Posts tagged Republicans
Posts tagged Republicans
It has come to light that House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) secretly approved a $500,000 increase to a contract with a private law firm to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. While the increase was approved in September, neither the public nor the Democratic House minority was informed until this week, Roll Call reports.
The contract now authorizes Bancroft PLLC and former Solicitor General Paul Clement (R) to spend up to $2 million in to defend DOMA — the second increase to what was originally a $1 million cap. The U.S. Department of Justice stopped defending the 1996 law in February 2011 after determining the law to be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
Though Lungren lost re-election in November, the Republicans maintained control of the House — and its operating budget.
At a Thursday press conference — ironically focusing on his view that “Washington has a spending problem” — House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the expenditures. The Ohio Republican angrily responded that if the Department of Justice won’t defend the law of the land, Congress will.
Ummm…so, this wasn’t a secret. When the President announced that he would no longer defend DOMA in 2011, the House Republicans made a big stink and said that they would be funding it. And they did. There was even talk of the added expense in doing so. And since the same assholes were sill there passing anti-vagina legislation, I just assumed that the same was done in 2012 and at an inflated price. I guess it just wasn’t a secret to me….
Rule of Thumb: When it comes to restricting the rights of the LGBTQ community, POC and women, no price is too steep for the GOP.
So much for the bailout not working, Republicans.
Ok. I don’t see why this is being brought up as an issue. Two economic issues were discussed during the election: raising taxes on income over $250 thousand and Obamacare. True, we didn’t really delve too far into either, but both Dems and Republicans railed against both. Romney even promised to repeal Obamacare right when he entered office if elected. Obviously, the people rejected that idea when they elected Obama. Of course the White House isn’t going to go with this. Why start with conflict.
The worst part is that they aren’t making proposals to improve on the legislation by helping to bring costs down. No! They just want to repeal it outright, maybe keeping some of the more popular parts. This is completely unproductive and it’s been rejected. So why pick this fight? Because they learned nothing. Get prepared people. They’re about to double down on stupid.
- Jobless rate falls below 8%. “This is not a real recovery.”
- Obama gives order to kill bin Laden. “He’s dead thanks to George Bush.”
- Obama begins pullout of troops from Afghanistan and ends active combat role in Iraq — both wars started under George W. Bush. “Why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
- Obama is a U.S. citizen. “Show us your birth certificate.”
- Obama wants Consumer Protection Bureau to help shield Americans from insidious banking industry. “This is government overreach!”
- Majority of Americans want universal healthcare. “Repeal Obamacare!”
- Majority of Americans for marriage equality. “God doesn’t want that!”
- Women have constitutionally-protected reproductive rights. ”Taxpayer money should not be spent on abortions, period, end of sentence, we’ll have states write laws prohibiting abortions if we have to!”
- Women from low-income households and areas with limited access to quality care need access to healthcare. ”Destroy Planned Parenthood!”
- Mitt Romney ends record 47 straight days without a major gaffe, exceeds expectations at first presidential debate by misleading and outright lying. “At first I wasn’t sure but he’s sure got my vote now!”
- Romney says he doesn’t need to court 47 percent of Americans. “Yes that’s actually true.”
Yup- except Obamacare ain’t universal healthcare. But better than the old shit.
Behold, the latest positive legislation that the Republicans will quickly filibuster.
Easy. In Virginia, first Governor Bob McDonnell signs a law that says abortion clinics will be subject to the same regulations as hospitals. (Not outpatient clinics that do things like plastic surgery or oral surgery, mind you, just abortion clinics.)
Then you pass a bunch of regulations for new hospital construction (like minimum hallway widths and specific ventilation systems), and remove the clause that exempts existing hospitals.
Voila! All 20 abortion providers in Virginia will have to make costly renovations, endangering their ability to continue operating.
The Virginia Board of Health didn’t want to do it. When they passed the regulations in June, they grandfathered in the existing clinics. But Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli threatened the Board with legal and financial consequences if they failed to remove the exemption, and for good measure, Governor McDonnell appointed a new Board member - Dr. John Seeds, vice chairman of the anti-abortion group OBGYNS for Life. Lo and behold, they got what they wanted.
Google ‘Virginia’ ‘Cuccinelli’ ‘abortion’ to learn more.
See also Mississippi, Utah, and Arizona.
Only 13 states and the District of Columbia have formally committed to running their own exchanges. All of them but Rhode Island, whose governor, Lincoln Chafee, is an independent, are led by Democrats. The Republican governors in six states — Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, South Carolina and Texas — have said they will not create a state-run exchange, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. So has New Hampshire, where Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, faced opposition from the Republican-controlled legislature.
Most of the remaining states, 22 of them run by Republicans, are exploring their options. Along with Arizona, at least three of them — Mississippi, Nevada and New Mexico — have done enough planning to meet the November deadline should they decide to run their own exchanges, according to officials. Nevada has already created its exchange, appointed its board and hired its executive director. Most Republican governors, including Ms. Brewer, are waiting for the outcome of the presidential race before making a final decision; Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal the law if elected.
But states like Arizona say they want to be prepared in case the law survives. (Even if Mr. Romney wins, repealing the law will require Congressional approval, which will be difficult if Democrats retain control of the Senate.)
Peter Lee, the executive director of the insurance exchange in California, said he had attended meetings with officials from red states who were eager to keep their presence under the radar.
“It’s sort of like A.A.: ‘My name’s Bob, and I can’t tell you the state I’m from,’ ” Mr. Lee said.Republicans who support state-run exchanges say they are embracing a fundamental conservative belief: that states should make their own decisions rather than cede control to the federal government. But groups that oppose the law have sent emissaries around the country to argue that deferring to the federal government is a shrewder move.
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) — who Mitt Romney quoted in a speech on Monday — has joined a growing number of Republicans in backing away from the former Massachusetts governor’s claim that 47 percent of Americans are dependent on government and won’t vote for Republicans anyway. Asked if she was offended by the remarks, “Martinez said New Mexico has many people who are living at the poverty level and their votes count just as much as anyone else.”
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.
…my job is is not to worry about those people.
-Mitt Romney, speaking to wealthy supporters at a closed-door event. (Source)
Mitt Romney has announced (quietly) that if elected then half the country can go suck wind for all he cares. Now, the actual truth is probably worse than that. This paints a rosy picture where he actually cares about the concerns and needs of a whopping 53% of the electorate. I don’t buy that for a second. But even among his closest supporters, he couldn’t very well announce exactly narrow his area of concern is without making some of them wonder if they’d actually make the cut or not.
Now, a lot of words have been spent on how and why that 47% figure is a lie in the first place, so I’m not going to rehash them. It’s a monstrous lie to say that 47% percent of the country doesn’t pay into the system at all, but it’s an even more monstrous lie to say that the people who pay the least taxes (in terms of actual dollars per person, not percentage) have the least “skin in the game”, as the right-wing pundits put it.
Skin in the game refers to a stake in a wager. It refers to a level of personal exposure and risk.
The people who can’t afford to pay income taxes… the people who have no income, or who are living at a subsistence level (or slowly dying at a sub-subsistence one and hoping that things get better fast enough)… these are the people whose skin is in the game. These are the people whose futures and lives are being wagered by right wing social engineering schemes like the ones Paul Ryan so famously proposed.
Mitt Romney has never had any real exposure to risk the way a working class mother or a homeless vet has or even an unemployed white collar professional has. His skin has never been in the game. His neck has never been on the line. I mean, that’s where the phrase comes from. Your skin’s in the game. You’re exposed to danger if things go badly. It’s “skin off your back” if you lose.
If you can run a company into the ground and sell off its assets and walk away richer for having done so, that doesn’t mean you have more skin in the game. It means you’ve convinced a lot of other people to trust you with their stakes, and you did really well by a few of them by doing terribly for everyone else.
But I digress. Mitt Romney does not say this same thing quite so boldly or baldly when he’s talking in front of the press, when he knows his words will be reproduced beyond his intended audience, and with good reason: it should not be possible for a person to say this and then get elected
But it is. Let’s not for one second lose sight of that fact. I’ve said before that there is no amount of being horrible, no amount of race-baiting, no amount of lying and doubling down on lies and no amount of raw undisguised scorn or apathy for the working classes that will prevent Romney from being elected if we don’t vote against him.
And here’s a big part of why: Romney has insulted half the country, but he didn’t identify any specific person as being in that half. How many people with a roof over their head any kind of an income are going to see Romney talking about people who want the government to take care of them and don’t want to work and think he’s talking about them? There are people who are on full disability, or who have been laid off, who have been out of work for years and are receiving what benefits they’re still entitled to who will bristle when they hear about this 47%, not because they think Romney is insulting them but because they know he isn’t, he’s talking about those people, the ones who aren’t really sick or aren’t really looking for jobs, the people who aren’t as bad off as we are but somehow get handed all the benefits we have to jump through hoops for.
He could make that speech to a hundred Republican voters who were all picked to present a perfect representative cross-section of the economic status of the country, and no one would hear it and think, “Well, if that’s what he thinks of me then I guess I’m done with him.” Because even though by definition 47 of the people in the room would have to be included in his chimerical 47%, none of them would be hearing themselves in his word. No one would be connecting the disdainful way he describes people who need jobs or public assistance to how hard it is for them to get those things
I’m not saying that this kind of talk won’t sway independents. In fact, it will. Interestingly enough, the Romney campaign is giving up on independents and trying to appeal more strongly to their base, but at the time this private speech was made… well, if you read the article linked as the source you’ll see that he took the time to explain to his supporters that the reason he wasn’t speaking such “truths” in public was it would alienate the independent voters… people who might identify themselves as part of the 47%, or do the math and realize how unlikely it is that no one they care about or admire or need or respect could fall into that scornful demographic.
The USA’s ‘do-nothing’ Congress, shamed by record low public approval ratings, returns to Washington to do what they do best .. nothing.
Eugene Robinson writes:
Anyone familiar with my columns knows that I prefer the progressive vision over the conservative one. But I believe it’s not possible for the nation to set a course without a vigorous, honest debate — and I know there can be no such contest of ideas without agreement on factual truth. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night was another demonstration that he and presidential nominee Mitt Romney have no apparent respect for the truth. Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, boasted this week that “we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” I’ll say. Ryan built his career on a reputation for wonkish immersion in the details and willingness to tell uncomfortable truths. But in his address to the convention he lied and dissembled so shamelessly that I thought I detected a whiff of desperation in the air. Or maybe it was just ambition.
Towards the end of President Clinton’s second term, debt clocks that had been established in various U.S. locations had to be shut down — the deficit had been eliminated and the clocks had never been set to run backwards.
They started back up again during the Bush/Cheney era. Republicans took a massive surplus and turned it into an even more massive deficit, adding the costs of two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout to the national charge card.
The RNC wants to talk about the “unprecedented fiscal recklessness of the Obama administration”? Seriously?
But wait, Republicans argue, Obama has made things worse, so there’s nothing wrong with pushing this message now.
That’s not quite right, either. For one thing, tackling debt reduction in the wake of an economic crash is insane. For another, the deficit actually has gotten considerably smaller — to the tune of about $200 billion — since Obama took office.
While we’re at it, let’s also not forget that Obama offered Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal, but they turned it down.