Category: Democratic News

Want to be a U.S. Attorney? Sleep with Sen. Max Baucus

Posted on by TL

Right now, the headline is the complete story. But it’s a wicked headline.

From the Associated Press:

A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus says the Montana Democrat was in a romantic relationship with the woman he nominated for U.S. attorney.

Spokesman Ty Matsdorf says Baucus and his former state office director Melodee Hanes began the relationship in the summer of 2008. Baucus nominated Hanes for the U.S. attorney post last March, but she later withdrew her name.

I’m remembering the legendary George Costanza from Sienfeld blurting out, "I’m giving you a raise!" in the midst of a liaison with a secretary.

Why Do Republicans Oppose Al Franken’s Anti-Rape Ammendment?

Posted on by TL

I’m trying to figure this one out.

Why, exactly, are Republicans in Congress having such a tough time wrapping their heads around Sen. Al Franken’s anti-rape amendment? Could it be that they have friends at KBR and Halliburton who might suddenly be held accountable for the heinous crime of rape?

From ENEWSPF:

Senate Republicans, who have been taking heat for fighting an amendment to protect rape victims, are now lashing out at Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) for even proposing the measure in the first place.

In October, Franken introduced an amendment that would deny funding to defense contractors that "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." Franken was inspired by the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a former employee of KBR (previously a subsidiary of Halliburton), who "was gang raped by her co-workers" while stationed in Iraq.When Jones returned to the U.S., KBR tried to prevent her from taking the case to court. The measure to punish such practices passed, with 30 out of 40 Republicans voting against it.

Today, Politico reports that conservative Senators blame Franken for the backlash they have faced. Apparently, Franken isn’t doing enough to defend those Republicans who fought his proposal to protect women like Jones. Moreover, some of them say, the amendment was really just a "partisan" trap meant to embarrass the Republicans who opposed it:

"I don’t know what his motivation was for taking us on, but I would hope that we won’t see a lot of Daily Kos-inspired amendments in the future coming from him," said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, No. 4 in the Senate Republican leadership. "I think hopefully he’ll settle down and do kind of the serious work of legislating that’s important to Minnesota." […]

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), who also voted against the amendment, said, "from what I know of" Franken, he "expected" such tactics. […]

"It was partisan – and he knew it," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). "That’s exactly what I’d expect."

Thune did not elaborate on why protecting victims of sexual assault isn’t "serious work," nor did Coburn explain how a measure that garnered support from 10 Republicans — a quarter of the caucus — was "partisan."

Read more here.

After reading, ask yourself, who would oppose an anti-rape amendment?

Evidence Stolen in Blagojevich Case

Posted on by TL

I’d like to let this go without comment, but, well, it’s Blagojevich.

Evidence stolen from his attorney’s office?

From the Chicago Tribune:

Chicago police were investigating a burglary at the offices of attorneys for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich in which at least one computer containing undercover recordings from the sweeping corruption case was stolen, sources said.

The break-in took place about 4 a.m. at the law offices of Sam Adam and his son, Sam Adam Jr., in the 6100 block of South Ellis Avenue, police and Sam Adam Jr. said.

Contrary to early statements by a police News Affairs officer who referred calls regarding the burglary to the FBI, the FBI is not involved in the investigation, FBI Chicago office spokesman Ross Rice said in a statement.

The burglars set off an alarm but escaped the area. Investigative sources said there are no suspects.

Chicago police said eight computers and a safe were taken from the office, but they could not say what information the computers contained.

"It could be a happenstance burglary. All leads will be followed," said Chicago Police Deputy Supt. Steve Peterson.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago declined to comment on the incident or the theft of evidence in the case.

It is unclear if the burglary could delay Blagojevich’s trial scheduled for June.

This just sounds too convenient.

Study: Senate Health Bill Brings No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums

Posted on by TL

The Senate health care bill looks better and better every day, and Republican objections ring more and more hollow.

From the New York Times:

The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.

The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.

Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point.

Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them.

We are on the verge of historic health care reform in the United States.

Keep the fire burning.

More here.

Senate report: Bin Laden was ‘Within Our Grasp’ in December 2001

Posted on by TL

From the Associated Press:

Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden’s escape laid the foundation for today’s reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman,Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaida leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Although limited to a review of military operations eight years old, the report could also be read as a cautionary note for those resisting an increased troop presence there now.

More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders underformer president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.

Here’s to what might have been.

And so it goes.

Obama Digs In Heels on Afghanistan

Posted on by TL

From the New York Times:

President Obama said Tuesday that he was determined to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, and his aides signaled to allies that he would send as many as 25,000 to 30,000 additional troops there even as they cautioned that the final number remained in flux.

The White House said Mr. Obama had completed his consultations with his war council on Monday night and would formally announce his decision in a national address in the next week, probably on Tuesday.

At a news conference in the East Room with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, Mr. Obama suggested that his approach would break from the policies he had inherited from the Bush administration and said that the goals would be to keep Al Qaeda from using the region to launch more attacks against the United States and to bring more stability to Afghanistan.

“After eight years — some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done — it is my intention to finish the job,” he said.

He said that he would outline his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving, adding, “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive.”

Mr. Obama was silent on what "finish the job" entailed, nor did he offer any details on what benchmarks he and his advisers had drawn up. He also did not provide a target date for finishing the war.

According to the Washington Post, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Democrats face "serious unrest" over possible expansion of the war in Afghanistan:

Pelosi, in a conference call with economists, said House Democrats were concerned about the "opportunity costs" of steering billions of dollars toward the troop increase as compared to "our ability to invest domestically with an eye to fiscal soundness." The issue of financing new troops in the region has come to a head in advance of Obama’s decision, to be announced next week, as a handful of senior Democrats have proposed a "war tax" on the nation’s wealthiest wage earners and some corporations to finance the war.

Pelosi deflected questions about her support for such a tax-hike proposal but noted that an expensive new war plan faces very high hurdles in her 258-member Democratic caucus, about two-thirds of whom were largely opposed to the Bush administration’s 2007 "surge" of troops into Iraq and have voiced doubts about increased troop levels in Afghanistan.

"Let me say that there is serious unrest in our caucus about, can we afford this war?" Pelosi said in a Tuesday morning call, just hours before she met Obama in a closed-door meeting at the White House.

With an economy struggling to recover, the bottom line is crucial here. Are Americans ready to sacrifice more than they already have? Would Americans support a "war tax," even if it was only on the "wealthiest wage earners," while Congress works to stitch together a health care reform bill?

Help Senator Durbin Fight for the Public Option

Posted on by TL

From the Sun-Times:

Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

Here’s how you can help fight for the Public Option…

From Senator Dick Durbin:

Moments ago, the Senate voted to begin its full debate on historic health care reform legislation instead of obstructing it with a filibuster. 

Tonight’s vote marks the biggest victory to date for our grassroots effort to pass health care reform with a public option. We cannot give enough thanks to the over 100,000 signers of our petition at CitizensForAPublicOption.com for helping to fundamentally shift the momentum towards meaningful reform. 

Not long ago, a few loud opponents of reform armed and organized by the insurance industry dominated this debate. Now the American people, the majority of whom support a public option, have spoken out and gained the upper hand. 

Not long ago, the public option seemed like little more than a pipe dream. Now it’s part of health care bills in both the Senate and the House. 

Not long ago, members of our own Democratic caucus weren’t sure they could even support an up-or-down vote on health care reform legislation. Tonight they voted to end the Republican filibuster. 

But despite this good news, the fight for meaningful health care reform is not over. As we debate amendments to this legislation in the coming weeks, we will work with our colleagues to ensure it continues to address the "Three C’s" of meaningful reform: competition, choice, and cost reduction. And we will firmly oppose any effort to eliminate the public option. 

Tonight we celebrate a milestone no one thought we could reach just months ago. Tomorrow the fight continues. We will not let up until the President signs a bill we can all be proud of.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Chuck Schumer
Senator Patrick Leahy

Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Chuck Schumer

Click Here to Contribute

Todd Stroger Doesn’t Have Time to Ask for Your Vote

Posted on by TL

Look, we’ve spent plenty of time over the last several years critiquing Cook County Board President Todd Stroger.

Let’s make sure we remember that when it’s time to go to the polls.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Cook County Board president Todd Stroger took some heat for not attending today’s Democratic forum among candidates vying for the job of heading the county.

The candidates in attendance were Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown, Chicago Ald. Toni Preckwinkle, 4th, and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District President Terrence O’Brien.

A representative for Stoger said the county board president was not at the forum because of a conflict of interest that prevented him from attending.

The video above is courtesy WGN.

According to WGN, Stroger did say he would be there, but had a “conflict of interest” that prevented him from appearing.

I am not ready to make an endorsement yet, but I know I will not vote for Todd Stroger.

Weekly Address: President Obama Calls for Review of Events Leading to Tragedy at Fort Hood

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–November 14, 2009.

This was a week for honoring the extraordinary service and profound sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

Every fall, we set aside a special day to pay tribute to our veterans. But this year, Veteran’s Day took on even greater poignancy and meaning because of the tragic events at Fort Hood.

On Tuesday, I traveled there to join with the Fort Hood community, the Army, and the friends and families of the victims to honor thirteen of our fellow Americans who died – and the dozens more who were wounded – not on some distant shore, but on a military base at home.

Every man and woman who signs up for military service does so with full knowledge of the dangers that could come – that is part of what makes the service of our troops and veterans so extraordinary. But it’s unthinkable that so many would die in a hail of gunfire on a US Army base in the heart of Texas, and that a fellow service-member could have pulled trigger.

There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy. That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts. As I said in Fort Hood, I am confident that justice will be done, and I will insist that the full story be told. That is paramount, and I won’t compromise that investigation today by discussing the details of this case. But given the potential warning signs that may have been known prior these shootings, we must uncover what steps – if any – could have been taken to avert this tragedy.

On the Thursday evening that this tragedy took place, I met in the Oval Office with Secretary of Defense Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – Admiral Mullen, and FBI Director Mueller to review the immediate steps that were necessary to support the families and secure Fort Hood. The next morning, I met with the leadership of our military and the intelligence community, and ordered them to undertake a full review of the sequence of events that led up to the shootings.

The purpose of this review is clear: We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them. If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability. Beyond that – and most importantly – we must quickly and thoroughly evaluate and address any flaws in the system, so that we can prevent a similar breach from happening again. Our government must be able to act swiftly and surely when it has threatening information. And our troops must have the security that they deserve.

I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should. But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.

Of all the responsibilities of the presidency, the one that I weigh most heavily is my duty as Commander-in-Chief to our splendid service-men and women. Their character and bravery were on full display in that processing center at Fort Hood, when so many scrambled under fire to help their wounded comrades. And their great dignity and decency has been on display in the days since, as the Fort Hood community has rallied together.

We owe our troops prayerful, considered decisions about when and where we commit them to battle to protect our security and freedom, and we must fully support them when they are deployed. We also owe them the absolute assurance that they’ll be safe here at home as they prepare for whatever mission may come. As Commander-in-Chief, I won’t settle for anything less.

This nation will never forget the service of those we lost at Fort Hood, just as we will always honor the service of all who wear the uniform of the United States of America. Their legacy will be an America that is safer and stronger – an America that reflects the extraordinary character of the men and women who serve it.

Thank you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Bush Tax Cuts Cost Two and a Half Times as Much as House Democrats’ Health Care Proposal

Posted on by TL

Turns out, Bush’s tax cuts hurt the economy. Wha…?

From the Citizens for Tax Justice:

And yet, many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is “too costly” are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts. Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.

It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide us with two and a half times the benefits of health care reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.

Details on the Bush Tax Cuts

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

This figure also includes the cost of adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to prevent millions of additional taxpayers from being affected by it, as would otherwise have happened as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

Reason for Revisions

The projected cost of the Bush tax cuts is slightly less than we projected previously.5 This is mainly because of the economic downturn, which has reduced incomes. The projected distribution of the tax cuts has also changed slightly. Also, we no longer project the effects of the Bush tax cuts without AMT adjustments, since it is clear that Congress will continue to adjust the AMT to limit the number of people it affects.

Stark Contrast Between Congress’s Approach to Health Care Reform and Approach to Bush Tax Cuts

Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion. (One committee trimmed the costs of its health care bill below that amount, but an official estimate of the cost reductions was not available at the time of this writing.)

The chairmen of the three House committees have explicitly stated that their goal is a final bill that is deficit-neutral in the decade following enactment. It’s unclear if they have accomplished this yet, since the Congressional Budget Office has not yet issued final cost estimates of the bills, and the legislation is likely to change before the full House votes on a final bill. But President Obama and Democratic leaders have also committed to ensuring that health care reform will not increase the budget deficit.

Under the House bills, roughly half of the costs would be offset with savings in our existing health care programs, while the other half would be offset with a surcharge on the incomes of wealthy taxpayers. A previous analysis by CTJ has shown that this surcharge is a reasonable approach to financing health care reform and would only affect 1.3 percent of taxpayers. Another CTJ analysis concludes that the surcharge will likely have no significant impact on small businesses, despite some of the misinformation that has surrounded this topic.

In contrast, President Bush and his allies in Congress never even attempted to replace the revenue lost as a result of their enormous tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt, as already explained.

Health Care Reform: A Matter of Priorities, Not Costs

These figures make clear that costs cannot be the real concern of lawmakers who oppose the House health care legislation and yet supported the Bush tax cuts. Their position seems to be that showering benefits on the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers and leaving the bill for future generations is preferable to making health care available for all at a much lower cost and paying that cost up front. That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have, but it doesn’t demonstrate much concern about costs.

Tip of the hat to Crooks and Liars for this post.