Rubio: Republicans are 'primarily' to blame for culture of dependency

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Thursday said his party was “primarily” responsible for the culture of dependency on the federal government in the United States.

Rubio was discussing the Gang of Eight immigration bill on "The Rush Limbaugh Show," when Limbaugh said he didn’t understand the argument that Hispanics were a natural Republican constituency because a poll showed that 70 percent of Hispanics believe “that government is the primary source of prosperity.”

“I'd say that's a growing problem in America in general,” Rubio said. “I think we have a growing problem in this country that too many people have forgotten what the true sense of prosperity is … and let me tell you who I blame for that first and foremost. I blame that primarily, quite frankly, on decisions made by the Republican Party in the past to embrace crony capitalism and corporate welfare as conservatism, when, in fact, that's not what we're about.”

Rubio didn’t identify any specific members of his party, but referenced “multiple candidates” who campaigned as small-government conservatives and later governed as big-government liberals.

That comment seemed at least partially directed at former President George W. Bush.

“I also think that while we've had multiple candidates in the past that have campaigned as limited-government conservatives ... until it's their government program that they're trying to protect, or what have you,” he said. “So I don't think necessarily Republicans have always governed as the limited-government movement and the result is you see this kind of confusion in the American electorate about what the source of prosperity is.”

Rubio said the party needed to do a better job of explaining that “free enterprise is the only way to consistently create the kind of growth and opportunity that America's always been identified with.”

“We are about upward mobility,” he said. “We're about the true free enterprise system. We're not about big companies being able to use the federal government to create rules and regulations that make it harder on their competitors.”

View Comments

View the original article here

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

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

AG Holder: ‘We Will Not Sit By’ While Republicans Rig The Electoral College

Attorney General Eric Holder has a solid record on voting rights, and he’s criticized Republican state lawmaker’s efforts to restrict the franchise in the past — at one point comparing voter ID laws to an unconstitutional poll tax. At a speech in New York yesterday, Holder added a new line to his previous attacks on voter suppression, suggesting that DOJ will respond with legal action if any Republican state lawmakers move forward with their proposals to rig the Electoral College:

Long lines are unnecessary. Shortened voting periods are unwise and inconsistent with the historic ideal of expanded participation in the process. Recent proposed changes in how electoral votes are apportioned in specific states are blatantly partisan, unfair, divisive, and not worthy of our nation. Let me be clear again: we will not sit by and allow the slow unraveling of an electoral system that so many sacrificed so much to construct.

There are two versions of the GOP’s election rigging plans, both of which Republicans want to enact exclusively in blue states. One version would allocate electoral votes in several targeted blue states by Congressional district, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. The other version, which is currently being pushed by Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R), would allocate electoral votes proportionally — so that Mitt Romney would have won a significant chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral voters even though President Obama carried the state. As with the congressional districts plan, Pileggi’s election-rigging plan would give away electoral votes to Republicans in his blue state, while still keeping all red state electors in GOP hands:

Holder’s suggestion that he would bring the full weight of the Department of Justice down upon any state that tried to steal the White House is certainly welcome, although it alone will not be enough to stop these election-rigging plans. Ultimately, the Justice Department’s ability to protect voting rights depends on a Supreme Court that is not openly hostile to the franchise — and the Roberts Court’s contempt for voting rights pervades their decisions. If the GOP election-rigging plans are to be defeated, it will require citizens in states like Pennsylvania raising their voice in outrage at this blatant attempt to steal American democracy.

View the original article here

Republicans And Diversity: How The GOP’s Rural Base Spoils The Party

My previous post on the GOP’s problem with projecting a love of diversity when they don’t live it focused on the Republican House caucus and the heavily white districts they tend to represent.  Another way to illustrate this point is to look at where GOP support tends to come from by population density.  The denser an area, the more cosmopolitan and diverse it is likely to be. And that’s precisely where Republicans tend not to be.

Start with the states that Governor Romney won in 2012.  By and large, they tended to be rural and lightly populated.  Fourteen out of 26 states carried by President Obama this year had 10 or more electoral votes, while just six of 24 states carried by Romney had 10 or more electoral votes. Obama also carried seven of the eight most populous states: California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Only Texas went for Romney.

But the population density pattern can be seen most clearly by looking at the types of areas that Obama and Romney did well in. Obama ran strongest in large metropolitan areas (those with more than 1 million in population), winning these areas by 56 percent to 42 percent. Well over half (54 percent) of the U.S. population lives in these 51 large metropolitan areas.

Obama and Romney tied, 49 percent-49 percent, in medium metropolitan areas (those with 250,000 to 1 million in population).  Medium metros contain another 20 percent of the U.S. population.

In small metro areas (nine percent of the country), where the population dips below 250,000, Romney was finally able to build a vote margin over Obama.  Romney carried these areas 55 percent-43 percent.  And outside of metro areas, where population density continues to fall, Romney did even better. In micropolitan areas — think of these areas as the small town sections of rural America — Romney beat Obama by 18 percentage points, 58 percent-40 percent. Micropolitans are another 10 percent of the U.S. population. And in the rest of rural America, the part that is most isolated from population centers and the most spread out, Gov. Romney bested Obama by 23 points, 61 percent-38 percent. These areas, despite the vast land area they cover, contain only 6 percent of the population (which is why, if you look at county maps of election returns, so much of it is colored red despite President Obama’s solid victory).

The same density-related patterns of support for Obama and Gov. Romney can be observed within large metropolitan areas. Here we can use a typology developed by Virginia Tech’s Metropolitan Institute and Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program to break these areas down by density and distance from the urban core. In large metro areas Obama did best in densely populated urban cores (9 percent of the country), carrying counties in this classification by a whopping 55 points (77 percent to 22 percent). Moving out from pure urban core counties to the densest, closest-in suburban counties—classified as inner-suburban in the typology—Obama carried these counties by a wide 25-point margin (62 percent-37 percent).  Almost a fifth (19 percent) of the nation’s population is contained in these inner-suburban counties.

President Obama also carried mature suburban counties (16 percent of the nation’s population)—counties that are somewhat less dense than inner-suburbs and typically contain no portion of the central city—by 13 points (56 percent-43 percent.

Moving out to the emerging suburbs, it is important to distinguish between these areas and true exurbs, which together constitute what people usually think of as “exurbia.” Today’s true exurbs contain only 3 percent of the nation’s population. That is where Gov. Romney did the best, carrying these counties by 24 points (61 percent-37 percent).

In contrast, emerging suburbs contain 8 percent of the nation’s population and tend to be faster-growing and denser than true exurbs. Emerging suburbs include such well-known counties as Loudoun County, VA, just outside of Washington, DC;  Scott County, MN, outside of Minneapolis; Warren County, OH, outside of Cincinnati;  and Douglas County, CO, outside of Denver.  In this category of counties Gov. Romney also did well (53 percent-45 percent) though not nearly as well as he did in the true exurbs, where population density is lowest and concentration of white voters is highest.

Living where they ain’t: that’s today’s Republican party.  It’s a problem that is not amenable to a quick GOP image makeover, as the party is currently finding out.

View the original article here

Republicans Introduce Legislation To Discriminate Against Non-English Speakers

Left: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Right: Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Republicans are continuing their minority outreach efforts this month by introducing a bill outlawing Spanish and other non-English languages from being used in federal documents.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), most recently in the headlines after attacking President Obama’s young daughters for going on vacation, introduced the English Language Unity Act in the House earlier this month, along with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) in the Senate. As King notes on his website, the bill would require “all official functions of the United States to be conducted in English.” Federal and state governments print thousands of documents every year, many of which are translated into other languages besides English.

One major impact King’s bill could have is to stop the decades-long practice of printing non-English ballots in areas where there’s a significant non-English language group. Indeed, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 currently requires local jurisdictions with a substantial number of non-English speakers to allow them to vote in other languages.

King’s bill currently enjoys 39 co-sponsors in the House—37 Republicans and two conservative Democrats—though that number will likely increase over time. Inhofe’s Senate bill has five co-sponsors, all Republicans.

English-only bills not only discriminate against immigrants and minorities; they’re also wholly unnecessary. Conservatives fret that immigrants today aren’t learning English like immigrants of yesteryear, but are instead confining themselves to permanent non-English enclaves. That idea is, to put it mildly, nonsense. Though first-generation immigrants often have limited-English proficiency, their children quickly adopt English, just as it’s always been in the proverbial American melting pot. By the second generation, more than 80 percent speak English exclusively or very well, and the figure jumps to nearly everyone in the third generation. In fact, as Professor Tomas Jimenez at Stanford University notes, “immigrants today are learning English faster than the large waves of immigrants who came to the United States during the turn of the last century.”

Republicans have spent the months following last November’s election in a tailspin trying to figure out how to win over minority voters. Their autopsy, released this month, singled out minority outreach as an area where the Party has consistently fell short and planned to improve going forward. However, the GOP put forth no new policies, only a promise to be more sensitive in their communication. That pledge was quickly violated by Rep. Don Young and RNC Committeeman Dave Agema, among others.

View the original article here

Republicans swiftly denounce Rep. Young’s slur on Hispanics

Republican leaders on Friday moved quickly to denounce Rep. Don Young's racial slur against Hispanics. 

Leaders of the House ripped Young, while Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus sought to distance Young from his party, which is trying to win back Hispanic voters after a disastrous election in which President Obama won more than 70 percent of their votes. 

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said there was "no excuse" for Young's description of Latino workers on his family farm as "wetbacks." 

“Congressman Young’s remarks were offensive and beneath the dignity of the office he holds," Boehner said in a statement. "I don’t care why he said it. There’s no excuse, and it warrants an immediate apology.”

Young released an initial statement that said he did not intend for the comment to offend.

On Friday afternoon, he issued a second statement apologizing for using an "insensitive term" and a "poor choice of words." He also said he was sorry it was taking attention away from immigration reform.

"I apologize for the insensitive term I used during an interview in Ketchikan, Alaska," he said. "There was no malice in my heart or intent to offend; it was a poor choice of words. That word, and the negative attitudes that come with it, should be left in the 20th century, and I’m sorry that this has shifted our focus away from comprehensive immigration reform."

Young's initial comment came during an interview broadcast Thursday with KRDB-FM radio in Alaska about the immigration reform legislation that is being crafted in Congress. 

"My father had a ranch. We used to have 50 to 60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," he told the station. "It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine."

The comments made headlines late Thursday and drew additional coverage on Friday, as many Republicans put out statements critical of the remarks. 

"We are a welcoming and tolerant nation, and there is no excuse for this type of offensive language in public discourse," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said in a statement provided to The Hill. 

Democrats have seized on the comments, with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sending out press releases calling on more than three dozen House Republicans to denounce Young's comments. 

Separately, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Young's comments were "deeply hurtful, offensive and inappropriate." Pelosi also said Young's initial response was lacking and that he should apologize for remarks "that were not appropriate in his youth or now."

The sharp statements from Republicans hinted at worries within the GOP that Young's comments could damage the party's image with Hispanics.

A long line of Republican leaders since the 2012 election have urged their party's members to be more inclusive — and less bone-headed in their statements. 

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, for example, told Republicans to "stop being the stupid party" at a national retreat in January. 

In one bid to appeal to Hispanics, Republicans in the Senate and House have been working this year to move immigration reform legislation through Congress. Legislation by a group of Democratic and Republican senators could be released as early as April

Priebus said Young's comments did not represent the party, which he said sought to represent hope for all Americans.

"The words used by Rep. Young emphatically do not represent the beliefs of the Republican Party," he said in a statement. "As I have continued to say, everyone in this country deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Our party represents freedom and opportunity for every American and a beacon of hope to those seeking liberty throughout the world. Offensive language and ethnic slurs have no place in our public discourse." 

Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the comment could hurt Republicans and their relationship with the Hispanic community.

"Migrant workers come to America looking for opportunity and a way to provide a better life for their families,” Cornyn, the second-ranking Senate Republican, said in a statement Friday.

“They do not come to this country to hear ethnic slurs and derogatory language from elected officials,” he said. “The comments used by Rep. Young do nothing to elevate our party, political discourse or the millions who come here looking for economic opportunity.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading Senate negotiator on immigration reform, also slammed Young.

"Don Young's comments were offensive and have no place in our party or in our nation's discourse. He should apologize immediately," McCain wrote in a tweet.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the most high-profile Hispanic Republican in Congress, did not have a comment on Young because he is “observing a religious holiday,” according to his office.

— This story was first posted at 11:41 a.m. and was last updated at 4:06 p.m.

— Molly K. Hooper contributed to this report.

View Comments

View the original article here

Republicans Admit Intention To Sugarcoat Their Opposition To LGBT Equality

The Republican Party continues to struggle with its intentions moving forward in regards to LGBT equality. In its autopsy report of the 2012 elections — its “Growth & Opportunity Project” — the gay community was the one group that the Party was not actually interested in reaching out to. Instead, the plan was to convince young people to support conservative principles even if they support LGBT rights. Since then, GOP chairman Reince Priebus has attempted to model this by citing his own marriage as an example for building bridges and suggesting Mike Huckabee, a very vocal opponent of equality, be an ambassador on gay issues.

This week, both Priebus and potential presidential prospect Jeb Bush have both been a bit more candid about their intentions to simply sugarcoat their opposition to equality so it doesn’t sound so anti-gay. Bush told Newsmax that a different tone that expresses opposition to same-sex marriage “in a civil way” that is “not judgmental” would help keep conservatives united:

BUSH: I know for a fact that as it relates to gay marriage and other social issues there is growing divergence of opinion on this. When we talk about it, we ought to talk about it with a different tone — and we ought to talk about it recognizing that there is more than one point of view, and we should talk about it in a way that is not judgmental. If we can get to that point where people who have diverging points of view and express them in a civil way, the conservative coalition can stay intact.

Priebus, in turn, told USA Today that opposition to equality can be presented with “grace and respect”:

“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said in an interview Monday on USA TODAY’s Capital Download video series. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.

“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”

What the Republican Party cannot seem to accept is that no polishing of this message amounts to respect, grace, or civil discourse. Inequality is inequality, and no changes in tone can change that the GOP platform specifically calls for one group of people to be treated as second-class citizens.

View the original article here

House Republicans’ Final Written Argument Against Marriage Equality: Nuh-Uh!

House Republicans' Attorney Paul Clement

House Republicans have filed a reply brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, but the arguments boil down to “nuh-uh” or “just because” responses to Edie Windsor’s attorneys. Though it reiterates many of the arguments made in their initial brief, here’s a summary of the final written arguments against marriage equality in the DOMA case:

Same-sex marriage is still an “experiment,” so Congress was allowed to be cautious: “But when Hawaii was poised to become the first jurisdiction in the United States to deviate from the traditional definition, there was nothing incautious about retaining the traditional definition as the federal definition while states began a process of experimentation. That approach was a rational exercise in caution and a rational approach to the issue given our system of dual sovereignty.”It’s more “uniform” to ban all same-sex marriages than to recognize all valid marriages: “But the federal sovereign has a unique interest in treating a survivor of a same-sex relationship in New York the same as a survivor of a same-sex relationship in Oklahoma. And DOMA rationally furthers that uniquely federal interest in nationwide uniformity.”Most states ban same-sex marriage, so it’s rational that Congress did it too: “It bears emphasis that the traditional definition was the only definition at the time of DOMA’s enactment and remains the rule in more than 80% of the jurisdictions.”Children are better off with their biological parents: “DOMA’s opponents challenge as irrational the long-held cultural judgment that a child’s biological parents are, other things being equal, the child’s natural and most suitable guardians.”Only straight couples need marriage because only they have kids accidentally: “Marriage as an institution is linked to the unique tendency of opposite-sex couples to produce unintended offspring and the societal interest in providing a stable structure for raising such children.”DOMA doesn’t deny marital eligibility to same-sex couples: “DOMA defines terms for purposes of federal law; it does not deny marital eligibility— which remains a matter of state law—to anyone.”Gays aren’t politically powerless like women because women were discriminated against under the law: “The Court’s application of heightened scrutiny, despite the majority status and substantial achievements of women, was explained instead by over a century of official disenfranchisement that left the statute books littered with laws based on outdated stereotypes.”Sexual orientation is a behavior, not an identity: “Unlike the recognized suspect classes, sexual orientation is defined by a tendency to engage in a particular kind of conduct.”Let democracy play out on same-sex marriage so opponents aren’t called bigots: “The democratic process requires opposing sides to attempt to persuade each other, to understand each other’s positions, and perhaps, at least temporarily, to reach compromises that both sides can accept. A constitutional right to same-sex marriage, on the other hand, could be achieved only by marginalizing, as bigoted at worst or irrational at best, the ‘profound and deep convictions’ of those who disagree.”

Some of these arguments are simply rhetorical speculation (“experiment,” “uniform”), others are completely untrue (DOMA rejects states that recognize same-sex marriages, gays do have a history of disenfranchisement under the law), and others defy the lived experiences of gays and lesbians and their families (children who are adopted, sexual orientation as an identity). None of them reflect reality, and none of them should survive the scrutiny of the Court’s questions next week.

(HT: Kathleen Perrin.)

View the original article here

5 Serious Consequences Awaiting North Dakota If Republicans Ban All Abortions Under ‘Personhood’

Last week, the North Dakota legislature passed the most stringent abortion ban in the nation, cutting off access to reproductive services after just six weeks of pregnancy — before some women even know they’re pregnant. But Republicans in the state aren’t stopping there. The legislature is also considering even more stringent “personhood” measures, which would endow fertilized eggs with the full rights of U.S. citizens and outlaw absolutely all abortion services.

Two personhood bills — Senate Bill 2303 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4009 — have already passed the Senate, and the GOP-controlled House is expected to take them up sometime this week. But if North Dakota successfully enacts a total abortion ban, there will be serious consequences for the state that extend even beyond women’s reproductive freedom. Here are five ways the state will suffer under personhood:

1. There will be fewer doctors in the state available to provide medical care. In a historic move for the North Dakota Medical Association, the nonpartisan organization has come out against personhood. The group points out that the anti-abortion measures go too far to “interfere with the physician practice,” and they suspect it will be harder to find qualified medical professionals willing to practice in North Dakota if the state imposes so many complicated restrictions on doctors. Some doctors have already testified before state lawmakers to say they will leave North Dakota if the abortion bans pass.

2. Maternal health care will be compromised. Doctors could be charged with criminal negligence if anything happens to an embryo — which could prevent them from making quick decisions that could help save women’s lives. The tragic case of Savita Halappanavar, a woman who died after being denied an abortion in a Catholic hospital because her doctors were reluctant to provide care that could get them in trouble with the law, highlights the serious consequences of state lawmakers coming between a woman and her doctor.

3. Women could be forced to resort to illegal abortion procedures. Under a personhood law, women will end up resorting to dangerous “backroom” abortions, one former pediatrician warned North Dakota lawmakers last week. That Fargo-area doctor did his medical training before Roe v. Wade, when women were dying of bacterial infections after botched abortion procedures — and he warns that the passage of the proposed personhood measures would pull North Dakota back into “the stone age of medicine.” There’s evidence to back up that claim. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the legality of abortion has absolutely no correlation to abortion rates around the world, because women will continue to seek to terminate pregnancies regardless of the law.

4. Women won’t be able to use in vitro fertilization to try to have a family. Ironically, in addition to compromising medical procedures for the women seeking to terminate a pregnancy, personhood measures also place restrictions on the women who are trying to get pregnant. “These bills will stop the practice of in vitro fertilization in this state,” Dr. Stephanie Dahl, an obstetrician-gynecologist and reproductive medicine specialist in Fargo, explained to lawmakers. Doctors wouldn’t be able to perform any procedure that carries the risk of damaging some embryos, so women would be forced to travel to South Dakota or Minnesota for in vitro treatment, a six-week process that requires multiple sonograms and up to 12 visits to the doctor.

5. The state will become embroiled in expensive lawsuits. North Dakota’s six-week abortion ban already runs afoul of Roe v. Wade, and will certainly invite several costly legal challenges. A total abortion ban would lead to similar consequences. Two personhood bills were recently struck down in Oklahoma, suggesting that the courts won’t take kindly to North Dakota’s push to restrict women’s constitutional rights, either. Nevertheless, even the self-proclaimed “fiscally conservative” Republicans in the state are willing to defend their abortion bans on the state’s dime.

So far this session, Republican majorities in both chambers of the state legislature have successfully advanced a radical anti-abortion agenda in North Dakota — and that’s on top of the existing abortion restrictions. Women already have to undergo a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before having an abortion, and there’s just one last abortion clinic left in the entire state.

View the original article here

GOP Senator: Republicans Are Open To Tax Increases In Grand Bargain

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) believes Senate Republicans would be open to increasing revenue through tax reform as part of a “grand bargain” to reduce the deficit. During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Corker argued that entitlement reform should be a top priority, but left the door open to reaching bipartisan consensus on deficit reduction in the next few months.

In past negotiations, the GOP leadership has repeatedly walked away from the table due to unwillingness to reach an agreement that included more revenue and, since the fiscal cliff deal, Republican leaders have insisted that the “the discussion about revenue … is over.”

Host Chris Wallace asked whether Corker and his party would be open to a compromise that include tax increases:

CORKER: I think there–by the way–is a chance on a deal. I know the president is saying the right things and we have an opportunity over the next four-to-five months. I think that we’ll know when the president is serious by virtue of a process is setup where he is actually at the table or he has a designee and whether he begins to say publicly to the American people, to all Americans, that he understands that Americans are only paying one-third of the cost of Medicare and that has to change for the program to be here down the road. But look, Chris, I think Republicans — if they saw true entitlement reform — would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues. And that doesn’t mean increasing rates, that means closing loopholes. That also means arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth. And I think we’ve been saying that from day one.

Sen. Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), also on the program, praised Corker’s comments as “honest and constructive,” and noted that the savings need to be done in a way that does not obliterate the system, as would be the case in the “Paul Ryan voucher approach.”

Corker is exaggerating the problems facing the Medicare program. According to the program’s 2012 annual trustee’s report, Medicare’s dedicated revenue fully pays for its costs and will do so until at least 2024. Even then, revenue will cover 87 percent of Medicare costs. At the current pace, by 2086, revenue would only be sufficient to cover 69 percent of costs — but even that 75-year figure would be more than two-thirds of the program’s costs.

The Affordable Care Act both reduced the costs of Medicare by hundreds of billions and improved its coverage for seniors. He has also recommended specific reforms that would save $57 billion annually from Medicare (more even than recommended by the Bowles-Simpson commission) and hundreds of billions in entitlement savings overall.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) poured cold water on the idea of increasing taxes during an appearance on Meet The Press, saying, “There are no new tax increases because you don’t need it.”

View the original article here

Cantor: 'I hope' Obama is sincere in wanting to work with Republicans

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that he hopes President Obama's recent outreach efforts to Republican lawmakers are sincere.

Cantor's comments come a day after the second-highest House Republican and a number of his GOP colleagues sat down with Obama in a closed-door meeting. The lawmakers questioned Obama on the federal budget, White House tours and the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.

"I hope that he is sincere in wanting to work together. Because the fact is, there are a lot of things that we do agree on. We know we've got to balance the budget. We know that there are things in common within his proposals and in ours," Cantor said in an interview with CNN.

Obama's sit-down is part of a series of meetings he held with Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. On Thursday Obama finished the meetings with closed-door sessions with Senate Republicans and House Democrats. Obama met with Senate Democrats on Tuesday.

A week earlier Obama also hosted a private dinner with a dozen Republican lawmakers.

Cantor described the tone of the Wednesday meeting as "appropriate."

Everyone wants to "do right by the people that elect us," Cantor added.

"There's a lot of disaffected Americans out there, working families, who just want to see their life work again," Cantor continued. "And I believe that all of us want to see folks who are in failing schools to have parents have the ability to give their children an opportunity to a quality education."

View Comments

View the original article here

Elizabeth Warren Slams Republicans For Trying To Weaken Consumer Finance Protections

At a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) rebuked Republicans for blocking Richard Cordray’s confirmation as director of her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. After a bitter confirmation fight in 2011, President Obama bypassed the Senate using a recess appointment to grant Cordray a temporary term until the end of 2013. Republicans are threatening to filibuster him this time around unless the CFPB is drastically restructured.

Warren declined to question Cordray, who has testified a dozen times. She then directed scrutiny to her Republican colleagues, calling them out for using her former lieutenant’s confirmation as an excuse to undermine the Bureau:

What I want to know is why every banking regulator since the Civil War has been funded outside the appropriations process — but unlike the consumer agency, no one in the U.S. Senate has held up confirmation of their directors demanding that that agency or those agencies be redesigned…I see nothing here but a filibuster threat against Director Cordray as an attempt to weaken the consumer agency. I think the delay in getting him confirmed is bad for consumers, it’s bad for small banks, bad for credit unions, for anyone trying to offer an honest product in an honest market. The American people deserve a Congress that worries less about helping big banks and more about helping regular people who have been cheated on mortgages, on credit cards, on student loans and on credit reports. I hope you get confirmed. You have earned it, Director Cordray.

Watch it:

Warren herself was ousted from the running for CFPB director in an effort to avoid a confirmation battle with Republicans. Still, Senate Republicans are intent on holding up the confirmation of any director to the Bureau. In a letter to Obama last month, 43 Senate Republicans vowed to filibuster any nominee unless they are allowed to hobble the agency’s authority.

Republicans have tried to weaken the Bureau from its inception, claiming it lacks transparency. Unlike other financial regulatory agencies, which are dependent on Congress for funding, the CFPB is intended to be an independent agency with independent funding. If Republicans get their way, the CFPB will lose this independence, making it vulnerable to the partisan shenanigans and funding shortages that have derailed other regulators.

Cordray’s first term demonstrates the CFPB’s efficacy as an independent agency. In one year, the agency has increased supervision over mortgage lenders, brokers, consumer reporting agencies, and large banks, set up programs to help consumers better understand loan agreements and recoup refunds from deceptive and illegal practices, and wrote new rules to prevent wrongful foreclosures.

View the original article here

No, Obama Didn’t Tell Republicans He Would Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline

BuzzFeed reports that House Republicans came out of their lunch meeting with President Obama confident he will say yes to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Rep. John Carter (R-La.) said Obama “indicated” he will support the pipeline.

The truth is the Keystone XL pipeline decision is still months away. There is no indication of how the State Department will decide, and it will happen as early as this summer. Administration officials and reporters confirm the report is false:

.@arthurdelaneyhp says Freshmen GOP Rep at lunch meeting said Obama fielded Keystone pipeline Q but never said he’d approve

— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) March 13, 2013

Additional reports of the meeting indicate Obama only said he will make a decision on Keystone XL soon. It is worth noting BuzzFeed’s own story now carries the rebuttal from the White House stating that the future of the tar sands pipeline has not been determined.

Keystone XL supporters might be optimistic based on a State Department’s draft report that surprisingly concluded the project is environmentally “sound.” There are tens of thousands of activists who disagree.

Of course, Republicans aren’t content to leave the decision to the State Department. Polluter-backed House Republicans have repeatedly tried to force its approval, with their most recent attempt just last week.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Sen. Cruz: 'I'm glad' Obama is finally reaching out to Republicans

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is "glad" President Obama has been meeting with Republican lawmakers recently.

Cruz's comments during a radio interview on Monday follow Obama dining with a dozen of Cruz's Republican Senate colleagues on Wednesday. The president is scheduled to meet with both Republican and Democratic caucuses in the House and the Senate during the week.

"I think we should always be willing to listen. I think we should always treat each other with civility and respect," Cruz, a Tea Party favorite, said Monday during an interview on The Bill Bennett Show. "I'm glad that he is reaching out. That is better than what I have seen the first couple of months here where it seemed that he had no interest whatsoever in talking with the other side."

During the dinner on Wednesday Obama told the group of Republican senators that he wanted to finish a grand bargain plan for reducing the deficit by the end of July. Participants leaving the meeting seemed optimistic about the possibility of completing a grand bargain.

Cruz added though that he would like to see more from Obama than just sitting down and listening to Republicans.

"But I'm a big believer that actions speak louder than words —that if he's really interested," Cruz said.  "The day I was elected to office I said I look forward and am eager to work with President Obama if he's willing to get serious about solving the grave economic and fiscal challenges."

View Comments

View the original article here

Republicans Once Again Try To Ban Same-Sex Weddings On Military Bases

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)

For the past two years, House Republicans have attempted to use the National Defense Authorization Act to solidify some anti-gay principles into military codes, including a ban on same-sex weddings on military bases, a “license to bully” that encouraged anti-gay harassment, and redundant conscience protections for military chaplains. Some of these conscience protections advanced in the final version of the bill this past fall, and Obama criticized them in a signing statement, calling them “unnecessary” and “ill-advised.” Now, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is once again trying to enshrine discrimination into the nation’s military.

His new bill, H.R. 914, the “Military Religious Freedom Protection Act,” contains more redundant protections for military chaplains, ensuring — as is already the case — that they cannot be penalized if their religious beliefs are not pro-gay. What seems evident is that those redundancies are simply a guise for the last little provision in the bill: a ban on same-sex marriages on military bases:

A military installation or other property owned, rented, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense shall not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.

Furthermore, if there is any concern that chaplains’ consciences are not already protected, it seems that these reiterated provisions could only serve to protect outright anti-LGBT harassment.

In the year after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, only two individuals — both chaplains — left the military in protest. Nothing about this bill supports the military or its members.

View the original article here

Republicans Suddenly Outraged About Consequences Of Looming Spending Cuts

Barring a last minute agreement, the automatic across-the-board spending cuts that were included in the Budget Control Act will go into effect on Friday, affecting everything from food safety inspections, to HIV testing kits, and domestic violence programs. On Monday, Immigration of Customs Enforcement even began releasing some 10,000 nonviolent detainees from Immigration Detention Centers, citing the looming budget cuts. “I’m supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “How do I pay for those?”

Republicans — who have remained silent on the cuts that would effect health care and education programs — immediately expressed outrage, arguing that the Obama administration was purposely releasing immigrants to scare the public. “This is very hard for me to believe that they can’t find cuts elsewhere in their agency,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said in an interview with CBS. “I frankly think this is outrageous. And I’m looking for more facts, but I can’t believe that they can’t find the kind of savings they need out of that department short of letting criminals go free.”

The party finally found a cut it didn’t like, even though all of the immigrants released were being held on non-violent, immigration-related offenses and are still being tracked by ICE.

Taxpayers are forking over roughly $5.1 billion to the private prison industry every year to pay for detention centers, which hold thousands of immigrants who have not been convicted on any crime.

At around $164 per day per immigrant in detention, the centers are a huge burden on the U.S. economy and are home to multiple human rights violations.

The AP reports that Executive Associate Director at ICE, Gary Mead, resigned Wednesday after the White House revealed that they did not know about the release of immigrants from detention centers:

Mead had told co-workers of his resignation in the email sent Tuesday, hours after U.S. officials had confirmed that a few hundred illegal immigrants facing deportation had been released from immigration jails due to budget cuts.

President Barack Obama’s spokesman said Wednesday the White House was never consulted but described the immigrants as “low-risk, non-criminal detainees.”

ICE almost immediately disputed the report, saying that it was “inaccurate and misleading,” since Mead had been planning to retire before the detainee release.

View the original article here

Governor Trying To Save Republicans From Themselves Comes Out In Favor Of Universal Background Checks

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R), who has been trying to make a name for himself as a maverick in the GOP, on Sunday became the latest Republican to come out in favor of universal background checks on all gun sales.

Jindal is engaged in a dedicated effort to frame himself as a politician outside of the Republican establishment. Last month, he gave a speech begging Republicans not to be “the stupid party.” Presumably as part of the effort, Jindal on Sunday’s Meet the Press, agued that background checks are the most sensible, and agreeable, route to take on gun regulations:

I think there is an opportunity to do something here. If we’re serious about doing something and not just having a political football here, I think we can work with Democrats, we can work even with the administration to say. I think we all agree that we shouldn’t have guns get into the hands with those with serious mental illness. We propose legislation to provide more of that legislation, more of those records into the background check system than is happening today. Let’s fix the current background system.

In January, Jindal pushed to strengthen the system in Louisiana for inputting the mentally ill into the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, but the move was mostly symbolic. Overall, Jindal’s track record on guns has been to side with gun manufacturers over protecting citizens. In 2010, he signed a law that allowed guns in houses of worship. He has also voted to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and vehemently opposes any regulation on high capacity magazine clips or automatic weapons.

Currently, background checks are not required on private gun sales, allowing an easy workaround for criminals or the mentally ill to buy firearms. But 92 percent of Americans think that they should be. And Jindal is actually not a maverick on the issue; Republicans have been tapping into this public opinion of late, with several prominent figures including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Mark Kirk (R-IL) assessing that it’s an achievable goal for Congress to take on.

View the original article here

Bobby Jindal: Republicans Can Continue Discriminating Against Gays And Still Win Elections

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) — a possible Republican candidate for president in 2016 — rejected former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s argument that conservatives must embrace marriage equality for gays and lesbians if they want to survive as a party and reiterated his support for “traditional marriage.”

“Look, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage,” Jindal said during an appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday, and went on to claim that Republicans don’t have to make the case on social issues to attract young voters and win future elections and instead should continue focusing on economic issues. “We lost [the 2012 election] because we didn’t present a vision showing how we believe the entire economy can grow, how people can join the middle class. We’re in aspirational party and we need policies that are consistant with that aspirational private sector growth.”

In an essay for The American Conservative entitled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” Huntsman — a Mormon whose previous support for civil unions set him apart from Republican presidential candidates in 2012 — argued that if the Republican Party wants to survive, it must enhance its appeal to gay Americans and the growing majority that supports marriage equality.

“[I]t’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them,” Huntsman wrote. “Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population….Consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans.”

Polls show that most Americans support marriage equality, with many telling pollsters that their minds have evolved on the issue.

View the original article here

Republicans: Obama wants higher taxes

With less than a week before deep spending cuts kick in, Republicans in their weekly address accused President Obama of being ready to plunge the economy into a tailspin to extract higher taxes.

“The fact is: Republicans in Congress, right now, will provide the flexibility to make the necessary spending reductions and address our deficit and debt, instead of going through the sequester. In fact, House Republicans have already passed two bills to replace the President’s sequester,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.). “So the question is: Why won’t he work with us? And the answer, quite simply, is because he wants higher taxes.”

Obama has been traveling the country to create momentum for legislation that would replace the automatic, across-the-board cuts with a mix of tax hikes on the rich and specific cuts. He is expected to travel to Virginia next week to continue pressing his message even as Republicans have sought to pin the blame for the sequester on him.

"Hope springs eternal,” Obama said Friday. “And I will just keep on making my case, not only to Congress but more importantly the American people."

Hoeven repeated Saturday that the idea for the sequester originated in the White House, even if Republicans voted for it in the House and Senate. He said it's the president's whole approach – not just his tax policy – that's failing.

"The right way to address our deficit and debt, and get past the sequester, is not higher taxes or just better spending control,” he said. “It’s by creating jobs, growing the economy, and expanding the tax base.”

“Above all, you have to get the economy growing. That creates jobs and revenue from economic growth, not higher taxes. President Obama, however, not only wants higher taxes; he’s actually preventing economic growth and private-sector job creation. He is blocking it with more regulation, red tape, and bureaucracy.”

Hoeven, a former governor of North Dakota, went on to excoriate Obama for failing to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline that would allow Canadian crude – and oil from Hoeven's own state – to flow to refineries in the southern United States. The project, which faces stiff opposition from environmentalists, needs approval from the State Department to move forward.

“The Keystone XL project will carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day to U.S. refineries,” he said. “That includes not only oil from Alberta, Canada, but also 100,000 barrels per day of light, sweet crude from the U.S. Bakken region in Montana and my home state of North Dakota.”

He said polls show widespread public support for the project.

“Why, Mr. President, are you blocking a project that the American people support overwhelmingly? Clearly, it appears to be because of special interest groups,” he said. “It’s time to do things differently, Mr. President. It’s time to turn our country around with the right approach, and we stand ready to work with you to do it."

View Comments

View the original article here