Democrats' Plan for ObamaCare Left Out an Important Detail: Republicans

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Foter.com / CC BY-SARep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) is, ah, kind of upset with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). That’s because Baucus, who has claimed authorship of the Finance Committee health care bill that became the basis for ObamaCare, and was a big booster of the law both before and after passage, now seems rather concerned that the implementation process has gone awry. The Montana Senator warned yesterday of a “huge-train wreck” coming as the law’s major coverage provisions kick in at the end of the year.

In response, Rep. Pompeo has released a harshly worded letter to Baucus that basically amounts to the congressional version of Adam Sandler’s endlessly useful Wedding Singer line about “things that could have been brought to my attention YESTERDAY!”  

“Unless you act before it’s too late, the American people are going to hold you personally responsible for the failings of this law that negatively impact their jobs, their health, and their families,” the letter says. “You drafted it, you twisted arms to get it passed, and, until now, you have lauded it as a model for all the world.” There’s more, but you get the idea.

The law’s supporters are, of course, going to attempt to blame Republicans for its failures—noting, for example, that most Republican governors have declined to implement the law’s exchanges, and that Republicans in Congress have not gone along with Democratic requests to top off funding for implementing the law. This is self-evidently silly.

For one thing, ObamaCare was a wholly Democratic creation: Democrats wrote it, passed it, and are now in charge of implementing it. For another, many of the failures aren’t directly linked to Republican obstructionism. The delay of the employee choice aspect of the small-business exchanges, for example, appears to be a result of a combination of slow regulatory rollout from the Obama administration and overburdened insurance companies. It’s even hard to blame (or credit, as the case may be) Republican governors for trouble with the exchanges; after all, the law was written—by Democrats—to give every governor the choice to either set up an exchange or let the federal government do so. If the law wasn’t going to work if some governors opted out, then the fundamental problem is bad legislation, not political opposition.

As for political opposition, Democrats failed to account for that too. It’s bad policy design to build and pass a law that relies on the assent of a determined political opposition in order to work. Republicans elected officials made it pretty clear from the beginning that they opposed the law and that they were going to continue to oppose the law; and arguably they had a small-d democratic responsibility to do so: Republican voters have always been quite wary of the health law.  Democrats never really had a plan to deal with Republican opposition to ObamaCare, except to hope it went away. That was a pretty stupid plan. And Democrats deserve responsibility for going with it.

View the original article here

The Democrats’ dinosaur problem

Much post-2012 attention has been focused on identifying weaknesses within the Republican Party, with armchair quarterbacks sounding alarms for a party that still controls one house of Congress, 30 governorships, and a majority of state legislatures across the country.
There are obvious issues that the party needs to address to win future national elections, but is the playing field really as uneven as the postgame analysis has made it out to be?  What about some of the looming woes soon to confront Democrats?
With Barack Obama in the White House, it’s easy for Democrats to wear the mantle of “change” and moving “forward,” buoyed by a re-elected president who toppled a giant to become his party’s nominee five years ago. But Barack Obama won’t be on the ballot in 2016.
Three names that might be pose a challenge to the “change” label: Clinton, Biden and Cuomo.
A once-ran for president, twice-ran for president, and son of the Democrat that never ran for president currently dominate 2016 speculation.

Half a decade after the 2008 primaries, it’s easy to buy into Hillary-mania being a force that will unite Democrats together in pursuit of retaining the White House.
Thing is, the last time she was a national candidate Clinton lost to a first-term senator in a brutal campaign that began with near-unanimous conventional wisdom that she would be the nominee. Who’s to say that history won’t repeat itself? The only major political scrutiny she’s endured since defeat at Obama’s hands came in the form of her testimony to the Senate regarding Benghazi, with the actual degree of scrutiny varying depending on who you talk to.
Vice-President, and noted smooth talker, Joe Biden theoretically makes a formidable candidate, but only because of the first two words in this sentence. Incumbency advantage aside, Candidate Biden would be a third-time candidate in his mid-seventies with decades’ worth of Senate votes for opponents to exploit.
The closest to a political newcomer is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He may be the scion of a powerful political family second only to the Kennedys in representing the entrenched East Coast Democratic establishment, but at least he’s never run for president.
Prior to 2012, Cuomo cultivated a center-left image, with a record tailor-made for a general election and bolstered by his stratospheric approval ratings in the Empire State.
Yet since early 2013, Cuomo’s rise to national prominence has been hamstrung by declining approval, negative headlines and a deer in the headlights response to the hoopla of Hillary Clinton’s departure from the secretary of State’s office.
So a perfectly realistic scenario has three baggage-ridden Democrats from equally baggage-ridden political dynasties duking it out in a primary in a few years time.
Add that to the fact that the candidates will be courting a party base that hasn’t faced ideological and personality-fueled infighting in eight years, and will need to appeal to a liberal primary electorate while gearing up to defend the Obama record without the appeal of Obama himself in the general election – likely to be no easy task as polling data shows that support for Obama’s agenda is inexorably linked to his personality.
In 2016, Democrats will be confronted with a relatability problem of their own: the most oft-mentioned candidates to assume the mantle of ”hope and change” are relics of a bygone era of liberal politics, and in most cases have already been rejected by the Democratic voting base.

Howell is account director at Hynes Communications and a contributor to the Peach State political blog Georgia Tipsheet

View Comments

View the original article here

ObamaCare Was Designed, Passed, and Implemented by Democrats. Obviously Republicans Must Be Responsible for Its Failures

Credit: WhiteHouse.govIt was probably inevitable that as ObamaCare began to fail, Republicans would get the blame. After all, Republican legislators in Congress didn’t vote for it, Republican voters have never supported it, and nearly every Republican governor has let the federal government build and run the law’s health exchange in their state. Republican critics of the law warned before it was passed that it would be too expensive, to complicated, and too onerous on both individuals and businesses. So of course now that the implementation process has begun to reveal signs of trouble, it’s the Grand Old Party’s fault. Who else could possibly be responsible?

If you want the complete argument for why Republicans are the culprit here, you can find it in Think Progress health wonk Igor Volsky’s piece making the case for, in his words, “why Republicans are to blame for ObamaCare’s delays.” The piece is hooked to this week’s announcement that the choice option in ObamaCare’s small business exchanges would be delayed for a year, and the short version is that because Republicans refused to implement the law themselves in the states and have declined to provide additional funding for implementation at the federal level, the GOP is on the hook for delays and failures.

It’s hard to blame Republicans for the delay of the small business choice option: it’s not something that Republicans have focused on to any great degree, and the main reasons for the delay seems to be a the technical challenge of designing a multitude of plans that fit the exchange requirements and the administrative burden of having to design those plans while working on other exchange features in the law. Republican opposition doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Overall, Volsky makes a good try, but sorry, no: Democrats are to blame for the failures and problems of a law designed by Democrats, passed by Democrats, and implemented by Democrats. That it is not working now is the fault of the people who said it would work, decided to try making it work, and are now tasked with the responsibility to make it work. They are failing, and the law is failing because of them—not because of Republicans.

More generally, though, this offers a lesson in why it’s ill advised to pass major legislation on strict party lines that is supported by neither the opposition party nor the bulk of the public. Especially when the law is predicated on the assumption that the opposition will cheerfully help with implementation. That Democrats seem to have assumed that Republicans would give in and play ball suggests some mix of deep arrogance, wishful thinking, and willful ignorance of the national political dynamic. It’s just plain bad policy design: A law passed by Democrats that can only work if Republicans decline to oppose the law is a law that almost certainly will not work.

And sure enough, three years after passage, ObamaCare shows signs that it might not be quite as wonderful as promised. But ObamaCare’s supporters are so determined to avoid admitting that it might be a failure—or even just less functional than they insisted it would be—that they are refusing to take responsibility for the politically troubled bureaucratic mess they created. 

View the original article here

Rand Paul Is Right On Marijuana, And That Should Scare Democrats Into Action

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is one of America’s most radical ideologues. He endorsed a discredited, century-old Supreme Court decision that would give employers nearly limitless power to exploit their workers. He opposes bans on employment discrimination and on whites-only lunch counters. He backs nationwide anti-union legislation that would reduce both union and non-union wages by $1,500 a year. And he backs a dangerous constitutional amendment that would have doubled unemployment and caused the economy to shrink by 17 percent. Few, if any, politicians would do more harm to more people if given the opportunity to turn their preferences into law.

Which is why Democrats need to take his effort to outflank them on drug policy very, very seriously. In an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace this morning, Paul laid out an uncharacteristically sensible view of how the nation should approach drugs:

PAUL: The main thing I’ve said is not to legalize [drugs], but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. I’m working with Sen. Leahy. We have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for non-violent crimes. And that’s a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of non-violent criminals.

I don’t want to encourage people to do it. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do. I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t want to promote that. But I also don’t want to put people in jail who make a mistake. There’s a lot of young people who do this, then later on in their 20s they grow up and they get married and they quit doing things like this. I don’t want to put them in jail and ruin their lives.

Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use and I really think, you know, look what would have happened. It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids. particularly in the inner city, they don’t get lucky, they don’t have good attorneys, and they go to jail for these things, and I think it’s a big mistake.

Watch it:

Later in the same interview, Paul — a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016 — is quite explicit about what he hopes to get out of staking out a sensible view on criminal justice: “someone like myself, I think, could appeal to young people, independents and moderates, because, many of them do think it is a mistake to put people in jail for marijuana use and throw away the key.”

Paul is right on both counts. Incarcerating people who commit minor drug crimes makes no sense, and his stance is a winning issue politically. In 2011, a poll found for the first time that fifty percent of the nation supports outright legalization of marijuana, compared to only 46 percent who oppose it. Among voters under 30, nearly two-thirds support legalization. Since this poll was taken, two states legalized marijuana for recreational use, and numerous others had previously legalized it for medical use. According to one poll, nearly three in four Americans believe the federal government should back off enforcement against people who comply with state marijuana laws.

So if Democrats cede this issue to the likes of Rand Paul, they will give up a powerful opportunity to engage with young voters — and potentially empower one of America’s most dangerous politicians in the process.

Of course, there is another, even more important reason why Democrats should work to liberalize America’s drug laws — Rand Paul is right that ruining people’s lives if they commit common youthful transgressions is immoral. But if Democrats cannot be moved to think sensibly on drugs because it is the right thing to do, the least they could do is think sensibly on drugs because it is in their selfish political interests to do so.

View the original article here

Congressional Democrats Again Pressure Obama To Sign Nondiscrimination Executive Order

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)

Congressional Democrats have once again pressured President Obama to issue an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Today, 110 members of the House, led by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NH) and Jared Polis (D-CO), signed a letter urging Obama not to delay the order any longer, regardless of the potential for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to pass:

OUr request begins with a simple premise. It is unacceptable that it remains legal to fire or refuse to hire someone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Federal law continues to allow this and discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal in 29 states and discrimination because of gender identity is legal in 34 states. Action at the federal level can put a stop to these unfair and discriminatory workplace practices in every state. [...]

Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and subsequently amendment, prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The executive order gave millions important workplace protections and to this day continues to stand as an important protection that is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the Department of Labor. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity would protect more than 16 million additional workers.

Last year, 72 Representatives sent a similar letter, as did 37 Senators last month. Despite a campaign pledge to sign such an order, Obama has avoided doing so, claiming he would prefer the legislative solution of ENDA. But even if ENDA were to pass (which it likely won’t while the House is Republican-controlled), an executive order would still be needed to protect employees in businesses with less than 15 employees. It was rumored Obama might use the State of the Union to speak out for nondiscrimination protections, but he did not.

It remains unclear what the Obama administration gains by continuing to deny these protections to the LGBT community.

View the original article here

GOP: Democrats' budget will ‘crush American workers’

A senior Republican launched a preemptive political strike Saturday against the budget plan that Senate Democrats will offer next week, alleging it won’t address the national debt or help workers.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, used the GOP’s weekly address to make his party’s case against the 10-year plan that Democrats hope to steer through the committee.

He said that debt is slowing the economy and depressing wages, and that balancing the budget and ending the deficit – which Sessions calls “the great challenge of our time” – can be achieved by holding annual spending growth to 3.4 percent annually.

“But I fear the Democrat proposal will fail this defining test and will never achieve balance. I fear it will crush American workers and our economy with trillions in new taxes, spending and debt,” Sessions said.

“I fear Chairman Murray will follow the President’s lead: raising taxes to enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of the people,” he said, referring to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

The blueprint to be unveiled Wednesday is the first formal budget plan that Senate Democrats have tried to move through the chamber in several years.

Sessions's remarks are part of intense political positioning on fiscal policy by both parties at a time when Republicans are resisting White House calls for new tax revenues to be included in any deal on spending and entitlements.

The coming week will offer contrasting visions on Capitol Hill because House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was the GOP’s vice presidential candidate, will unveil the House Republicans’ budget plan.

“Government has never been bigger or more out of control. They say there is no problem with waste, fraud, and abuse; they say the problem is you; they say you are not sending them enough money; they say they have wisely spent every penny. So, you must just send them more. And, if you don’t? Well, they won’t stop spending, they’ll just borrow more,” Sessions said.

“These destructive policies cannot continue. We are at the breaking point,” he said.

Sessions said Republican plans will create jobs and boost pay without adding to the debt.

His address touts an array of plans such as ensuring welfare offices become “employment and job training” offices; making more areas available for oil-and-gas drilling; ending “burdensome” regulations; enforcing an immigration policy that “protects legal U.S. workers from unlawful competition,” and several others.

Sessions devotes much of the speech to alleging that Democratic policies are failing the poor and that federal anti-poverty programs are ineffective, alleging that “Compassion demands that we change.”

“President Obama speaks of his deep concern for struggling Americans, yet his plans are focused on growing government – not the economy. He has no effective plan to create better jobs, more hiring or rising wages."

The comments arrive amid a larger effort by Republicans, following their failed 2012 White House campaign and loss of seats in Congress, to make the case that their policies as helpful to struggling workers.

Republicans plan to move legislation through the House next week called the “Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills (SKILLS) Act,” which would streamline and reorient nearly three-dozen federal job training programs in a way that supporters say will better connect workers to job openings.

View Comments

View the original article here

Senate Democrats Air Grievances With Rollout Of Healthcare Law

Democrats who supported President Obama’s healthcare law grilled a top Health and Human Services official Thursday over what they see as holes in the implementation effort and the White House’s political bargaining.

Gary Cohen, the director of the HHS office overseeing the bulk of the healthcare law’s implementation, fielded tough questions from several Democrats.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) hammered HHS for inviting Congress to cut funding for a new nonprofit insurance model. Funding for healthcare co-ops was eliminated in the year-end tax deal, and Nelson said officials offered up the program as a place Congress could cut.

“Why was that negotiated away at the 11th hour?” Nelson asked.

Cohen didn’t have an answer.

Nelson noted that the co-ops funding was axed while applications for new co-ops were still in the pipeline. HHS had already approved a few new of them.

“I want somebody to be accountable for this, and if it was a mistake, for somebody to own up to it,” Nelson said.

Cohen also took hits from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who criticized the administration for delaying implementation of the Basic Health Program — an option for states to provide cost-efficient health coverage outside of Medicaid and the law’s new insurance exchanges.

HHS has said it will not have the Basic Health Program ready until 2015 — a year behind schedule. State officials have balked, and Cantwell echoed their criticisms Thursday during the Senate Finance Committee hearing on the status of the implementation effort.

“We’re very concerned about the approach by the agency in trying to thwart this effort,” she said. “Are you artificially raising the cost to all taxpayers by trying to lure them onto the exchange?”

Cantwell warned that many members of the Finance Committee are familiar with state-based cost-control efforts and would not look kindly on HHS subverting them. She said the department has sidelined the Basic Health Plan in order to focus on the exchanges — which will provide subsidies from the federal government.

“What I’m very concerned about is the agency seems to think the technology of the exchange is the holy grail, and you’re trying to lure states” into the exchanges, she said.

Cohen said the Basic Health Plan has simply had to take a backseat to other priorities.

“I don’t think we’re trying to lure people into the exchange,” he said.

Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was also skeptical about both the co-ops and HHS’ work on exchanges — specifically, integrating the complex and often outdated computer systems of the multiple federal agencies that will have a role in providing or assessing health coverage.

And Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) criticized the administration for not extending the law’s definition of “affordable” coverage to family plans.

The health law makes subsidies available to people who cannot buy affordable coverage from an employer, and defines an affordable plan as one that costs less than 9.5 percent of the employee’s salary. But that standard only applies to an individual policy.

So if an employee could insure herself for less than 9.5 percent of her income, but couldn’t afford to cover her whole family through her employer’s plan, she wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies and healthcare would remain unaffordable.

View Comments

View the original article here

President, top Senate Democrats huddle on immigration reform

President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden met Wednesday at the White House with Senate Democrats for a strategy session to help shepherd a comprehensive immigration bill through Congress.

"The president thanked the senators for their work to date and told them that while he was pleased with the progress, he expects the process to continue to move forward and stands ready to introduce his own legislation if Congress fails to act," a White House official said.

Obama, Biden, and top administration officials met with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) — all members of a bipartisan group that outlined the framework for a potential deal last month.

The White House said that at the meeting, Obama "reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan, commonsense effort, including continuing to strengthen border security" — a key sticking point in Senate negotiations.

The White House has objected to a Republican plan that would precondition a so-called pathway to citizenship for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants on additional border security measures. Democrats have said that while they remain committed to improving border security, they fear leaving the process in limbo.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Obama said "the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

"Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship – a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally," Obama said. "And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy."

Following the address, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) — expected to be a shepherd of immigration legislation in the Republican House — told CBS News that he thought a deal could be done if Democrats were willing to concede some points.

"As long as the president and his party don't draw a red line and say that they have to get everything that they want," Labrador said.

View Comments

View the original article here

How House Democrats Plan To Use Local Power To Stop Gun Violence – And How To Do It Better

On Thursday afternoon, the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force released a framework document laying out fifteen proposals for gun violence prevention legislation. It’s a good document, reaching beyond the mainstay proposals like an assault weapon bans to less heralded, but equally important issues like restrictions on the federal government’s ability to help state and local police track local guns. But the most unique proposals in the framework are also some of the ones most in need of improvement: its recommendations for supporting local efforts against gun violence.

Other recent gun violence proposals (like those from President Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]) have focused primarily on increased direct federal legislation. The Task Force proposal also contains significant federal proposals, but amps up the focus on how the federal government can support innovative state and local initiatives to reduce gun violence. It’s a smart approach — NRA-sponsored legislation limits both local ability to regulate guns and efforts to research their effects, but what evidence we have suggests state and local efforts really can make a dent in gun violence. A study of 54 cities, for example, found that ones with tighter and better enforced gun laws substantially reduced the diversion of guns to criminals.

The Task Force’s approach to local enforcement involves highlighting smart local initiatives and supporting them. For example:

1. Comprehensive, public health youth gun violence initiatives. The Task Force rejects “tough on crime” approaches to youth violence that involve the mass incarceration of kids in favor of “comprehensive, evidence-based prevention and intervention programs directed toward at-risk youth” created by “representatives from local law enforcement, schools, court services, social services, health and mental health services, businesses, and other community organizations.” This appears to be a reference to the “public health” gun violence reduction approach enacted in, among other places, Boston and Minneapolis, which has saved hundreds of lives that might have been claimed by gunfire.

2. Criminal firearm disposal. “Over time, gun owners may lose their eligibility to possess a weapon under state or federal law, often because of criminal activity or mental health issues. Innovative programs designed to facilitate the disposal of firearms held by prohibited persons can prevent gun violence,” the Task Force notes. It goes on to suggest that “the federal government should encourage states to create and utilize programs that allow local law enforcement to assist gun owners who do not have the legal capacity to own them, in the sale or transfer of their illegal firearms.”

3. Community-level gun reduction. The Task Force recommends that “Congress should take measures to encourage state and local governments to use federal funds” to support “various strategies to better engage local communities in removing illegal or unused guns from their neighborhoods, such as illegal gun tip hotlines and voluntary gun buyback programs administered by municipalities or local law enforcement.” This sort of clarity (it even goes on to name specific federal funds that could be used for this purpose) could improve the Task Force’s other suggestions for local law enforcement.

Unfortunately, not all of these proposals for improved local gun action are accompanied by proposals for how the federal government can actually accomplish those ends ends. While the second of the above suggestions does, neither the first nor the third clarifies how, exactly, it plans to use federal law to encourage states, cities, and counties to adopt the outlined approach. Expressing support in the abstract is nice, but absent some kind of federal program providing financial or some other sort of assistance to locales, it’s won’t do very much.

Lack of concrete action for its local support plans isn’t the only problem in the recommendations — for example, its section on “increased prosecutions of persons who violate federal firearms law” focuses more on gun purchasers rather than the real problem, crooked gun dealers willing to sell to criminals. But overall, the proposals are excellent steps in the right direction.

View the original article here

California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation

California Democrats present gun violence prevention plan.

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. California’s assault weapons ban only restricts the possession of semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines if they have an additional, “military-style” feature like flash suppressors. The new laws would tighten this law by banning all such rifles regardless of external features.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines. California law bans the transfer, not possession, of magazines that can hold over ten bullets. This allows people wanting to skirt the law to buy the constituent parts and make the magazines themselves. The new law would close that loophole.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits. State law defines “detachable magazines” as, in part, magazines that can be released “without the use of a tool.” Bullet button kits allow magazines to be released quickly by pressing a bullet into them, thus creating an end-around the intent of the assault weapons ban. The new provisions would ban such kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations. It would ban this class of class of weapon.

5. Universal registration of all guns. The law would create “ownership records consistently across-the-board, ensuring all firearms are recorded” so that the background check system can prevent criminals from getting guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition. This provision requires a “full and complete” background check on ammunition sales, “building on” laws existing in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

7. Regulating gun loans. The legislators propose setting up an as-yet undefined regulatory system for the loan, as opposed to sale, of guns.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns. California’s Armed Persons Prohibition (APP) database lists people who can’t legally own weapons (as a consequence of criminal or mental health records) under state law. This addition would prevent people on the list from living in a house that has a gun.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway. Currently, 19,700 people who are on the APP list own guns. Police estimate that these people own roughly 39,000 firearms. This new law would authorize additional funding to enforce the law in this area.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners. People with concealed carry permits are required under California (and many other) state laws to pass a mandatory safety and firearm instruction course. This provision would require all handgun owners, regardless of permit status, to undergo a similar process.

View the original article here

Senate Democrats Delay Hagel Vote After Desperate And Unprecedented GOP Stall Tactics

Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin (D-MI) will reportedly delay the committee’s vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be the next Secretary of Defense. Republicans are demanding that Hagel produce the texts of private speeches he made and disclose the financial dealings of private companies he is associated with. A spokesperson for Levin told ThinkProgress that the committee is “working on their concerns.”

The vote was expected to take place as early as Thursday, but Republicans — led by Sens. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) — asked that the vote be delayed after Hagel — citing legal and logistics issues — said he could not give the them everything they’re asking for.

“It’s up in the air,” the committee staffer told Politico. “Levin isn’t interested in pushing it through against their will. We’re trying to resolve their concerns, and hopefully we can get it addressed by tomorrow,” a committee staffer told Politico on Wednesday.

But now it seems like those concerns won’t be met and it’s unclear just how they can or should be addressed at all, seeing that Hagel has said he doesn’t have the texts of all his private speeches and the business dealings of private companies and organizations Hagel is affiliated with is, as the Atlantic’s Steve Clemons points out, “going to be a really fun slippery slope”:

The entangled relationships of all US senators and spouses would be screened to see what they might be able to cough up about firms they have some connection to but don’t run.

I don’t think we should go down that road — but if Senator Cruz compels it, it should be interesting.

“The committee’s vote on Senator Hagel’s nomination has not been scheduled,” Levin said today in a statement. “I had hoped to hold a vote on the nomination this week, but the committee’s review of the nomination is not yet complete. I intend to schedule a vote on the nomination as soon as possible.”

“If we’re really going to go down this route,” TPM’s Josh Marshall writes, “is it time to air the fact that AEI is partly funded by secret grants by the Taiwanese government (at least as of mid-last decade)?”

View the original article here

Democrats dis-'like' Zuckerberg's Christie fundraiser on Facebook

By Alicia M. Cohn - 01/24/13 03:43 PM ET

The Democratic and Republican governors associations are engaging in a war of "likes" and "dislikes" on Facebook Thursday afternoon over Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg announced Thursday that he would host a political fundraiser, for the first time in his own home, for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Feb. 13. The fundraiser will support Christie's reelection as governor.

The Democratic Governors Association (DGA) is using Facebook to show its "dislike" of the move by the social network's founder, posting a thumbs-down graphic with the news and inviting supporters to sign a petition to call on Zuckerberg to cancel his fundraiser for Christie.

The Republican Governors Association (RGA) is promoting the news as well, in a post that urges supporters to use the thumbs-up button. "This definitely deserves a lot of LIKES!" the RGA wrote.

The RGA also sent a barbed tweet at its Democratic counterpart making a pointed comment about the number of states currently represented by Democratic governors.

We're not surprised to see @demgovs more concerned with Zuckerberg than winning governors races. It's why they only have 19 out of 50 govs.

— The RGA (@The_RGA) January 24, 2013

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Facebook said Mark and Priscilla Zuckerberg "admire [Christie's] leadership on education reform and other issues."

View Comments

View the original article here

Lankford criticizes Senate Democrats, Obama on budget

Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) hammered Senate Democrats on Saturday for not approving a budget resolution in nearly four years.

Lankford also criticized President Obama for falling behind on finalizing a budget proposal in time for next month's deadline, saying he has "already missed more budget deadlines than any of his predecessors."

"Every family and every business has a budget, our nation should have a budget as well," Lankford, the new chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, said during the GOP's weekly address.

Unlike the Senate, he said the House will pass its budget on time and vowed that "it will be a plan to slowly but surely walk our nation out of debt, deficit and decline."

House Republicans plan to pass a three-month increase in the debt limit next week. They will also seek to add a bill to it that will prevent lawmakers from being paid if the House and Senate fail to pass a budget resolution. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday said the House will pursue strategies to force the upper chamber to pass a budget.

In his address, Lankford took a jab at a comment Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made about the Senate choosing not to put forward a budget proposal.

"Majority Leader Harry Reid said it would be 'foolish' for his party in the Senate to produce a budget. We disagree. With more than 16 trillion dollars in debt, we believe it is foolish not to have a budget," the Oklahoma Republican said.

He argued that American families are hurt the most by Congress's failure to work out a budget.

"When day to day life costs more and jobs pay less, we don't solve the problem by delaying our federal spending decisions, raising taxes or refusing to tackle our nation's most pressing economic challenges," Lankford said.

While the inauguration and start of a new Congress provides "opportunity for a fresh start," Lankford warned that the GOP "will not simply provide a blank check for uncontrolled spending, irrational borrowing and constant nickel and dime tax increases."

"We should cut Washington's budget, not your family’s budget," he said.

Lankford encouraged both parties to work together on a plan and cited a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. that said: "‘Life's most persistent and urgent question is: 'What are you doing for others?’"

“That is a good word for all of us and a clarion call that should ring in our ears on his birthday weekend," Lankford said. "Regardless of our differences, we all have the same dreams of a better future for our kids and grandkids."

View Comments

View the original article here

Meet The NRA-Backed Senate Democrats Who Oppose Obama’s Gun Violence Prevention Plan

On Wednesday, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive plan to reform American gun laws and take action against the 32,000 firearm-inflicted deaths per year in the United States. His proposals ranged from stricter, universal background checks to more funding for police officers to expanding access to mental health care.

Yet a group of Senate Democrats, all of them highly rated by the National Rifle Association, are refusing to say if they support the President’s reform package. Below is a list of the Senators in question, how they’re rated by the NRA, and what they’ve said about gun law reform:

1. Max Baucus, Montana (NRA Rating: A+). Baucus appeared to oppose any federal action on gun law reform, saying in a statement that “Before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of a one-size-fits all directives from Washington.”

2. Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota (NRA Rating: A). In a local television appearance before President Obama’s announcement, Heitkamp accused the White House of having ulterior motives besides preventing mass killing, claiming “There isn’t any amount of gun regulation or gun executive orders that will solve the problem of identifying people who could potentially do this and making sure they get the help and their families get the help so they don’ t do this. I’ve said it all along that this is wrong headed…I think it is an agenda driven by something other than school shootings.”

3. Tim Johnson, South Dakota (NRA Rating: A). Like Baucus, Johnson argued against federal solutions: “We in South Dakota have far fewer problems with guns than they do in New York or New Jersey and it makes common sense to not have one size fits all.”

4. Joe Donnelly, Indiana (NRA Rating: A). Donnelly simply said that “I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” pointed to his NRA endorsement, and rejected the assault weapons ban plan of Obama’s proposal.

5. Mark Begich, Alaska (NRA Rating: A). Begich cited his support for mental health legislation, but demurred on gun restrictions, saying “there is no quick fix when it comes to keeping our families and communities safe. We must make smart investments to increase our safety while ensuring Americans’ Second Amendment rights are protected.”

6. Joe Manchin, West Virginia (NRA Rating: A). Manchin blamed a “culture of mass violence” rather than the spread of deadly weapons, wishing the president had created a “national commission [to] build the consensus we need for real action backed not only by gun control advocates, mental health experts and entertainment industry executives but also by law-abiding gun owners who fully understand the history and heritage of firearms in America.”

7. Jon Tester, Montana (NRA Rating: A-). Tester refused to take a position, saying “As Congress considers ways to address gun violence, we must look at all aspects of this issue. Our priority must be keeping all Americans–especially our kids–safe. I will look closely at all proposals on the table, but we must use common sense and respect our Constitution.”

8. Harry Reid, Nevada (NRA Rating: B). Reid, like Tester, wouldn’t say one way or another: “I thank the President’s task force for its thoughtful recommendations. I am committed to ensuring that the Senate will consider legislation that addresses gun violence and other aspects of violence in our society early this year. The tragedy at Sandy Hook was just the latest sad reminder that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens – especially our children – from gun violence and a culture of violence, and all options should be on the table moving forward.”

Fortunately, however, several Democratic Senators with high ratings have realized the gun lobby’s power is vastly overstated. Mark Warner of Virginia, who has a flat A rating, said several of the Obama proposals had “bipartisan support” and that “President Obama has laid out a comprehensive, far-reaching proposal to address the issues of gun violence and public safety. The Sandy Hook shootings compel all of us to think anew about these issues, and I believe the status quo is not acceptable.” Bob Casey (PA) and Martin Heinrich (NM), who are rated B+, supported some of the strong gun regulations in the Obama package.

An earlier version of this post attributed a statement from Rep. Don Young (R-AK) to Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK). The post has been updated to accurately reflect Sen. Begich’s remarks. We regret the error.

View the original article here

Hagel Wins Over Key Democrats In Defense Secretary Bid

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — rumored to be a potential roadblock in the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, today announced his support of Hagel’s bid — following a lengthy meeting between the two.

Schumer was thought by many to be a bellwether on whether coordinated attacks on Hagel’s stance on Iran and Israel by neoconservatives were having the desired effect. In the aftermath of a ninety minute meeting between the two on Monday, Schumer made clear that the smear tactics of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and others had not swayed his decision, announcing his support in a prepared statement:

Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him. [...]

I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.

In his statement, Schumer also noted that Hagel provided assurances on his commitment to female and LGBT service members, another concern of several members of the Senate.

By announcing his support, Schumer joins Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in firmly stating their backing of Hagel in the coming confirmation fight. “After speaking extensively with Sen. Hagel by phone last week and after receiving a detailed written response to my questions late today, I will support Sen. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of Defense,” Boxer said in a statement.

In an attempt to push Schumer, the Emergency Committee for Israel — one of the groups leading the charge against Hagel — took out a full page in today’s New York Times urging readers to call Schumer and Sen. Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY) to oppose Hagel. Schumer’s announcement seems to make that ad moot.

View the original article here

Thanks To Gerrymandering, Democrats Would Need To Win The Popular Vote By Over 7 Percent To Take Back The House

America Wanted This Woman To Be Speaker of The House

As of this writing, every single state except Hawai’i has finalized its vote totals for the 2012 House elections, and Democrats currently lead Republicans by 1,362,351 votes in the overall popular vote total. Democratic House candidates earned 49.15 percent of the popular vote, while Republicans earned only 48.03 percent — meaning that the American people preferred a unified Democratic Congress over the divided Congress it actually got by more than a full percentage point. Nevertheless, thanks largely to partisan gerrymandering, Republicans have a solid House majority in the incoming 113th Congress.

A deeper dive into the vote totals reveals just how firmly gerrymandering entrenched Republican control of the House. If all House members are ranked in order from the Republican members who won by the widest margin down to the Democratic members who won by the widest margins, the 218th member on this list is Congressman-elect Robert Pittenger (R-NC). Thus, Pittenger was the “turning point” member of the incoming House. If every Republican who performed as well or worse than Pittenger had lost their race, Democrats would hold a one vote majority in the incoming House.

Pittenger won his race by more than six percentage points — 51.78 percent to 45.65 percent.

The upshot of this is that if Democrats across the country had performed six percentage points better than they actually did last November, they still would have barely missed capturing a majority in the House of Representatives. In order to take control of the House, Democrats would have needed to win the 2012 election by 7.25 percentage points. That’s significantly more than the Republican margin of victory in the 2010 GOP wave election (6.6 percent), and only slightly less than the margin of victory in the 2006 Democratic wave election (7.9 percent). If Democrats had won in 2012 by the same commanding 7.9 percent margin they achieved in 2006, they would still only have a bare 220-215 seat majority in the incoming House, assuming that these additional votes were distributed evenly throughout the country. That’s how powerful the GOP’s gerrymandered maps are; Democrats can win a Congressional election by nearly 8 points and still barely capture the House.

For two months, the nation has suffered through a “fiscal cliff” argument that threatened to plunge the nation into another recession. If the incoming Congress bore any resemblance to the one the American people voted for, however, this threat would have disappeared on Election Day because Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi would have no problem rounding up the votes to eliminate this so-called cliff and set America back on the path to economic growth.

Worse, top Republicans are already threatening to use the looming debt ceiling fight to torpedo the entire U.S. economy unless Congress agrees to slash Social Security or Medicare benefits for seniors. They will have the leverage to attempt this because the incoming House bears no resemblance to the one America actually voted for. And individual Republican House members will be able to engage in this political dangerous game of chicken comfortable in the knowledge that partisan gerrymandering makes many of them untouchable in a general election.

Partisan gerrymanders, like the one that now all but locks the GOP majority in place, have been the subject of repeated court challenges. America can thank the five conservative justices on the Supreme Court for allowing these gerrymanders to continue.

View the original article here

Will the South Carolina Democrats Tolerate This Racism?

Phil Bailey sat next to South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts when Knotts called Governor Nikki Haley, then a candidate for Governor, a “raghead.”

Phil Bailey did nothing.

Phil Bailey is the Executive Director of the South Carolina Senate Democratic Caucus. It seems he is now intent on one upping Jake Knotts.

Bailey, who had no problem with Knotts’ “raghead” comment when even the First Vice Chairman of the State GOP, Patrick Haddon, was calling for Knotts’s resignation, seems determined to one up Knotts with racism.

Bailey has been on twitter referring to Nikki Haley, a Methodist of Indian descent, as the “Sikh Jesus.” Governor Haley’s parents are sikh, but she and her husband attend a Methodist Church.

Not content to do it just once, Phil Bailey did it a second time, complete with a picture of a dog.

I know the South Carolina Democrats have low standards. But do they really want one of their employees to first be cool with the Governor of their state being called a “raghead” and then himself calling her a “sikh Jesus”?

View the original article here

The Democrats Train to be Race Baiters #EERS

The Democrats have been taking professional training on how to be race baiters in this election cycle. I’m surprised this hasn’t gotten significant coverage.

I’ll get into it tonight and the logical outcomes of Obamacare start to kick in as Obama starts inserting himself into other Presidents’ biographies.

You can listen live tonight on the WSB live stream from 6:05 pm to 10pm and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread. Also, please consider going to http://wsbradio.com/ to find out how you can help Amy Copeland.

If you are in the Atlanta area and can give blood, please click here right now to register for a spot at the blood donation drive.

View the original article here

The Attempted Al Qaeda Bombing & Democrats Silencing Dissident #EERS

Tonight, I’ll have the latest on the attempted Al Qaeda bombing of an American passenger plane. Also, in Georgia, the Democrats have hit on a novel way to silence dissent — go after poor bloggers who do not have the money to fight the lawsuits.

You can listen live tonight on the WSB live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK. The show runs from 6pm to 9pm ET.

Consider this an open thread.

View the original article here

Eric Cantor Doesn’t Want You. He Wants Democrats.

This is more offensive than Cantor throwing his weight behind Adam Kinzinger’s re-election bid against Don Manzullo. He was successful there, but we need to shut him down in Indiana.

The Republican Leader in the House of Representatives is not backing down from trying to drive up Democrat turnout in the Indiana Republican Primary.

First, you have to wonder why a House guy is getting involved in a Senate race.

Second, you have to wonder why a Republican Leader is using Republican donors’ money to drive up Democrat turnout in a Republican race.

I wonder if the Republican donors to the Young Guns Network know their campaign donations to a Republican group are going to aid and abet Democrat turnout in a Republican race. And I hope House conservatives know their own supposedly leader is not just using their own money to pick and choose between them in the House, but to also help Barack Obama’s favorite Senator.

View the original article here