether that gap could be closed, she said, “Only time will tell. The problem is we’re running out of time.” She said it’s impossible to negotiate with a president who hasn’t presented a plan. “The president needs to get his plan down on paper,” Roby said. “We have yet to see his plan.” Alabama Rep. Jo Bonner, continuing on the theme that Obama must do more, asked, “How is the president going to help us get out of this?” |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)