Two-Thirds Of Louisianans Oppose Gov. Jindal’s Plan To Cut Taxes For The Rich, Raise Them On The Poor

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is among the Republican governors pushing an overhaul of his state’s tax code that would abolish the state income tax and replace it instead with increased sales taxes. Such plans are inherently regressive, and Jindal’s is no exception: one analysis found that it would raise taxes on 80 percent of the state’s residents while giving large tax cuts to the richest.

Perhaps its no surprise, then, that a recent poll from Southern Media Opinion & Research found that Jindal’s plan is “particularly unpopular” with Louisianans:

Gov. Jindal’s proposed tax reform plan was particularly unpopular. Sixty three percent opposed the plan to abolish personal and corporate income taxes and raise state sales taxes, while only 27 percent supported it.

Louisiana’s tax system is already regressive, and Jindal’s plan would raise taxes by an average of $395 on the poorest 20 percent of the state’s residents; the richest 1 percent, meanwhile, would see a tax cut totaling more than $25,000. And while Jindal is pushing the plan as a way to boost the state’s economy, evidence suggests the plan wouldn’t do much to help. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities examined states that cut taxes in the mid-1990s and found that their resulting economic and job growth was slower during the next economic cycle than it was in states that did not cut taxes.

View the original article here

Bloomberg Warns: ‘Price To Pay’ For Lawmakers Who Ignore Popular Opinion And Oppose Background Checks

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday and warned lawmakers in Washington that there would be a political price to pay if they vote against popular gun regulation proposals like universal background checks and a new assault weapons ban:

GREGORY: You made it very clear this week you’re paying attention to the vote in the Senate, in Congress, and you’re taking names. Will you target people, Republicans and Democrats, who do not support a weapons ban, an assault weapons ban, who do not vote for background checks — will you spend money, lots of money, to target them in 2014, in a midterm race?

BLOOMBERG: Well let me phrase it this way. I think I have a responsibility, and I think you and all of your viewers have responsibilities, to try and make this country safer for our families and for each other. And if I can do that by spending some money and taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices, so the public can really understand the issues, then I think my money would be well spent and I think I have an obligation to do that…If 90 percent of the public wants something and their representatives vote against that, common sense says they are going to have a price to pay for that.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Bloomberg has plans to spend $12 million to finance ads from his pro-gun regulation group Mayors Against Illegal Guns in 13 key states whose senators are thought to be on the fence over new legislation on an assault weapons ban and universal background checks.

The ads will begin airing this week, Bloomberg told Gregory, and will crescendo over the Easter break when most legislators host events back in their home districts.

View the original article here

Slamming Portman, GOP Rep Says He Would Still Oppose Marriage Equality If His Son Came Out

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) attacked Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for supporting marriage equality at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday.

Speaking in a sideroom, Huelskamp blasted Portman’s announcement this week that he has evolved to favor same-sex marriage two years after learning his own son was gay. “Here’s a senator who couldn’t deliver his own home state in the presidential election,” Huelskamp said dismissively. He continued, “somehow, we’re supposed to believe that if we abandon traditional marriage, that liberals are going to flock to us,” calling Portman’s position a “capitulation.”

ThinkProgress asked Huelskamp whether he would re-examine his own feelings on marriage equality if it turned out he had a gay son like Portman, but the Kansas Republican was unmoved by the prospect. “I support traditional marriage,” Huelskamp simply retorted.

KEYES: Do you have a sense on, if it were your son who came out and told you that he was gay, how you would react to that announcement?

HUELSKAMP: Well, I agree with Sen. Portman when he ran for election. And that’s the principle. The principle is, traditional marriage and family is the foundation of society. It’s been a conservative bedrock principle for many years. And one thing that we have to do as conservatives, I believe, is actually communicate the value of marriage and family for the children. [...] Bill Clinton and myself, Bill Clinton in 1997 had the same position I have today. Actually Barack Obama had the same position two years ago. Isn’t it amazing how you read the tea leaves, you read the polls, and at the end of the day something suddenly changes over night?

KEYES: So, to clarify, you would still oppose same-sex marriage even if your own son came out?

HUELSKAMP: I support traditional marriage.

Watch it:

View the original article here

Boehner Says He Would Oppose Marriage Equality Even If Son Was Gay

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) — who is spending millions of taxpayer dollars opposing marriage equality — told ABC’s This Week that he could never see himself supporting same-sex unions, despite the growing evolution towards marriage for all within the Republican Party.

Responding to Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) change of heart on the issue, Boehner said that he “appreciates” his friend’s new position, but insisted that “I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman” and predicted that he would not change his mind even if he found out that his own son is gay:

MARTHA RADDATZ (HOST): Can you imagine yourself in a situation where you reversed your decision as Portman has on gay marriage if a child of yours or someone you love told you they were gay.

BOEHNER: Listen, I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It’s what I grew up with, it’s what i belive, it’s what my church teaches me and I can’t imagine that position would ever change.

Watch it:

Research indicates that people who have a close gay friend or family member are “more than twice as likely” to support same-sex marriage.

View the original article here

Gingrich: Republicans Will Oppose Any Immigration Plan Backed By Obama Because They Hate Obama

During an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) admitted that Republicans are likely to oppose any immigration reform proposal introduced by President Obama because they personally dislike the Commander-in-Chief.

“An Obama plan led and driven by Obama in this atmosphere with the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility I think is very hard to imagine that bill, that his bill is going to pass the House,” Gingrich said. “I think that negotiated with a Senate immigration bill that has to have bipartisan support could actually get to the president’s desk.”

The Senate-backed framework for immigration reform, which enhances security on the border and includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, shares many similarities with Obama’s own proposal, though the president has repeatedly said that if Congress fails to make progress, he will introduce his own reform legislation.

That plan, obtained by USA Today, “mirrors many provisions of the bipartisan 2007 bill” spearheaded by Ted Kennedy and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and would allow unauthorized immigrants “to become legal permanent residents within eight years.” “The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years,” the paper reports.

Despite its bipartisan nature, the draft proposal was immediately panned by Republicans. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — a member of the Senate group working towards producing comprehensive legislation — called it “dead on arrival,” while Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said it demonstrated that Obama is “looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution.”

View the original article here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View the original article here

Sen. Graham vows to oppose new federal assault weapons ban

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pledged Sunday to oppose legislation to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban.

"I think the assault weapons ban didn't work then. It's not going to work now, and I will oppose it," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

Graham's opposition comes as a number of legislators prepare to push new measures to reduce gun violence in response to a shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. that claimed the lives of 27, including 20 children. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) plans to introduce a new federal assault weapons ban in the next Congress. And on Sunday, President Obama said he wanted to sign into law new gun-control measures in 2013. 

Graham said the last assault weapons ban, which lasted for ten years, was ineffective.

"Well, we had the assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 and the conclusion was, it did not change crime by banning assault weapons in an appreciable way, and last year with the lowest murder rate in the history of the United States, people buying more guns, murder rates have gone down -- you are talking about preventing mass murder by mentally unstable persons," Graham said. "You can't take every sharp object out of the reach of people like this."

Graham suggested he supported a proposal by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to post armed guards in schools to prevent shooting massacres similar to Sandy Hook. 

"I own an AR-15 and I have done nothing wrong by owning the gun. If you had armed security, with better rules of engagement, that, to me, is a better way to deal with the situation," Graham said. "And the best way is to identify these people before they act and do something about it."

View Comments

View the original article here