Obama, female senators focus on economy, budget

President Obama hosted the 20 female U.S. senators for halibut, peach pie and a two-hour discussion of the economy and the federal budget Tuesday at the White House.

"The president enjoyed continuing his discussion with the senators about a wide range of items on the agenda, including working together to find common ground on budget issues and new initiatives to grow our economy, create jobs and strengthen the middle class," a White House official said.

Topics of conversation also included the bipartisan immigration bill under review in the Senate, last week's failed gun control vote and expanding education programs.

"The president also reiterated his commitment to ensuring all resources remain available as a part of the ongoing investigation into the explosions in Boston last week and commended law enforcement efforts," the White House official said.

Tuesday's meeting was the latest in a series of gatherings held by the informal female caucus. The event was originally organized by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who  suggested to President Obama that one of their dinners should be held at the White House.

“When I saw President Obama a few weeks ago, I told him about our quarterly dinners and, I said ‘Mr. President, if you want to see bipartisanship in Washington, invite the women senators to help you get it done.’ And he loved the idea and he plans to invite us to the White House,” Gillibrand told ABC News in January.

After the dinner, Gillibrand said there was "a great discussion" over the meal in a post to Twitter.

The dinners are usually hosted at the senators' homes, and Sen. Lisa Murkowsi (R-Alaska) was scheduled to originally host Tuesday's meeting. According to The Washington Post, the Alaska lawmaker had already ordered halibut from her home state, and offered to have the fish delivered to the White House.

That entree was served along with peach pie, according to a White House official.

The dinners are traditionally off-the-record, and none of the female senators spoke with press upon entering or exiting the White House.

The 20 female senators represent a high-water mark in the upper chamber, besting the record of 17 females in the previous Congress.

Tuesday night's meeting is the latest in a series of outreach efforts by President Obama in recent months, as the White House seeks to improve relations with Capitol Hill. Last week, Obama and a dozen Senate Democrats dined together at the Jefferson Hotel, four blocks from the White House. The president has hosted a pair of similar meetings — one at the hotel, the other at the White House — for Republican lawmakers.

View Comments

View the original article here

In budget proposal rollout, Obama to meet Republican senators next week

President Obama will meet with 12 Republican senators next Wednesday, an effort at bipartisan outreach as he rolls out his budget proposal.

According to Bloomberg, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) has been tasked with building the guest list for the meal, and the location has not yet been set.

It's Obama's second bipartisan powwow since mid-March, when he sat down with a dozen Republican senators for a meal many attendees praised for its candor and sincerity.

This time, however, Obama may face pushback from the senators on his budget, to be released next week, which will call for tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations. In exchange for those increases, Obama plans to offer entitlement reform and Social Security cuts, but Republicans blasted the proposal when it was previewed on Friday.

Obama also recently told supporters at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that he wants to take back control of the House and return the Speakers' gavel to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), an assertion that's not likely to win him friends in the GOP.

And a dismal jobs report out on Friday will likely fuel criticism from Republicans that Obama isn't doing enough to help the economy, further complicating next week's outreach efforts.

View Comments

View the original article here

Why Are These Six Democratic Senators Blocking Universal Background Checks?

After axing the assault weapons ban from the Senate’s comprehensive gun violence prevention plan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is struggling to scrape together enough votes to pass the centerpiece of the plan: universal background checks. Republicans are refusing to vote for it, and even several Democrats in red states are wavering on their support. According to Greg Sargent at the Washington Post, these key votes include Senators Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND).

Universal background checks are considered essential to the gun bill. They would close the “gun show loophole” that currently allows anyone to skip a background check if they buy a gun through a private sale. “Private” transactions between individuals or at gun shows are the origin point for 80 percent of guns used in crimes.

ThinkProgress examined data from the home states of six Democratic senators currently on the fence: Arkansas, Indiana, North Carolina, Louisiana, Alaska, and North Dakota. According to the most recent data available, these six states had: 1) 1,462 gun murders in 2010; 2) 351 gun deaths since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre at the end of last year; and 3) widespread support for universal background checks (following the national trend). Meanwhile, 152 gun shows are scheduled to take place in these states this year, providing criminals who can’t pass background checks in stores with ample opportunity to stock up on guns. All of the states, with the exception of North Carolina, allow individuals to buy guns at these shows without any review:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his pro-gun regulation group Mayors Against Illegal Guns recently launched an ad blitz to encourage residents in 13 key states to lobby their senators to support the proposal. Sen. Donnelly (D-IN) is reportedly considering “a bipartisan compromise on background checks.”

View the original article here

Senators Rockefeller And Begich Add Their Support For Marriage Equality

Two more Senators have expressed their full support for marriage equality, joining Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who endorsed the freedom to marry earlier this week.

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) issued a statement Monday night supporting same-sex couples’ rights to marry:

BEGICH: I believe that same sex couples should be able to marry and should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other married couple. Government should keep out of individuals’ personal lives — if someone wants to marry someone they love, they should be able to. Alaskans are fed up with government intrusion into our private lives, our daily business, and in the way we manage our resources and economy.

Similarly, Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV) told ABC News that government should not discriminate against couples based on their sexual orientation:

ROCKEFELLER: Like so many of my generation, my views on allowing gay couples to marry have been challenged in recent years by a new, more open generation. Churches and ministers should never have to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs, but the government shouldn’t discriminate against people who want to marry just because of their gender.

Younger people in West Virginia and even my own children have grown up in a much more equal society and they rightly push us to question old assumptions — to think deeply about what it means for all Americans to be created equal. This has been a process for me, but at this point I think it’s clear that DOMA is discriminatory. I’m against discrimination in all its forms, and I think we can move forward in our progress toward true equality by repealing DOMA.

Rockefeller joins 21 other Senators who originally voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and later opposed it.

View the original article here

Bloomberg launches $12M ad blitz to pressure senators on gun control

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) is bankrolling a $12 million ad buy which will target swing state senators ahead of next month’s votes on gun control.

His group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, unveiled a new ad Saturday which they hope will rally support for universal background checks.

In one ad, titled “Responsible,” a man holding a shotgun says he “believes in the Second Amendment, and I’ll fight to protect it.”

“But with rights come responsibilities, that’s why I support comprehensive background checks so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t buy guns,” he continues. “That protects my rights and my family.”

The ad closes by encouraging viewers to urge lawmakers to endorse comprehensive background checks for firearm purchasers.

In a second add, the same actor says “background checks have nothing to do with taking a gun away from anyone.”

The ads will air in 13 states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, CNN reports.

The ad campaign begins Tuesday and will run over the two-week congressional Easter recess.

Bloomberg tweeted out his support for the new campaign late Saturday, writing “We demanded a plan and we got one. We demanded a vote and we'll get one. Now we're doing all we can to pass a bill that will save lives.”

The ads come as the Senate readies to consider a gun-control package in April. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the package would include measures for stronger background checks, tougher penalties against straw purchasers and more grants for schools to upgrade security. 

The Bloomberg ads make no mention of banning the sale of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

Reid said last week that an assault weapons provision would not be part of the gun package voted on in the Senate, a win for the National Rifle Association which has opposed the measure. 

But proponents are pushing for a vote as an amendment. Reid cautioned that including the assault weapons provision could drag down the entire gun control bill in the face of heated opposition.

Bloomberg on Sunday said that supporters were “going to get the vote.”

We've been fighting since 2007 to get a vote. We are going to have a vote for sure on assault weapons and we're going to have a vote on background checks,” he said in an interview for NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Gun reform advocates believe background checks have the strongest support and the best chance of passing Congress this session. An assault weapons bill though is unlikely to pass the GOP House.

The background check bill slated for a Senate floor vote was drafted by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and would require checks for all private gun sales. Efforts at a bipartisan bill stalled over GOP concerns that the measure could lead to a national database of firearm owners.

View Comments

View the original article here

GOP Senators: We’ll Hold Up Treasury Nominee Unless Obama Makes Medicare Cuts That He’s Already Made

In a letter sent to the White House on Tuesday, 22 Republican senators are demanding that President Obama propose Medicare cuts before the chamber considers Treasury Secretary nominee Jack Lew.

The letter is part of an ongoing GOP smear campaign against Lew alleging that, during his tenure as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Lew and the Obama Administration failed to comply with a law requiring the White House to submit Medicare cost-cutting proposals “whenever the program’s trustees express concerns about its solvency in their annual report.” The senators suggest that Lew should have known about that legal requirement and spurred the Administration to take action by formally proposing Medicare cuts:

“We find it stunning and noteworthy that so far Mr. Lew has not provided adequate responses to congressional inquiries on the matter,” the senators wrote to Obama Tuesday.

“Congress needs a clearer understanding about his role in the violation of this law, including exactly when Mr. Lew first became aware of this legal requirement and what counsel, if any, he provided the administration on whether it should comply with this law.”

But there are some glaring falsehoods in the senators’ claims and their subsequent demand for an Administration plan to curb Medicare cost growth.

First, calling for Medicare cuts to ensure the program’s long-term solvency is based on the assumption that inflation in medical services — and, consequently, spending on health care entitlements like Medicare — will continue to balloon at staggering rates indefinitely. But the key to reducing national health expenditures is to reduce the actual price of consuming care — so if forces in the health care market facilitate cost reductions in medical technology and services, then entitlement spending will drop accordingly. Recent evidence shows that that is exactly what is happening, as the recent slowdown in health care cost growth has reduced Medicare’s future projected spending by over half a trillion dollars, all without a single policy change. Furthermore, a just-released GAO report found that if Obamacare and its cost-containment mechanisms are fully implemented, then future spending on Medicare would decrease “from 6.2 percent of GDP in 2035 in the simulations run before [Obamacare] was enacted to 4.7 percent in the simulations run immediately after enactment.”

President Obama also directly cut Medicare spending to the tune of $716 billion over the next decade by signing Obamacare, which reduces overpayments to providers servicing private Medicare Advantage plans. In fact, the GOP — led by their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney — hammered the president mercilessly over these cuts during the 2012 election cycle, claiming that the provider payment reductions amounted to “robbing Medicare.” And the president has proposed further cuts to entitlement programs — including Medicare — on multiple occasions, including his proposed budget and this month’s State of the Union address.

The only way that the senators’ claims bear credence is if they are hewing to an absurdly narrow, literal interpretation of the law in question, and want the Administration to submit a single specific bill addressing Medicare cuts. But the more likely explanation is that the senators are engaging in a bit of political grandstanding that affords them an opportunity to attack both the president’s entitlement policies as well as one of his highest-profile cabinet nominees.

View the original article here

13 GOP Pennsylvania Senators Introduce New Plan To Rig The Electoral College For Republicans

Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Domini Pileggi (R)

Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chair urged Republican lawmakers in states “that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” — i.e. blue states with Republican legislatures and governors — to enact a plan rigging the Electoral College so that it would be almost impossible for a Democrat to win the White House. Under these plans, a large chunk of blue state electoral votes would be allocated to the Republican candidate even if the Democratic presidential candidate won the state as a whole. Although some state lawmakers in key blue states such as Wisconsin or Michigan endorsed versions of this plan, the election rigging plans were widely derided as exactly what they are — cheating — and soon, even top Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) or Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted nothing to do with election rigging. The plans to rig the Electoral College appeared dead.

Except, that is, for Pennsylvania.

Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) was one of the earliest supporters of rigging the Electoral College, backing a plan to do so as early as 2011. Republican state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi was one of the leading supporters of election-rigging the and late this week, he — along with a dozen other co-sponsors — introduced a new plan to rig the Electoral College votes in his blue state of Pennsylvania. Under this legislation, a large chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes would be awarded to the Republican candidate even though Pennsylvania is a solid blue state that has supported the Democratic candidate for president in every election since 1992.

Of course, while the Republican election-rigging plan calls for blue states to give away electoral votes to Republicans, red states like Texas or South Carolina will continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican:

The 13 co-sponsors on Pileggi’s bill amount to exactly half of the 26 votes he needs to pass the bill through the state senate. According to state Rep. Mike Sturla (D-PA), now that Pileggi has introduced his election-rigging plan, Republicans could conceivably ram it through both houses of the state legislature and have it on Corbett’s desk in just four days.

View the original article here

Obama 'commends' GOP senators on immigration reform

President Obama reached out on Tuesday to the Republican members of the bipartisan group of senators that crafted a framework for passing immigration reform.

Obama called Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to discuss progress on passing immigration reform. The three senators are part of the so-called Gang of Eight, which unveiled a framework for passing immigration reform in late January.

Obama recently sat down with the Democratic members of the group to discuss progress on passing immigration reform.

"This afternoon, the President placed calls to Sen. Graham, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Rubio to discuss their shared commitment to bipartisan, commonsense immigration reform and to commend the Senators for the bipartisan progress that continues to be made by the Gang of Eight on this important issue," a statement from the White House said.

Obama did not speak with Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), the fourth Republican member of the group, who was traveling, according to the White House.

The phone calls between the Republicans and Obama came a few hours after the White House and Rubio's office traded accusations about communication over immigration reform. Rubio's office said earlier on Tuesday that White House staffers had not been in contact with Rubio or his office about immigration reform, but the White House said its staffers had met with Rubio's office.

"During the calls, which build on conversations that have taken place at the staff level, the President reiterated that he remains supportive of the effort underway in Congress, and that he hopes that they can produce a bill as soon as possible that reflects shared core principles on reform," the statement continued.

On Saturday, Rubio criticized the Obama administration after USA Today published leaked details of the administration's proposal for an immigration reform law. Obama has said he would push his own immigration plan if Congress cannot come to an agreement on comprehensive immigration reform.

"As the President made clear when he met with Democratic Senators involved in the process last week, that while he is pleased with the progress and supportive of the effort to date, he is prepared to submit his own legislation if Congress fails to act," the White House statement continued. "He thanked the senators for their leadership, and made clear that he and his staff look forward to continuing to work together with their teams to achieve needed reform."

Graham's office described the conversation between the senator from South Carolina and Obama as "short" and "cordial." Obama called at around 2 p.m., according to Graham's office.

"They discussed the need for immigration reform and why it is important we fix our broken immigration system," Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said.

Rubio was in Jerusalem when he talked to Obama on Tuesday.

"Sen. Rubio appreciated receiving President Obama's phone call to discuss immigration reform late tonight in Jerusalem," according to Rubio spokesman Alex Conant. "The senator told the president that he feels good about the ongoing negotiations in the Senate, and is hopeful the final product is something that can pass the Senate with strong bipartisan support."

View Comments

View the original article here

The 10 NRA-Funded Senators Hoping To Block Gun Regulations

The National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC has distributed more than $1 million in career donations to current members of the United States Senate. And, like their House counterparts, the Senators who have received the most are also among the most vocal opponents of any new gun violence prevention legislation advanced in the aftermath of the school shooting at Newton, Connecticut.

A ThinkProgress analysis of data from Political MoneyLine reveals that the top 10 Senate beneficiaries of NRA money are all Republicans. Each has already indicated his opposition to President Obama’s gun violence proposals and each has received an “A” or “A+” rating from the NRA. They are:

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK) — AT LEAST $64,900

Inhofe said last month, “I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. … The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO) — AT LEAST $60,550

Blunt said last month, “Unfortunately, the president’s proposals today fundamentally fail to address ways that we can prevent tragic events like Sandy Hook, and instead, he’s attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.” Last week, he expressed doubt that the Senate would even expand background checks.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA) — AT LEAST $56,950

Chambliss said last month, “While I am certain that the president’s proposal is well-intentioned, it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected.”

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD) — AT LEAST $48,605

Thune said last month, “There is a lot of emotion driving this debate. We need to prevent this in the future, and make the schools and our kids safer. And frankly, I don’t think it has to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) — AT LEAST $46,600

Graham said last month, “One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal. As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.”

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL) — AT LEAST $43,755

Shelby said on his Congressional website, “We all mourn the victims of shocking tragedies that have resulted from senseless acts of violence perpetrated by seriously disturbed individuals. However, such tragedies should not be viewed as an indictment of America’s precious Second Amendment rights. Thus, we should not react in a manner that would unnecessarily and improperly infringe upon the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners. Unfortunately, it seems that some zealous gun rights opponents are seeking to leverage tragedies to further their long-held agenda of unduly restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID) — AT LEAST $43,700

Crapo said last month, “The President’s proposal on gun control is very disappointing. Any discussion about restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans deserves, at minimum, a full and public debate in Congress. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) — AT LEAST $41,750

Hatch said last month that even passage of universal background checks would be “the way reductions in liberty occur.” He added, “When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who’s who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty,” noting that gun rights are “an express provision in the Constitution, unlike the penumbras and other conjured-up provisions that aren’t there that the court has come up with over the years. This is express, and many people are very, very concerned about any infringement on it, and I’m one of them.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) — AT LEAST $41,200

Grassley said last month, “The Second Amendment is more than just words on paper. It’s a fundamental right that ensures citizens the ability to protect themselves against the government. Unfortunately, the President seems to think that the Second Amendment can be tossed aside. Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment is a power grab along the same pattern we’ve seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people. Some of these directives clearly run afoul of limitations Congress has placed on federal spending bringing the President’s actions in direct conflict with federal law. More importantly, it’s hard to see how any of these executive actions would have prevented the tragedies that precipitated this effort.”

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS) — AT LEAST $36,750

Wicker said last month, “The President’s proposals would violate the Constitution and have been proven not to be effective in preventing gun violence, I will be part of a bipartisan coalition opposing this legislation and looking for real solutions such as school safety guards, mental health care, and addressing the culture of violence in the media. The Second Amendment rights of Americans must be preserved.”

The 10 have received more than $480,000 combined in career NRA PAC money.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine proposals to reduce gun violence. The four Republicans on the nine-person panel are Graham, Hatch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Cruz (at least $9900) has blasted the President for “trying to exploit the tragic murder of children as an excuse to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda,” and Cornyn ($17,850) has said we must enforce existing gun laws before we consider any new ones.

View the original article here

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Strengthen America’s Mental Health System

As part of a wide-ranging effort to address gun violence in the wake of December’s mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, a bipartisan group of senators has introduced the Excellence In Mental Health Act, legislation that aims to strengthen America’s mental health safety net by providing behavioral health care facilities more access to federal funding and consolidating disparate elements of the U.S. mental health safety net.

When introducing the legislation, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) explained, “[W]e must work together to spend federal dollars more wisely when treating people who are mentally ill. This bill will help address our fragmented mental health system and ensure that more patients have access to the care they need by offering current Community Mental Health Centers a chance to expand their services and obtain the Federally Qualified Community Behavioral Health Center designation.” Such a move would provide qualifying behavioral health centers parity with physical health centers by giving them access to prospective — rather than retrospective — Medicaid reimbursements. Modern Healthcare reports that the legislation would also require the federal health centers to offer more expansive services to mentally ill Americans and their families:

The new criteria established by the bill… would require such things as 24-hour crisis care, the increased integration of mental and substance abuse care with other kinds of medical care, as well as expanded support for families of mental health patients.

Mark Covall, president and CEO of the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, said increased standardization and integration are both worthwhile goals (though the association doesn’t take an official stand on the bill). Whether it is adding mental health services to federally qualified health centers or adding medical care to mental health centers, integration is important because that is the direction the industry is moving toward, Covall said.

In its current iteration, the Excellence In Mental Health Act represents a solid step in the right direction when it comes to bridging the illogical gap between the ways that physical and behavioral health issues are treated in America. But while the increased funding provisions are good news, the bill still does not go quite as far as the Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act, which would require most private insurers to treat mental health coverage the same way they treat any other coverage.

It is also encouraging that the bill includes mental health resources for veterans and substance abusers. Military suicides reached a record high in January, and substance abusers — as a group — are among the most likely to suffer from a co-occurring mental illness. Alongside Sen. Al Franken’s (R-MN) recently-introduced Mental Health In Schools Act — which encourages early intervention and community resources for mentally ill American children — the new legislation suggests that the Senate is serious about plugging the gaping holes in America’s mental health safety net.

View the original article here

Meet The Four Republican Senators Who Think The Violence Against Women Act Is Unconstitutional

Since then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden first authored the law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has earned bipartisan praise for providing vital protections against domestic violence and assistance to victims. But of the eight Senators — all Republicans — who voted Monday against even considering VAWA renewal, at least four apparently did so because they believe the bill is unconstitutional.

Several of these senators have expressed similarly radical views about the constitutional role of the federal government in other contexts. Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) claimed that national child labor laws, Social Security and Medicare violate the Tenth Amendment, for example; and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) once led a Tenth Amendment project at a conservative think tank and co-authored a paper proposing an unconstitutional process to nullify the Affordable Care Act. The four senators who claim that the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional are:

1. Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID): In a statement, Risch explained: “It is at the state and local level where I believe enforcement and prosecution must remain. The federal government does not need to add another layer of bureaucracy to acts of violence that are being handled at the state and local level. In addition to my 10th Amendment concerns, this legislation raises additional constitutional questions regarding double jeopardy and due process. I opposed this legislation, however well intended it was, because it is another effort of the federal government extending its reach into the affairs of state and local jurisdictions.” 2. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): In a 2012 letter explaining his opposition to last year’s VAWA re-authorization attempt, Paul wrote: “Under our Constitution, states are given the responsibility for prosecution of those violent crimes. They don’t need Washington telling them how to provide services and prosecute criminals in these cases. Under the Constitution, states are responsible for enacting and enforcing criminal law. As written, S. 1925 muddles the lines between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement.”3. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): In 2012, Lee claimed VAWA “oversteps the Constitution’s rightful limits on federal power. Violent crimes are regulated and enforced almost exclusively by state governments. In fact, domestic violence is one of the few activities that the Supreme Court of the United States has specifically said Congress may not regulate under the Commerce Clause. As a matter of constitutional policy, Congress should not seek to impose rules and standards as conditions for federal funding in areas where the federal government lacks constitutional authority to regulate directly.”4. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): A Cruz spokeswoman told ThinkProgress: “For many years, Senator Cruz has worked in law enforcement, helping lead the fight to ensure that violent criminals—and especially sexual predators who target women and children—should face the very strictest punishment. However, stopping and punishing violent criminals is primarily a state responsibility, and the federal government does not need to be dictating state criminal law.” While the statement does not explicitly call VAWA unconstitutional, his previous comments leave little doubt that that is what he means.

These senators’ apparent belief that the federal government cannot constitutionally play a role in preventing violence against women is not even shared by most Republican members of Congress. 216 House Republicans agreed just last year that the Constitution does not prohibit a version of the Violence Against Women Act. The Supreme Court did strike down one piece of VAWA in 2000, but it left most of the law intact.

While the other four Senators who voted against the “motion to proceed” did not respond to a request for an explanation of their votes, Sen. Tim Scott (R) voted for the watered-down House version of VAWA last year and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) claims he supports a scaled-back version of the legislation.

View the original article here

GOP Senators Obstructing The Consumer Protection Bureau Receive Loads Of Wall Street Donations

43 Republican senators signed a letter last week saying that they would obstruct any nominee to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, regardless of qualifications, unless the CFPB is weakened. Republicans are essentially attempting to nullify a federal law via obstruction; Congress passed and President Obama signed a bill creating a CFPB, but the GOP is ensuring that it can’t function.

By weakening the CFPB, the GOP is doing the bidding of Wall Street’s biggest banks, which would have preferred that a regulator solely focused on consumer protection never come into being. Here are some facts and figures that Public Campaign pulled together on how much cash Wall Street has handed over to the 43 GOP’ers publicly obstructing Obama’s nominee:

– The 43 Senators have received $143 million in industry cash during their time in Washington.

– Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), boosted by his 2008 presidential bid, is the top recipient of financial industry cash of those signing the letter, with $36.7 million in donations from the industry. McConnell is second with $7.4 million in donations. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), the ranking member of the Senate Banking committee, has received $2.4 million in industry cash. [...]

– The six Senators recently elected, or re-elected, in November who signed the letter — Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) — received nearly $7 million altogether in industry donations in the 2012 cycle. Hatch tops this list with $2 million raised from the industry for his last election.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who is one of two Republican senators that did not sign the letter, said last week that Richard Cordray, who was recess-appointed by Obama to be the first CFPB director, simply accede to the GOP’s hostage-taking and call for watering down his own agency.

View the original article here

Senators Press Justice Dept. On Prosecutions Of ‘Too Big To Jail’ Banks

A bipartisan duo of senators sent a letter to the Department of Justice today to press Attorney General Eric Holder on the lack of prosecutions for employees and executives of the nation’s largest banks in the wake of financial crisis. The letter from Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) questioned Holder about “whether the ‘too big to fail’ status of certain Wall Street megabanks undermines the ability of the federal government to prosecute wrongdoing and impose appropriate penalties.”

“Wall Street megabanks aren’t just too big to fail, they’re increasingly too big to jail,” Brown said in a release. “Already, the nation’s six largest megabanks enjoy what amounts to taxpayer-funded guarantee by virtue of their size, making it harder for regional and community banks to compete. Now, these megabanks may also enjoy some impunity when they violate the law by laundering money or illegally foreclosing on homeowners. Wall Street should pay the full price of its wrongdoing, not pass the costs along to taxpayers.”

“Unfortunately, we’ve seen little willingness to charge these individuals criminally,” Grassley added. “The public deserves an explanation of how the Justice Department arrives at these decisions.”

Last month, Grassley criticized the “get out of jail free card” that has been given to the nation’s largest financial institutions, which have largely avoided serious prosecution since the financial crisis. Prosecutions for financial fraud hit a 20-year low in 2011. Many of the fines the banks have paid are tax-deductible, a problem Brown is currently seeking to remedy.

“Unfortunately, many of the settlements between large financial institutions and the federal government involve penalties that are disproportionately low, both in relation to the profits which resulted from those wrongful actions as well as in relation to the costs imposed upon consumers, investors, and the market,” Grassley and Brown wrote in the letter, adding that the perception that large banks are too big to face real prosecution “undermines the public’s confidence in our institutions and in the principal that the law is applied equally in all cases.”

View the original article here

Schumer Rips GOP Senator’s Pro-Gun Propaganda: ‘That Just Is Dumb’

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) debunked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’s pro gun advocacy during a debate on Meet the Press this Sunday, dismissing his arguments as “just dumb.”

Discussing his opposition to President Obama’s gun safety plan, Cruz suggested that increasing gun access among poor women in urban neighborhoods could reduce violent crime, argued that an assault weapon ban would be unconstitutional and accused the administration of exploiting the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to advance a “partisan agenda.” Schumer, a long-time gun safety advocate fired back. He pointed out that the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller established an individual right to bear arms, but gave the government wide latitude to regulate guns:

SCHUMER: Heller also said that there should be reasonable limitations, that they’re allowed reasonable limitations. I don’t think that lady needs an assault weapon. I don’t think she needs a 100-round clip. I don’t think, for instance, that those things would help her in any way. So so to say she has a right to bear arms: yes. To say, just like on the first amendment — we say you can’t scream “fire” in a crowd falsely, we have anti-pornography laws, anti-libel laws. There are reasonable limitations. And the NRA [National Rifle Association], in many instances, doesn’t believe in any limitation at all. That’s not unconstitutional. That just is dumb.

Watch it:

Indeed, to quote Justice Scalia’s decision in Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons — like, for example, the ones restricted in assault weapons bans.

Moreover, the idea that poor urban neighborhoods would be helped by easier access to guns has it exactly backwards. David Kennedy, an expert on urban gun violence at City University of New York, has found that lax gun laws unequivocally contribute heavily to violence in cities: “The more we have learned about how concentrated gun offending is – this is, for all practical purposes, entirely a problem of seasoned criminal offenders – gang activity and drug market activity and robbery, homicide, all that sort of thing – the more evident it’s become that there are these very commonsense ways of intervening with them to quite dramatically sometimes reduce their violence. And the commonsense package on this has always been to work both sides. You do something about how to get guns and you do something about how they use guns.”

View the original article here

Bipartisan Pair Of Senators Calls For Investigation Into U.S. Taxpayer Losses From Coal Exports

by Jessica Goad

Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have called on Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to investigate if U.S. taxpayers are getting shortchanged by companies mining coal from public lands and exporting the resource to other countries.

That’s according to a report from Reuters today.

Senator Wyden is Chairman of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Murkowski is the ranking member.

Wyden and Murkowski said they were concerned that coal companies are not paying high enough royalties on coal mined on public lands.  According to another Reuters article in December, companies are valuing coal at lower domestic prices rather than higher international prices so they “can dodge the larger royalty payout when mining federal land.”

If any violations of the law have occurred, companies should be required to cure any gap in royalty payments and, if misconduct has occurred, civil penalties should be levied,” reads Wyden and Murkowsi’s letter.

Approximately 43 percent of the coal produced in the U.S. comes from public lands managed by the government and owned by all Americans. Public lands are home to some of the richest coal deposits in the nation, mostly located in Wyoming and Montana’s Powder River Basin.

However, as the use of coal for electricity continues to decrease, coal companies have been eying fast-growing Asian markets as a potential destination for U.S. coal.  In 2011, U.S. coal exports were the highest they have been since 1991, and companies like Arch Coal have predicted that they could be even higher over the next few years.

Shorting royalties isn’t the only way that taxpayers may be losing out. Some have called out the government for carrying out policies on public lands that keep coal cheap, and therefore shortchange American taxpayers.

For example, a report published by financial analyst Tom Sanzillo in July found that the Interior Department has offered coal leases non-competitively in the Powder River Basin rather than putting them up for auction, thus costing taxpayers  as much as $29 billion over the last three decades.

Coal companies can also get leases on public lands extremely cheaply. The highest bid ever received on a federal coal lease in the Powder River Basin was $1.10 per short ton, despite the fact that the coal can be sold for approximately $10 per short ton.

In a separate piece on coal exports, Reuters noted that these government policies raise “questions about whether taxpayers are essentially helping Asian economies save on energy costs.”

Coal exports are another emerging environmental fight. Currently, five coal export terminals are proposed in Oregon and Washington — projects that have been strongly opposed by everyone from environmentalists to farmers and ranchers to local officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers, along with state and local agencies, recently started holding preliminary hearings on how to assess the construction of the terminals and determine whether or not there should be a cumulative analysis on the new infrastructure built across the West to accommodate the vastly increased amounts of coal.

Wyden and Murkowski aren’t the only lawmakers paying attention to the growing issues around coal exports.  Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the ranking member on the House Committee on Natural Resources, asked the Government Accountability Office in April to review the government’s program and policies for overseeing coal mined on public lands.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

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

View the original article here

GOP Congressmen Suggest Republican Senators Who Voted For ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Compromise Were Drunk

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is joining a growing number of Republicans trying to add more spending cuts to the last-minute fiscal cliff deal and send it back to the Senate, joked that Senators may have been drunk when they passed the measure in the early hours of Jan 1.

Responding to a question on CNN’s The Situation Room about why fiscal hawks like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) supported the measure in the Senate, Issa implied that the 89 senators voted for the compromise because of the late night partying in celebration of the New Year. Pressed by host Wolf Blitzer for clarification, Issa said that he was just “having a little fun” with his answer:

BLITZER: All of those 89, including all of those conservative Republicans, including Pat Toomey and others, they were wrong?

ISSA: You know, Wolf, frankly I can’t account for what happens after midnight and all of that partying and revelry and drinking that goes on on New Years Eve at 2:00 in the morning. What I can tell you is they did half of a bill. The half of the bill certainly is going to be popular in the way of holding down taxes but the other half is there’s no spending reductions…. In other words, $4 trillion will be added to the debt over ten years with this tax cut unless we do some spending cuts to help offset it. Right now the president is still in a spending mood. We need to get him in a savings mood.

BLITZER: I just want to clarify one point, you said it was after the new year’s and they were partying. Are you suggesting that Mitch McConnell and your fellow Republicans in the Senate they were a little bit drunk when they voted on this last night?

ISSA: Of course not. I was having a little fun with you, Wolf. The fact is, it was after midnight. It was a piece of legislation intended to be passable, not necessarily to be right.

Watch it:

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) made a similar comment to reporters, saying, “Our sense…was that a number of the [Senate] Republicans who voted for it must have been drunk.”

Following a Tuesday afternoon GOP conference meeting, House Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), are publicly opposing the Senate-passed measure. Members are reportedly working on adding an amendment that would reduce spending. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has vowed to block any further changes to the bill, leaving Boehner with the options of: 1) putting the Senate-passed bill to a House vote (and see it pass with Democratic votes and overwhelming Republican opposition) or 2) adding spending cuts that “they know Democrats can’t live with,” passing the revised bill through the House with little if any Democratic support, and see it go nowhere the Senate — sending the nation over the cliff.

The House will vote on the Senate bill as written, without a spending amendment, at around 9:30 PM. The measure is expected to pass, at which point it will go to President Obama for his signature.

View the original article here

GOP Senators Want To Take Debt Ceiling Hostage In Order To Raise Retirement Age

Two Republican senators want to use the threat of an economic meltdown to raise the retirement age and cut Medicare. Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced a plan today that would raise the federal debt limit by $1 trillion in exchange for $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as The Hill reported:

The Corker-Alexander dollar-for-dollar plan has several components.

It would structurally reform Medicare by creating competing private options giving seniors greater choice of healthcare plans. It would not, however, cap Medicare spending.

The plan would also give states more flexibility to manage Medicaid programs and prevent states from “gaming the federal share of the program with state tax charges.”

It would gradually raise the Social Security retirement age and use the “chained CPI” formula to calculate cost-of-living adjustments, curbing the growing cost of benefits.

In exchange, it would direct the debt limit be increased by the same amount as the savings generated from entitlement reform.

The U.S. will hit its debt limit on or around December 31st. The Treasury Department estimates that, using extraordinary measures, it could avoid default for another two months or so. Allowing the U.S. to default on its debt via not raising the debt ceiling could cause a complete financial meltdown. The 2011 debt ceiling debacle — during which House Republicans nearly pushed the country into a default due to their intransigence on taxes — cost the country about $19 billion in higher interest payments and at least one million jobs.

Corker and Alexander are threatening more economic chaos in order to achieve one of the most regressive potential policy changes. Though lawmakers point to America’s increasing life expectancy in order to justify raising the retirement age, life expectancy is only increasing for wealthier workers in non-physical jobs. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it, “there has been a sharp rise in inequality in life expectancy by income over the last three decades that mirrors the growth in inequality in income.”

View the original article here