By JOSEPH WHITE, The Fiscal Times April 7, 2011
Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wisc., draft budget resolution is very important, but not because there is any chance it could be adopted. It is so extreme that Senate Democrats appear strongly opposed to it, and there will surely be very little public pressure to eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid, cut taxes even more for higher-income Americans, fast-track cuts to Social Security, and otherwise follow Ryan's new "roadmap" to 19th century robber-baron capitalism.
Instead, the Ryan plan is important for what it reveals about the attitudes influencing the budget debate, and how it structures the pressures on legislators going forward.
First, it appears that Ryan, and the vast majority of Congressional Republicans, seriously believe in his budget plan. People should understand how stunning that is. In the 1980s the conservative dream was a constitutional amendment that would limit government spending to no more than 21 percent of GDP, but today that is considered "big government" to Ryan and his colleagues. Additionally, in the 1980s President Reagan would contemplate tax hikes to deal with deficits, but now Republicans believe deficit reduction should be accompanied by tax cuts, even when the deficits are twice as large as a share of the economy. And finally, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration and Republican Senate leaders worked for a balanced plan to improve Social Security's finances and build up the trust fund, but now Republicans reject any revenues and claim the trust fund is fake.
In short, current Republicans make Ronald Reagan look like Lyndon Johnson -- or, at least, Nelson Rockefeller. This is not a matter of the 'Tea Party." Ryan was the GOP's bright new budget star before the Tea Party hype began. For some reason, this does not yet appear to be fully understood within the press. But imagine the comparable "Democratic" budget plan.
Actually, it's hard to think of something equally extreme. But I guess it would involve massive taxes on upper incomes and especially on financial manipulation. Instead of eliminating government guarantees for medical care it would replace the U.S. health care system with Medicare-for-all and a budget cap mechanism. It would provide a guaranteed annual income (as we might as well give away some extra money to the poor, in response to Ryan's giveaways to high income, in the name of "deficit reduction"). It would cut the defense budget in half with a mindless automatic formula, regardless of need (as opposed to slashing domestic discretionary the same way).
I seen no sign of something like this being proposed by Democratic leaders, and that shows the lopsided nature of the debate. Yet think of the reaction to Ryan. Sure his plan has been criticized. But it also has been widely praised for its "courage" and "honesty" in addressing the deficit problem. Personally, I don't find making up economic projections, making up assumptions about the effects of vouchers, and making up assumptions about the effects of block grants "honest.” The key point is that even the most radical conservative proposal can be treated as a serious alternative among Washington's budget mavens. Yet if the Democrats proposed a "left" equivalent I doubt that the Washington Post would praise them for the "courage" to take on the medical establishment, the military industrial complex and Wall Street. Somehow it is "serious" to want to cut "entitlements," but not as serious to want to have taxes to reverse the huge increases in inequality over the past four decades, or use government's power to control health care costs, or rethink America's role in the world.
There is another aspect of the current debate that makes me yearn for the 1980s. Back then, centrists talked about the need for a "three-legged stool" of deficit reduction, including defense, domestic spending and taxes. This was particularly common from moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. In their recent statement of "principles" for deficit reduction, however, the Blue Dog Coalition only referred to "tax reform." This reflects a similar skittishness among many Democrats. Senate Democrats, after all, were not even willing to go to stand up last fall and let the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes expire. Nor has President Obama exercised any leadership to set the stage for higher revenues.
What this means, then, is the Democrats do not think they can hold their ranks to propose even a much more moderate, but clearly "Democratic" plan, for substantial deficit reductions. The public opinion evidence does not appear to support any claim that Ryan's approach actually is more popular than a Democratic alternative with some higher taxes on Americans below the $250,000 line. But Republican politicians, being true believers, are far more willing to take risks. The imbalance is true even at the level of mass opinion, with polls showing that the Democrats are more willing than Republicans to compromise.
Enter Bowles-Simpson. As Henry Aaron and I both explained at the time it was released, the plan drafted by the chairs of the President's fiscal responsibility commission is extremely flawed. A short list (with not all of which Henry might agree) would include that Bowles-Simpson "merely" echoes conservative dreams about spending limits from the 1980s, rather than exceeding them. It involves unrealistic caps on spending categories. It only pretends to have health care savings policies. It emphasizes cutting middle class tax preferences rather than raising rates on the people who have, as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson emphasize in their recent book, benefited from three decades of "winner take all politics." Yet some in the media, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and other voices have taken the opportunity to argue that Ryan shows how moderate Bowles-Simpson is.
In this context, Senate moderate Democrats who really care about deficits seem even more likely to decide that the Bowles-Simpson plan is the "moderate," "responsible" thing to do. Never mind the facts or the consequences. What matters in politics is images and positioning. One of the things about “centrists” is they keep trying to figure out where the center is. They look at other politicians and press clippings to figure that out. As the Republicans have moved steadily right, so has the center – and the Ryan budget looks like it could be another stage in that dynamic. The Ryan budget is pushing the political system towards what would have been a conservative triumph in 1985 -- and the only hope for those like myself who feel it is terrible policy, I suspect, may be that the Republicans will be too extreme to realize it.
Joseph White is Director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University.
To visit the Capital Exchange homepage click following link:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-Exchange.aspx/
Monday, April 11, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
House aims for change in entitlements
By CQ Staff April 4, 2011. Congress.org
House Republicans are set to release their fiscal 2012 budget resolution this week, and the plan is expected to call for major changes, including new caps on mandatory and discretionary spending.
The budget document also will lay out the Republican fiscal agenda for the year, calling for deep rollbacks for many discretionary programs, including some reductions for the Pentagon, and other cost-saving changes to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
With Senate Democrats and House Republicans still far apart on fiscal priorities, the House blueprint has little hope of winning favor in the Senate. But it is expected to provide a clear picture of a new conservative House majority intent on reordering the nation’s fiscal affairs and continuing a campaign to slice large chunks out of the government’s bankroll.
At the same time, a budget measure including tight spending controls could provide political cover to House conservatives already wary of compromising on funding cuts in the ongoing fight over fiscal 2011 appropriations.
Although details are still scarce, congressional sources said the new spending caps expected to be called for in the House resolution would be similar to legislation backed by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. Their bill (S 245) would reduce spending on discretionary and mandatory programs to 20.6 percent of the economy over 10 years, down from the current level of 24.7 percent.
If Congress did not meet that goal, the Senate bill would call for automatic cuts to government programs until the cap levels are met. Congress could override the new limits with a two-thirds vote.
Although the budget resolution would account for the new spending caps, lawmakers would have to clear separate legislation to make the new limits law.
Conservative analysts have argued for years that such a fiscal restraint is needed to rein in Congress’ propensity to spend more than Washington collects in revenues.
“Runaway spending is what’s driving the deficit,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “And it’s very tough to enact the spending reforms needed unless there’s a framework in place capping spending.”
Calling for a statutory cap on federal spending may reflect House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan’s recognition that any changes to entitlement programs will require bipartisan support.
So far, McCaskill is the only Democratic sponsor of her bill with Corker. But similar proposed caps have drawn strong bipartisan support in the Senate in the past, though not enough to pass. Other cosponsors of the plan include Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who is working to draft a comprehensive bipartisan deficit reduction plan with a handful of other budget-conscious senators.
The budget resolution will kick off the next round of rhetorical battles over the more than $1 trillion deficit and growing $14 trillion national debt.
Although Ryan, R-Wis., has kept a tight lid on details, lawmakers and others who have been told about the budget resolution say it will aim to scale back some domestic programs to fiscal 2006 spending levels, include some cuts to Defense spending and call for cost savings in mandatory spending programs including Medicaid and Medicare.
The budget resolution is expected to reflect plans to replace the current formula-based Medicaid program, which provides health care to the poor, with a block grant system in which the states receive a set amount of funding from Washington and have greater latitude to design their own programs and determine who is eligible for Medicaid.
Combined with the assumed repeal of the health care law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) enacted last year, using block grants for the program could save more than $700 billion over a decade, based on an analysis of projections from the Congressional Budget Office.
The budget is also expected to address Medicare, the health care program for seniors and the disabled, with a call for a “modified” version of a proposal by Ryan and Alice Rivlin, who was budget director under President Bill Clinton.
The Rivlin-Ryan plan, which was drawn up when the two served on the president’s fiscal commission last year, would replace the current Medicare fee-for-service system with vouchers that recipients would use to buy private health insurance.
Although the budget is not expected to contemplate major changes to Social Security, the resolution will suggest some procedural tweaks that could open the way for further modification of Social Security in the future.
“I think the most important test for this is, how serious is it on entitlement reform, and what kind of response does it get from Democrats who presumably won’t love all the details that are presented,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Ryan budget could be the start of a conversation about how to address the real drivers of the rising debt.
“We have programs that are relatively generous to retirees, and we’re not willing to, at this point, pay the taxes that are necessary to support them,” he said. “And I think it’s useful that Chairman Ryan is showing us how we can do it without raising revenues.”
Many House Republicans are awaiting the budget with enthusiasm. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the Budget Committee, lauded the plan for being “a major contrast to where the president is.”
Some conservatives, however, may be disappointed that it does not call for a balanced budget in 10 years, a goal of many freshmen. During listening sessions with House members, Ryan was reported to have said that ending the deficit in a decade would require disruptive benefit cuts to current recipients of entitlement programs such as Medicare. The GOP plan seeks to phase in changes, exempting those who are 55 and older.
The plan has already drawn fire from Democrats. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, ranking member on the House Budget Committee, attacked the idea of turning Medicaid into a block grant program, which he described as “simply code for slashing health care support for seniors, people with disabilities and others.”
-- Paul M. Krawzak, CQ Staff
Link: http://origin-www.congress.org/news/2011/04/04/house_aims_for_change_in_entitlements/
House Republicans are set to release their fiscal 2012 budget resolution this week, and the plan is expected to call for major changes, including new caps on mandatory and discretionary spending.
The budget document also will lay out the Republican fiscal agenda for the year, calling for deep rollbacks for many discretionary programs, including some reductions for the Pentagon, and other cost-saving changes to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
With Senate Democrats and House Republicans still far apart on fiscal priorities, the House blueprint has little hope of winning favor in the Senate. But it is expected to provide a clear picture of a new conservative House majority intent on reordering the nation’s fiscal affairs and continuing a campaign to slice large chunks out of the government’s bankroll.
At the same time, a budget measure including tight spending controls could provide political cover to House conservatives already wary of compromising on funding cuts in the ongoing fight over fiscal 2011 appropriations.
Although details are still scarce, congressional sources said the new spending caps expected to be called for in the House resolution would be similar to legislation backed by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. Their bill (S 245) would reduce spending on discretionary and mandatory programs to 20.6 percent of the economy over 10 years, down from the current level of 24.7 percent.
If Congress did not meet that goal, the Senate bill would call for automatic cuts to government programs until the cap levels are met. Congress could override the new limits with a two-thirds vote.
Although the budget resolution would account for the new spending caps, lawmakers would have to clear separate legislation to make the new limits law.
Conservative analysts have argued for years that such a fiscal restraint is needed to rein in Congress’ propensity to spend more than Washington collects in revenues.
“Runaway spending is what’s driving the deficit,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “And it’s very tough to enact the spending reforms needed unless there’s a framework in place capping spending.”
Calling for a statutory cap on federal spending may reflect House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan’s recognition that any changes to entitlement programs will require bipartisan support.
So far, McCaskill is the only Democratic sponsor of her bill with Corker. But similar proposed caps have drawn strong bipartisan support in the Senate in the past, though not enough to pass. Other cosponsors of the plan include Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who is working to draft a comprehensive bipartisan deficit reduction plan with a handful of other budget-conscious senators.
The budget resolution will kick off the next round of rhetorical battles over the more than $1 trillion deficit and growing $14 trillion national debt.
Although Ryan, R-Wis., has kept a tight lid on details, lawmakers and others who have been told about the budget resolution say it will aim to scale back some domestic programs to fiscal 2006 spending levels, include some cuts to Defense spending and call for cost savings in mandatory spending programs including Medicaid and Medicare.
The budget resolution is expected to reflect plans to replace the current formula-based Medicaid program, which provides health care to the poor, with a block grant system in which the states receive a set amount of funding from Washington and have greater latitude to design their own programs and determine who is eligible for Medicaid.
Combined with the assumed repeal of the health care law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) enacted last year, using block grants for the program could save more than $700 billion over a decade, based on an analysis of projections from the Congressional Budget Office.
The budget is also expected to address Medicare, the health care program for seniors and the disabled, with a call for a “modified” version of a proposal by Ryan and Alice Rivlin, who was budget director under President Bill Clinton.
The Rivlin-Ryan plan, which was drawn up when the two served on the president’s fiscal commission last year, would replace the current Medicare fee-for-service system with vouchers that recipients would use to buy private health insurance.
Although the budget is not expected to contemplate major changes to Social Security, the resolution will suggest some procedural tweaks that could open the way for further modification of Social Security in the future.
“I think the most important test for this is, how serious is it on entitlement reform, and what kind of response does it get from Democrats who presumably won’t love all the details that are presented,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Ryan budget could be the start of a conversation about how to address the real drivers of the rising debt.
“We have programs that are relatively generous to retirees, and we’re not willing to, at this point, pay the taxes that are necessary to support them,” he said. “And I think it’s useful that Chairman Ryan is showing us how we can do it without raising revenues.”
Many House Republicans are awaiting the budget with enthusiasm. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the Budget Committee, lauded the plan for being “a major contrast to where the president is.”
Some conservatives, however, may be disappointed that it does not call for a balanced budget in 10 years, a goal of many freshmen. During listening sessions with House members, Ryan was reported to have said that ending the deficit in a decade would require disruptive benefit cuts to current recipients of entitlement programs such as Medicare. The GOP plan seeks to phase in changes, exempting those who are 55 and older.
The plan has already drawn fire from Democrats. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, ranking member on the House Budget Committee, attacked the idea of turning Medicaid into a block grant program, which he described as “simply code for slashing health care support for seniors, people with disabilities and others.”
-- Paul M. Krawzak, CQ Staff
Link: http://origin-www.congress.org/news/2011/04/04/house_aims_for_change_in_entitlements/
An effort to keep EPA authority
By Geoff Koss April 4, 2011. Congress.org
California Democrat Barbara Boxer tugged hard at the heartstrings last week, when she took to the Senate floor to defend the EPA’s efforts to reduce emissions of the pollutants that are warming the earth.
Pointing to oversized posters of young children wearing breathing masks and using asthma inhalers, she argued that legislative efforts to strip the agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health.
“This is what is happening in this country because of the polluters who will not clean up their mess,” Boxer said, gesturing to one of the placards. “Here is another beautiful child. We all love children. How many speeches have we had on this floor — we love children, children are our future, we will fight for our children. Do we want their future to look like this, breathing through a device?”
Although breathing carbon dioxide is not directly responsible for respiratory difficulties except in small enclosed spaces, Boxer’s emphasis on public health highlights a theme that environmentalists, their Democratic supporters in Congress and the Obama administration have adopted as they regroup after their failure to enact a climate change bill in the last Congress.
The new Democratic strategy will be put to an early test when the Senate votes, probably this week, on up to four amendments designed to roll back the EPA’s regulatory authority.
In 2009, Democrats test-drove several themes — including the threats of global warming to national security and the promise of “green” jobs — without really settling on anything during their failed campaign to sell legislation that would cap emissions.
At that time, Republicans waged a relentless messaging war to defeat the climate change bill. “Cap and trade” proposals were dubbed “cap and tax” and called a “light-switch tax.” A release of embarrassing e-mails lifted from climate scientists was labeled “Climategate.” Global warming talks collapsed in the Senate, and triumphant Republicans turned their attention to a new target: the EPA.
But as Democrats move to a defensive posture, they may have finally found their voice. The basis for EPA legal authority to regulate emissions is a finding that global warming endangers public health and welfare and thus falls under the authority of the Clean Air Act. Armed with that position and bolstered by a Supreme Court decision, Democrats and environmentalists are presenting the GOP effort to rein in the EPA as an assault on the 40-year-old Clean Air Act and a direct threat to public health, a theme that has served them well in past fights over clean air and clean water.
“Defense is almost always easier to play than offense because we’re defending the status quo now, which is EPA setting pollution reduction standards to protect public health,” says Daniel Weiss, a climate expert at the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund. “Last year, we were trying to change the status quo. That’s always harder.”
Weiss says the message reinforces the stereotype that Republicans put business interests ahead of the general public’s. “It makes them seem like they’re calloused to concerns about public health in order to make profits for companies that then turn around and give them lots of money.”
GOP strategist Frank Luntz — who famously advised Republicans in 2003 to avoid the phrase “global warming” in favor of the more benign “climate change” — warned in the same memo that health is a bigger priority for the public than concern about burdensome regulation.
“The public does not approve of the current regulatory process, and Americans certainly don’t want an increased regulatory burden,” he wrote. “But they will put a higher priority on environmental protection and public health than on cutting regulations.”
When congressional Democrats struggled to sell the public on an urgent need to regulate a ubiquitous gas like carbon dioxide, they downplayed the environmental and health justifications in favor of arguments that capping emissions would foster the explosive growth of low-carbon energy industries and create millions of green jobs. Framing the debate in economic terms, however, played into the hands of Republicans, who drowned out the “green jobs” message by stoking fears of higher energy costs and an exodus of blue-collar jobs.
Recent polling illustrates why Democrats have decided to play up fears about air pollution and public health and to play down global warming.
A Gallup Poll released last week asked respondents to rank their concerns about nine environmental issues. Only 51 percent said they worry a great deal or a fair amount about global warming — last on the list of issues. By contrast, 72 percent expressed worry about air pollution.
The League of Conservation Voters and the American Lung Association assert that recent research they commissioned shows broad public support for EPA regulation of carbon dioxide pollution, although conspicuously absent from the polling data is any mention of “global warming” or “climate change.”
The American Lung Association last month took that message straight to the Michigan district of House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, the lead sponsor of a GOP bill that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases entirely. On a large billboard featuring a girl wearing a breathing mask, the girl implored him to “protect our kids’ health. Don’t weaken the Clean Air Act.”
Upton felt compelled to respond with an opinion column in a local newspaper defending his bill. “It does not limit EPA’s ability to monitor and reduce pollutants like lead and ozone that damage public health,” Upton wrote. “This legislation restores the Clean Air Act to its original purpose — protecting families from harmful smog, particulate matter and chemical pollution.”
The argument that Congress never intended the Clean Air Act to regulate unconventional pollutants such as carbon dioxide is at the heart of the EPA fight. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases fell within the purview of the law. That prompted a scientific review that culminated with the release of an “endangerment” determination in 2009.
Compiled by agency scientists, the finding lists a host of human health risks associated with a warmer climate caused by carbon dioxide, including an increased likelihood of deaths from heat waves and other extreme-weather-related events, as well as evidence that warming will increase the prevalence of disease. Significantly, the finding also cited an increased risk of ambient ozone — smog — which can cause a number of adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects, especially in children.
That’s the basis for arguments like the emotional appeal that Boxer made on the Senate floor. Likewise, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in her frequent appearances this year before Republican-led House committees, has doggedly stuck to the public-health line in justifying her agency’s regulatory efforts.
Republican energy consultant Mike McKenna says the health argument could yield diminishing returns for Democrats if widespread public sentiment shifts against the notion that carbon dioxide, a gas that humans breathe every day, “is really a killer pollutant.”
McKenna acknowledges that the health argument is “always the environmental community’s strongest one, no matter what the issue.” But he also says Republicans have learned how to counterpunch. “That’s a pretty standard line of attack, and every Republican operative has seen it a hundred times and knows what to do about it,” he says.
He suggested that the argument may be problematic for Democrats from conservative or coal-dependent states, who face criticism from the right if they support President Obama’s environmental policies but risk alienating their Democratic base — and inviting primary challenges — if they distance themselves from the administration.
One such Democrat — Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania — says such concerns are overblown. Although some constituents in his coal-producing state do gripe about EPA overreach, he says, such complaints are far outpaced by broader economic concerns.
“Sometimes the lines that are connected here in Washington aren’t necessarily reflective of the way people at home analyze an issue like that,” he says. “And sometimes our discussions here can be remote from the real world.”
In the latest round of the battle set for this week, one proposal offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky would rescind outright the EPA’s legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Three milder alternatives offered by moderate Democrats would either delay or limit EPA regulation. None is expected to get the necessary 60 votes.
But McKenna, the GOP consultant, predicts that the outcome of the amendment votes will nullify any potential backlash against Republicans.
“At the end of the day, if you have 70 to 75 senators who are willing to go on record as saying, ‘I’m not really wild about what the agency is doing,’ that’s a pretty solid judgment from a pretty wide cross section of people that, you know what, there is zero risk in coming out against EPA on this thing,” he says.
Link: http://www.congress.org/news/2011/04/04/an_effort_to_keep_epa_authority/
California Democrat Barbara Boxer tugged hard at the heartstrings last week, when she took to the Senate floor to defend the EPA’s efforts to reduce emissions of the pollutants that are warming the earth.
Pointing to oversized posters of young children wearing breathing masks and using asthma inhalers, she argued that legislative efforts to strip the agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health.
“This is what is happening in this country because of the polluters who will not clean up their mess,” Boxer said, gesturing to one of the placards. “Here is another beautiful child. We all love children. How many speeches have we had on this floor — we love children, children are our future, we will fight for our children. Do we want their future to look like this, breathing through a device?”
Although breathing carbon dioxide is not directly responsible for respiratory difficulties except in small enclosed spaces, Boxer’s emphasis on public health highlights a theme that environmentalists, their Democratic supporters in Congress and the Obama administration have adopted as they regroup after their failure to enact a climate change bill in the last Congress.
The new Democratic strategy will be put to an early test when the Senate votes, probably this week, on up to four amendments designed to roll back the EPA’s regulatory authority.
In 2009, Democrats test-drove several themes — including the threats of global warming to national security and the promise of “green” jobs — without really settling on anything during their failed campaign to sell legislation that would cap emissions.
At that time, Republicans waged a relentless messaging war to defeat the climate change bill. “Cap and trade” proposals were dubbed “cap and tax” and called a “light-switch tax.” A release of embarrassing e-mails lifted from climate scientists was labeled “Climategate.” Global warming talks collapsed in the Senate, and triumphant Republicans turned their attention to a new target: the EPA.
But as Democrats move to a defensive posture, they may have finally found their voice. The basis for EPA legal authority to regulate emissions is a finding that global warming endangers public health and welfare and thus falls under the authority of the Clean Air Act. Armed with that position and bolstered by a Supreme Court decision, Democrats and environmentalists are presenting the GOP effort to rein in the EPA as an assault on the 40-year-old Clean Air Act and a direct threat to public health, a theme that has served them well in past fights over clean air and clean water.
“Defense is almost always easier to play than offense because we’re defending the status quo now, which is EPA setting pollution reduction standards to protect public health,” says Daniel Weiss, a climate expert at the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund. “Last year, we were trying to change the status quo. That’s always harder.”
Weiss says the message reinforces the stereotype that Republicans put business interests ahead of the general public’s. “It makes them seem like they’re calloused to concerns about public health in order to make profits for companies that then turn around and give them lots of money.”
GOP strategist Frank Luntz — who famously advised Republicans in 2003 to avoid the phrase “global warming” in favor of the more benign “climate change” — warned in the same memo that health is a bigger priority for the public than concern about burdensome regulation.
“The public does not approve of the current regulatory process, and Americans certainly don’t want an increased regulatory burden,” he wrote. “But they will put a higher priority on environmental protection and public health than on cutting regulations.”
When congressional Democrats struggled to sell the public on an urgent need to regulate a ubiquitous gas like carbon dioxide, they downplayed the environmental and health justifications in favor of arguments that capping emissions would foster the explosive growth of low-carbon energy industries and create millions of green jobs. Framing the debate in economic terms, however, played into the hands of Republicans, who drowned out the “green jobs” message by stoking fears of higher energy costs and an exodus of blue-collar jobs.
Recent polling illustrates why Democrats have decided to play up fears about air pollution and public health and to play down global warming.
A Gallup Poll released last week asked respondents to rank their concerns about nine environmental issues. Only 51 percent said they worry a great deal or a fair amount about global warming — last on the list of issues. By contrast, 72 percent expressed worry about air pollution.
The League of Conservation Voters and the American Lung Association assert that recent research they commissioned shows broad public support for EPA regulation of carbon dioxide pollution, although conspicuously absent from the polling data is any mention of “global warming” or “climate change.”
The American Lung Association last month took that message straight to the Michigan district of House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, the lead sponsor of a GOP bill that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases entirely. On a large billboard featuring a girl wearing a breathing mask, the girl implored him to “protect our kids’ health. Don’t weaken the Clean Air Act.”
Upton felt compelled to respond with an opinion column in a local newspaper defending his bill. “It does not limit EPA’s ability to monitor and reduce pollutants like lead and ozone that damage public health,” Upton wrote. “This legislation restores the Clean Air Act to its original purpose — protecting families from harmful smog, particulate matter and chemical pollution.”
The argument that Congress never intended the Clean Air Act to regulate unconventional pollutants such as carbon dioxide is at the heart of the EPA fight. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases fell within the purview of the law. That prompted a scientific review that culminated with the release of an “endangerment” determination in 2009.
Compiled by agency scientists, the finding lists a host of human health risks associated with a warmer climate caused by carbon dioxide, including an increased likelihood of deaths from heat waves and other extreme-weather-related events, as well as evidence that warming will increase the prevalence of disease. Significantly, the finding also cited an increased risk of ambient ozone — smog — which can cause a number of adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects, especially in children.
That’s the basis for arguments like the emotional appeal that Boxer made on the Senate floor. Likewise, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in her frequent appearances this year before Republican-led House committees, has doggedly stuck to the public-health line in justifying her agency’s regulatory efforts.
Republican energy consultant Mike McKenna says the health argument could yield diminishing returns for Democrats if widespread public sentiment shifts against the notion that carbon dioxide, a gas that humans breathe every day, “is really a killer pollutant.”
McKenna acknowledges that the health argument is “always the environmental community’s strongest one, no matter what the issue.” But he also says Republicans have learned how to counterpunch. “That’s a pretty standard line of attack, and every Republican operative has seen it a hundred times and knows what to do about it,” he says.
He suggested that the argument may be problematic for Democrats from conservative or coal-dependent states, who face criticism from the right if they support President Obama’s environmental policies but risk alienating their Democratic base — and inviting primary challenges — if they distance themselves from the administration.
One such Democrat — Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania — says such concerns are overblown. Although some constituents in his coal-producing state do gripe about EPA overreach, he says, such complaints are far outpaced by broader economic concerns.
“Sometimes the lines that are connected here in Washington aren’t necessarily reflective of the way people at home analyze an issue like that,” he says. “And sometimes our discussions here can be remote from the real world.”
In the latest round of the battle set for this week, one proposal offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky would rescind outright the EPA’s legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Three milder alternatives offered by moderate Democrats would either delay or limit EPA regulation. None is expected to get the necessary 60 votes.
But McKenna, the GOP consultant, predicts that the outcome of the amendment votes will nullify any potential backlash against Republicans.
“At the end of the day, if you have 70 to 75 senators who are willing to go on record as saying, ‘I’m not really wild about what the agency is doing,’ that’s a pretty solid judgment from a pretty wide cross section of people that, you know what, there is zero risk in coming out against EPA on this thing,” he says.
Link: http://www.congress.org/news/2011/04/04/an_effort_to_keep_epa_authority/
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Amid acrimony, negotiators carry on
By Kerry Young, Congress.org
Spending talks among the Obama administration, Democrats and top House Republicans are continuing, despite another round of finger-pointing and heated rhetoric between the two parties.
Even with negotiators pressing ahead, the two sides must deal with the same issue that has bogged down talks on fiscal 2011 appropriations for weeks — finding a level of spending rollbacks that leaders can sell in both chambers.
Republicans are sticking by their demands for $61.5 billion in discretionary cuts from current spending, and Democrats continue to balk at that number.
A recent compromise, floated by the White House, would cut current spending by $20 billion beyond the $10 billion in reductions Congress already has made in the latest two continuing resolutions. But it won little praise Monday, particularly from House conservatives.
With the two sides separated by more than $30 billion in cuts, and many House Republicans eager to put their stamp on government spending, a compromise could be hard to reach in the two weeks before the current stopgap spending law (PL 112-6) expires.
In fact, wide circulation of the White House number brought another round of partisan barbs. Both parties tried to pre-emptively lay blame for a government shutdown on the other side.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Republicans tied to the tea party movement were responsible for upending a recent round of talks.
“Apparently these extremists would rather shut down the government and risk sending our economy back into a recession than work with Democrats or even their own leadership to find a responsible compromise,” Reid said.
Republicans wasted little time responding, saying Democrats were threatening a shutdown by refusing to allow what the GOP considers reasonable reductions to the nation’s more than $1 trillion in annual discretionary spending.
“In the scope of our debt crisis, if Sen. Reid and Sen. [Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y.] force the government to partially shut down over these sensible spending cuts, Americans will hold them accountable,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.
House GOP leaders have scheduled a press conference Tuesday to decry what they see as the Senate’s “failure” to pass a long-term fiscal 2011 bill.
On Monday, Senate Democrats tried to cast a favorable light on the $20 billion cut figure, suggesting that more moderate Republicans might support such a plan.
“The Republicans have to resolve their own deep disagreements before we can find a middle ground between the two parties,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “We have tried to wait patiently for them and do that, but our patience and the American people’s patience is wearing very, very thin.”
But Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, was not buying that argument. Sessions noted that House Republicans were adamant in their calls for $61.5 billion in fiscal 2011 cuts, and accused Reid of inventing Republican support.
“That’s Sen. Reid trying to create a split,” Sessions said.
Instead, Sessions fired back that many Senate Democrats, if left to make their own decisions, would back the House GOP position.
“Assuming that they were left free, I believe that there would be more than enough Democratic votes,” Sessions said. But, “apparently, they are under pressure” to protest the $61.5 billion in cuts, he said.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, pointed to the bipartisan House vote on the latest continuing resolution as a sign that a compromise could be reached.
Harkin said it was encouraging that Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, relied on Democrats to get past the “tea party vigilantes” to pass the measure.
Although 54 Republicans voted against the three-week bill, 85 Democrats supported it, allowing it to pass, 271-158.
“I thought that gave us hope that Boehner was willing then to work with those Republicans and us over here to strike a deal, even though he couldn’t get the tea party people on board,” Harkin said. “But, I don’t know. Maybe that’s out the window now.”
Six rounds of stopgap funding have been enacted, with the current one set to expire April 8. That series of extensions has left much of the government in a long-term budgetary limbo, a situation that is particularly difficult for the Pentagon and its multifront deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Members of both parties have said the latest stopgap measure will be the last for this fiscal year.
Like many Democrats, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, says GOP demands to slash discretionary spending would damage the fragile economy.
On a Monday television appearance, Van Hollen argued that changes to the tax code need to be considered as part of a fiscal overhaul. He suggested that the federal government could return to the tax rates seen under the Clinton administration, bringing in additional revenue to reduce borrowing.
But bringing tax changes into the debate probably would be anathema for Republicans and would draw heavy fire from conservative groups such as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.
A coalition of tea party groups plans a rally March 31 in Washington to remind Republicans of the desire for deep fiscal 2011 cuts. Still, even the cuts envisioned by House Republicans would do little to immediately curb the gap between annual federal spending and revenue — or the deficit.
“Instead of having the Speaker whip his caucus, the tea party element is whipping the Speaker,” Van Hollen said. “You have a lot of Republicans in the House who are more afraid of Grover Norquist than they are of the deficit.”
The current spending impasse could serve as prelude to even more difficult budget battles later this year, including a vote to raise the nation’s debt limit.
Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a freshman from Kansas, on Monday announced he would not support an increase in the debt limit unless President Obama becomes more directly involved in efforts to overhaul federal finances.
The overwhelming majority of federal debt is subject to a congressionally imposed limit, which now stands at $14.294 trillion. As of March 25, the debt subject to the limit stood at $14.159 trillion.
The Treasury has estimated that the debt limit will be reached between April 15 and May 31. It may soon update this estimate.
“To date, you have provided little or no leadership on what I believe to be the most important issue facing our nation — our national debt,” Moran said. “With no indication that your willingness to lead will change, I want to inform you I will vote ‘no’ on your request to raise the debt ceiling.”
Link: http://www.congress.org/news/2011/03/29/amid_acrimony_negotiators_carry_on/amid_acrimony_negotiators_carry_on
Spending talks among the Obama administration, Democrats and top House Republicans are continuing, despite another round of finger-pointing and heated rhetoric between the two parties.
Even with negotiators pressing ahead, the two sides must deal with the same issue that has bogged down talks on fiscal 2011 appropriations for weeks — finding a level of spending rollbacks that leaders can sell in both chambers.
Republicans are sticking by their demands for $61.5 billion in discretionary cuts from current spending, and Democrats continue to balk at that number.
A recent compromise, floated by the White House, would cut current spending by $20 billion beyond the $10 billion in reductions Congress already has made in the latest two continuing resolutions. But it won little praise Monday, particularly from House conservatives.
With the two sides separated by more than $30 billion in cuts, and many House Republicans eager to put their stamp on government spending, a compromise could be hard to reach in the two weeks before the current stopgap spending law (PL 112-6) expires.
In fact, wide circulation of the White House number brought another round of partisan barbs. Both parties tried to pre-emptively lay blame for a government shutdown on the other side.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Republicans tied to the tea party movement were responsible for upending a recent round of talks.
“Apparently these extremists would rather shut down the government and risk sending our economy back into a recession than work with Democrats or even their own leadership to find a responsible compromise,” Reid said.
Republicans wasted little time responding, saying Democrats were threatening a shutdown by refusing to allow what the GOP considers reasonable reductions to the nation’s more than $1 trillion in annual discretionary spending.
“In the scope of our debt crisis, if Sen. Reid and Sen. [Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y.] force the government to partially shut down over these sensible spending cuts, Americans will hold them accountable,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.
House GOP leaders have scheduled a press conference Tuesday to decry what they see as the Senate’s “failure” to pass a long-term fiscal 2011 bill.
On Monday, Senate Democrats tried to cast a favorable light on the $20 billion cut figure, suggesting that more moderate Republicans might support such a plan.
“The Republicans have to resolve their own deep disagreements before we can find a middle ground between the two parties,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “We have tried to wait patiently for them and do that, but our patience and the American people’s patience is wearing very, very thin.”
But Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, was not buying that argument. Sessions noted that House Republicans were adamant in their calls for $61.5 billion in fiscal 2011 cuts, and accused Reid of inventing Republican support.
“That’s Sen. Reid trying to create a split,” Sessions said.
Instead, Sessions fired back that many Senate Democrats, if left to make their own decisions, would back the House GOP position.
“Assuming that they were left free, I believe that there would be more than enough Democratic votes,” Sessions said. But, “apparently, they are under pressure” to protest the $61.5 billion in cuts, he said.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, pointed to the bipartisan House vote on the latest continuing resolution as a sign that a compromise could be reached.
Harkin said it was encouraging that Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, relied on Democrats to get past the “tea party vigilantes” to pass the measure.
Although 54 Republicans voted against the three-week bill, 85 Democrats supported it, allowing it to pass, 271-158.
“I thought that gave us hope that Boehner was willing then to work with those Republicans and us over here to strike a deal, even though he couldn’t get the tea party people on board,” Harkin said. “But, I don’t know. Maybe that’s out the window now.”
Six rounds of stopgap funding have been enacted, with the current one set to expire April 8. That series of extensions has left much of the government in a long-term budgetary limbo, a situation that is particularly difficult for the Pentagon and its multifront deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Members of both parties have said the latest stopgap measure will be the last for this fiscal year.
Like many Democrats, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, says GOP demands to slash discretionary spending would damage the fragile economy.
On a Monday television appearance, Van Hollen argued that changes to the tax code need to be considered as part of a fiscal overhaul. He suggested that the federal government could return to the tax rates seen under the Clinton administration, bringing in additional revenue to reduce borrowing.
But bringing tax changes into the debate probably would be anathema for Republicans and would draw heavy fire from conservative groups such as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.
A coalition of tea party groups plans a rally March 31 in Washington to remind Republicans of the desire for deep fiscal 2011 cuts. Still, even the cuts envisioned by House Republicans would do little to immediately curb the gap between annual federal spending and revenue — or the deficit.
“Instead of having the Speaker whip his caucus, the tea party element is whipping the Speaker,” Van Hollen said. “You have a lot of Republicans in the House who are more afraid of Grover Norquist than they are of the deficit.”
The current spending impasse could serve as prelude to even more difficult budget battles later this year, including a vote to raise the nation’s debt limit.
Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a freshman from Kansas, on Monday announced he would not support an increase in the debt limit unless President Obama becomes more directly involved in efforts to overhaul federal finances.
The overwhelming majority of federal debt is subject to a congressionally imposed limit, which now stands at $14.294 trillion. As of March 25, the debt subject to the limit stood at $14.159 trillion.
The Treasury has estimated that the debt limit will be reached between April 15 and May 31. It may soon update this estimate.
“To date, you have provided little or no leadership on what I believe to be the most important issue facing our nation — our national debt,” Moran said. “With no indication that your willingness to lead will change, I want to inform you I will vote ‘no’ on your request to raise the debt ceiling.”
Link: http://www.congress.org/news/2011/03/29/amid_acrimony_negotiators_carry_on/amid_acrimony_negotiators_carry_on
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Durbin’s Role a Third Rail Among Democrats
With Schumer Leading Democrats’ Messaging, Senate Whip Still Finds Relevance in Being Attack Dog
By David M. Drucker, Roll Call
Sen. Dick Durbin’s leadership role in the Democratic Conference is a sensitive topic.
The Majority Whip is described by colleagues as an indispensable leader who performs the pivotal function of driving the Democratic message and providing a relentless, articulate defense of both Conference and White House policies from Republican attacks. Some of Durbin’s most ardent fans within the Conference, in fact, are Senators far more centrist in their politics than the committed Illinois liberal.
But in offering praise, some Democratic Senators acknowledged that questions have arisen about where Durbin fits in in the wake of Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) assuming command of the Conference’s messaging and policy operations under the auspices of the Democratic Policy and Communications Center — a combination of Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (Nev.) old communications war room and the Democratic Policy Committee.
“They had this so-called, it wasn’t a brush up — with Schumer and Durbin — but I think that each of them is fitting into a perfect spot,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a self-described “hard-core Durbin loyalist.” “The Schumer strengths we really needed; the Durbin, kind of, street loyalty — street call of core Democratic
values we absolutely need. I just think the world of him.”
Rockefeller agreed that Durbin’s role has changed somewhat since Schumer, with the assistance of Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), launched the DPCC. But the West Virginian said the change has been positive, both for the Conference and for Durbin. “It’s just a different role. There are things that Dick Durbin can do that nobody else can do.”
Durbin might not be tasked with developing the Democratic message — although he does have a hand in that effort. But many of his fellow Democratic Senators said there is no one better at carrying it, either on the floor, where the Majority Whip is a ubiquitous presence, or in public.
In the 14 weeks since Thanksgiving, Durbin has appeared on a Sunday morning news show 10 times, including a handful of guest spots on “Fox News Sunday.” Additionally, he used the Presidents Day recess period to travel Illinois and test market a counter message to the House Republican budget plan for the remainder of fiscal 2011 that would have cut $61 billion if fully implemented. Durbin pushed that message in Republican House districts.
The local news coverage Durbin generated was deemed so successful that Reid asked him to make a presentation to the Conference during a subsequent caucus lunch, and about a dozen Senate Democratic offices later called and asked how they could plan similar in-state events. The message was also discussed at a regular meeting of Senate Democratic press strategists. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a Durbin ally, described him as an “effective national spokesman” for the Conference.
“I think that he’s very, very focused on where our party should make its stand and the communications part of it, because that’s key to us,” Boxer said. “We have to take our message to the people outside the Beltway. It’s his great strength.”
In a brief interview Thursday, Durbin appeared hesitant to promote his leadership role, and he dismissed any suggestion that there has been tension or confusion within the leadership team since Schumer was granted expanded authority.
Democratic Senators have conceded that there has been some friction in the caucus as Members adjust to the new DPCC. The view of a strain among the leadership is partly a hangover from the last election cycle, when Durbin and Schumer were preparing to run against each other for Majority Leader in the event that Reid lost re-election.
“I sit in the leadership meetings with Harry, and we develop our tactics and strategy, and I try to execute them on the floor, and some of my work [I] bring back to the caucus, and some of them decide it’s worthy,” Durbin said of his responsibilities. In discussing the new DPCC and how it has affected him, Durbin said, essentially, that it has not.
“The war room was originally Harry’s creation, and now Chuck and Debbie play a major role in that with Harry and I think they do a great job, and I’m glad they’re doing it,” he explained. “We’ve had no problems along those lines. We’re going to disagree on an issue from time to time. But in terms of the message and thrust of the caucus, we’re unified.”
One Democratic operative who monitors the Senate said Durbin’s influence has not diminished so much as Schumer’s role has increased.
This individual said Durbin’s nature as an outspoken and unabashed liberal could hamstring him in any future battles for influence with Schumer, who is similarly liberal in his personal politics but viewed as more pragmatic and flexible. The loyalty Schumer might have developed in helping elect the 14 Democrats who won in 2006 and 2008 might also give Schumer an advantage in intra-caucus politics.
“Durbin is a go-to champion on the issues many Democrats care about,” said the Democratic operative, who is based in Washington, D.C. “But he tends to be more of a true believer and it’s hard to be effective in leadership when you’re a true believer, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican.”
However, Durbin has admirers among centrist Democrats. Some are particularly impressed with his work on President Barack Obama’s deficit reduction commission and his willingness to support the group’s final recommendations despite the whack it would take to government expenditures that have long been sacred to Congressional Democrats.
“He is a voice of reason; he is obviously very smart and is a very gifted communicator,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), a moderate. “On the political spectrum, he’s over on the left-end side of spectrum down there somewhere. But he just brings — I think people really respect the things he says and he stands for.”
Link: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_100/dick-durbin-senate-democratic-leadership-204342-1.html
By David M. Drucker, Roll Call
Sen. Dick Durbin’s leadership role in the Democratic Conference is a sensitive topic.
The Majority Whip is described by colleagues as an indispensable leader who performs the pivotal function of driving the Democratic message and providing a relentless, articulate defense of both Conference and White House policies from Republican attacks. Some of Durbin’s most ardent fans within the Conference, in fact, are Senators far more centrist in their politics than the committed Illinois liberal.
But in offering praise, some Democratic Senators acknowledged that questions have arisen about where Durbin fits in in the wake of Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) assuming command of the Conference’s messaging and policy operations under the auspices of the Democratic Policy and Communications Center — a combination of Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (Nev.) old communications war room and the Democratic Policy Committee.
“They had this so-called, it wasn’t a brush up — with Schumer and Durbin — but I think that each of them is fitting into a perfect spot,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a self-described “hard-core Durbin loyalist.” “The Schumer strengths we really needed; the Durbin, kind of, street loyalty — street call of core Democratic
values we absolutely need. I just think the world of him.”
Rockefeller agreed that Durbin’s role has changed somewhat since Schumer, with the assistance of Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), launched the DPCC. But the West Virginian said the change has been positive, both for the Conference and for Durbin. “It’s just a different role. There are things that Dick Durbin can do that nobody else can do.”
Durbin might not be tasked with developing the Democratic message — although he does have a hand in that effort. But many of his fellow Democratic Senators said there is no one better at carrying it, either on the floor, where the Majority Whip is a ubiquitous presence, or in public.
In the 14 weeks since Thanksgiving, Durbin has appeared on a Sunday morning news show 10 times, including a handful of guest spots on “Fox News Sunday.” Additionally, he used the Presidents Day recess period to travel Illinois and test market a counter message to the House Republican budget plan for the remainder of fiscal 2011 that would have cut $61 billion if fully implemented. Durbin pushed that message in Republican House districts.
The local news coverage Durbin generated was deemed so successful that Reid asked him to make a presentation to the Conference during a subsequent caucus lunch, and about a dozen Senate Democratic offices later called and asked how they could plan similar in-state events. The message was also discussed at a regular meeting of Senate Democratic press strategists. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a Durbin ally, described him as an “effective national spokesman” for the Conference.
“I think that he’s very, very focused on where our party should make its stand and the communications part of it, because that’s key to us,” Boxer said. “We have to take our message to the people outside the Beltway. It’s his great strength.”
In a brief interview Thursday, Durbin appeared hesitant to promote his leadership role, and he dismissed any suggestion that there has been tension or confusion within the leadership team since Schumer was granted expanded authority.
Democratic Senators have conceded that there has been some friction in the caucus as Members adjust to the new DPCC. The view of a strain among the leadership is partly a hangover from the last election cycle, when Durbin and Schumer were preparing to run against each other for Majority Leader in the event that Reid lost re-election.
“I sit in the leadership meetings with Harry, and we develop our tactics and strategy, and I try to execute them on the floor, and some of my work [I] bring back to the caucus, and some of them decide it’s worthy,” Durbin said of his responsibilities. In discussing the new DPCC and how it has affected him, Durbin said, essentially, that it has not.
“The war room was originally Harry’s creation, and now Chuck and Debbie play a major role in that with Harry and I think they do a great job, and I’m glad they’re doing it,” he explained. “We’ve had no problems along those lines. We’re going to disagree on an issue from time to time. But in terms of the message and thrust of the caucus, we’re unified.”
One Democratic operative who monitors the Senate said Durbin’s influence has not diminished so much as Schumer’s role has increased.
This individual said Durbin’s nature as an outspoken and unabashed liberal could hamstring him in any future battles for influence with Schumer, who is similarly liberal in his personal politics but viewed as more pragmatic and flexible. The loyalty Schumer might have developed in helping elect the 14 Democrats who won in 2006 and 2008 might also give Schumer an advantage in intra-caucus politics.
“Durbin is a go-to champion on the issues many Democrats care about,” said the Democratic operative, who is based in Washington, D.C. “But he tends to be more of a true believer and it’s hard to be effective in leadership when you’re a true believer, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican.”
However, Durbin has admirers among centrist Democrats. Some are particularly impressed with his work on President Barack Obama’s deficit reduction commission and his willingness to support the group’s final recommendations despite the whack it would take to government expenditures that have long been sacred to Congressional Democrats.
“He is a voice of reason; he is obviously very smart and is a very gifted communicator,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), a moderate. “On the political spectrum, he’s over on the left-end side of spectrum down there somewhere. But he just brings — I think people really respect the things he says and he stands for.”
Link: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_100/dick-durbin-senate-democratic-leadership-204342-1.html
Friday, March 11, 2011
Suspect Charged in Attempted MLK Day Bombing
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
SEATTLE — A man suspected of planting a sophisticated bomb along the route of a march honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Spokane, Wash., was arrested early Wednesday, law enforcement officials said.
A swarm of federal agents arrested the suspect, Kevin W. Harpham, 36, near his home outside rural Colville, Wash., and searched the property. A law enforcement official said it was not clear whether the accused had acted alone.
The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation, said Mr. Harpham was not someone investigators had tracked before this case.
A cleanup crew first found the bomb in a backpack left on a bench in downtown Spokane on Jan. 17, shortly before a march celebrating the King holiday that day. Investigators called the device very sophisticated and capable of causing multiple casualties.
Investigators said the timing of the incident suggested a racial motive, and the case has stirred fears in the inland Northwest, a region with a history of white supremacy and racially motivated crimes. The case has been investigated as domestic terrorism.
Law enforcement officials would not say whether Mr. Harpham had links to extremist groups. But the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks such groups, said that its research showed that Mr. Harpham was a member of the National Alliance as recently as 2004.
In a blog post on Wednesday, the center described the National Alliance as a once prominent neo-Nazi group that “has fallen on hard times since the 2002 death of its founder, William Pierce.” Mr. Pierce is the author of “The Turner Diaries,” a novel noted for having inspired Timothy J. McVeigh’s bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.
Mr. Harpham served in the Army for several years. From June 1996 to February 1999, he was a fire support specialist in the First Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment, at what is now called Joint Base Lewis-McChord, south of Seattle.
He is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and possession of an unregistered explosive device. More charges could be filed.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10bomb.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonp
SEATTLE — A man suspected of planting a sophisticated bomb along the route of a march honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Spokane, Wash., was arrested early Wednesday, law enforcement officials said.
A swarm of federal agents arrested the suspect, Kevin W. Harpham, 36, near his home outside rural Colville, Wash., and searched the property. A law enforcement official said it was not clear whether the accused had acted alone.
The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation, said Mr. Harpham was not someone investigators had tracked before this case.
A cleanup crew first found the bomb in a backpack left on a bench in downtown Spokane on Jan. 17, shortly before a march celebrating the King holiday that day. Investigators called the device very sophisticated and capable of causing multiple casualties.
Investigators said the timing of the incident suggested a racial motive, and the case has stirred fears in the inland Northwest, a region with a history of white supremacy and racially motivated crimes. The case has been investigated as domestic terrorism.
Law enforcement officials would not say whether Mr. Harpham had links to extremist groups. But the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks such groups, said that its research showed that Mr. Harpham was a member of the National Alliance as recently as 2004.
In a blog post on Wednesday, the center described the National Alliance as a once prominent neo-Nazi group that “has fallen on hard times since the 2002 death of its founder, William Pierce.” Mr. Pierce is the author of “The Turner Diaries,” a novel noted for having inspired Timothy J. McVeigh’s bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.
Mr. Harpham served in the Army for several years. From June 1996 to February 1999, he was a fire support specialist in the First Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment, at what is now called Joint Base Lewis-McChord, south of Seattle.
He is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and possession of an unregistered explosive device. More charges could be filed.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10bomb.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fnational%2Findex.jsonp
Illinois Governor Signs Capital Punishment Ban
By John Schwartz and Emma G. Fitzsimmons, New York Times.
Illinois became the 16th state to ban capital punishment as Gov. Pat Quinn on Wednesday signed an abolition bill that the state legislature passed in January.
“Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it,” Mr. Quinn said in a statement.
At a news conference at the Capitol in Springfield, Mr. Quinn said that signing the bill was the most difficult decision he had made as governor. “I have concluded, after looking at all the information that I have received, that it is impossible to create a perfect system — one that is free of all mistakes,” he said.
Mr. Quinn, a Democrat who became governor in 2009 and was elected to a full term in November, said during the 2010 campaign that he supported the death penalty when applied “carefully and fairly,” but added, “I am deeply concerned by the possibility of an innocent person being executed.” He had kept the question of whether he would sign the bill unanswered since it passed on Jan. 11.
Those on death row will have their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. The law also dedicates funds to law enforcement and services for victims’ families.
The heated debate over the bill had focused on more than a dozen death row prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully convicted — including one man who came within 50 hours of execution. Lawmakers also debated the costs of imposing the death penalty.
As Mr. Quinn approached his announcement, he was lobbied by death penalty supporters, including family members of some victims, and by opponents, including the South African anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu, the death penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean and the actor Martin Sheen.
The state’s death penalty machinery had been halted since 2000, when the governor at the time, George Ryan, called the system “broken” and declared a moratorium on executions. Before leaving office in 2003, Mr. Ryan, a Republican, commuted the sentences of 167 death row prisoners to life and pardoned four inmates.
Fifteen prisoners have been placed on the state’s death row since then. The state has formed commissions to study the death penalty and has made some changes, but those favoring abolition argued that the system could not be tweaked into fairness.
“Illinois’ experience of trying to fix the death penalty, and finding it can’t be done, sends a real message to other states that are also grappling with the same problems,” said Shari Silberstein, executive director of Equal Justice USA, a group that opposes capital punishment. “It’s a real turning point in the conversation about the death penalty in the United States.”
But Kent S. Scheidegger, legal director for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a group that supports the death penalty, called the governor’s action “a double-cross of the voters of Illinois.” “If he had honestly told the voters he would sign a repeal bill” during the campaign, Mr. Scheidegger said, “he would not be governor now.”
Some Democrats in the state had disagreed with a ban, including Lisa Madigan, the state’s attorney general, who argued that the death penalty should be available as a punishment for the worst crimes. Anita Alvarez, the Cook County state’s attorney and a Democrat, said she was disappointed by the governor’s decision, and called it “a tremendously disappointing day for murder victims and their families.”
Dozens of family members of victims had signed a letter to the legislature supporting the bill, arguing that capital trials and appeals “drag victims’ loved ones through an agonizing and lengthy process, which often does not result in the intended punishment.”
The current and future mayors of Chicago took different sides, with Mayor Richard M. Daley supporting capital punishment, and Rahm Emanuel, who will became mayor this spring, saying the ban was the right thing to do.
Illinois joins a wave of states that have reconsidered capital punishment. New Jersey abolished the practice in 2007. The New Mexico Legislature ended the death penalty in 2009. New Mexico’s newly elected governor, Susana Martinez, a Republican, has asked the Legislature to reinstate it, though bills to do so have stalled. The Connecticut legislature voted to abolish the penalty last year, but the governor at the time, M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, vetoed the measure.
Ronald J. Tabak, a lawyer in New York who has argued death penalty cases, said that legislators were coming to understand that they could vote to abolish the death penalty without losing their next election, so long as they avoided moralistic arguments and focused instead on factors like accuracy, fairness and cost. “At least outside of the South, it is not the political death sentence, as often perceived by politicians, to be willing to vote for or be willing to sign into law an abolition bill,” Mr. Tabak
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10illinois.html
Illinois became the 16th state to ban capital punishment as Gov. Pat Quinn on Wednesday signed an abolition bill that the state legislature passed in January.
“Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it,” Mr. Quinn said in a statement.
At a news conference at the Capitol in Springfield, Mr. Quinn said that signing the bill was the most difficult decision he had made as governor. “I have concluded, after looking at all the information that I have received, that it is impossible to create a perfect system — one that is free of all mistakes,” he said.
Mr. Quinn, a Democrat who became governor in 2009 and was elected to a full term in November, said during the 2010 campaign that he supported the death penalty when applied “carefully and fairly,” but added, “I am deeply concerned by the possibility of an innocent person being executed.” He had kept the question of whether he would sign the bill unanswered since it passed on Jan. 11.
Those on death row will have their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. The law also dedicates funds to law enforcement and services for victims’ families.
The heated debate over the bill had focused on more than a dozen death row prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully convicted — including one man who came within 50 hours of execution. Lawmakers also debated the costs of imposing the death penalty.
As Mr. Quinn approached his announcement, he was lobbied by death penalty supporters, including family members of some victims, and by opponents, including the South African anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu, the death penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean and the actor Martin Sheen.
The state’s death penalty machinery had been halted since 2000, when the governor at the time, George Ryan, called the system “broken” and declared a moratorium on executions. Before leaving office in 2003, Mr. Ryan, a Republican, commuted the sentences of 167 death row prisoners to life and pardoned four inmates.
Fifteen prisoners have been placed on the state’s death row since then. The state has formed commissions to study the death penalty and has made some changes, but those favoring abolition argued that the system could not be tweaked into fairness.
“Illinois’ experience of trying to fix the death penalty, and finding it can’t be done, sends a real message to other states that are also grappling with the same problems,” said Shari Silberstein, executive director of Equal Justice USA, a group that opposes capital punishment. “It’s a real turning point in the conversation about the death penalty in the United States.”
But Kent S. Scheidegger, legal director for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a group that supports the death penalty, called the governor’s action “a double-cross of the voters of Illinois.” “If he had honestly told the voters he would sign a repeal bill” during the campaign, Mr. Scheidegger said, “he would not be governor now.”
Some Democrats in the state had disagreed with a ban, including Lisa Madigan, the state’s attorney general, who argued that the death penalty should be available as a punishment for the worst crimes. Anita Alvarez, the Cook County state’s attorney and a Democrat, said she was disappointed by the governor’s decision, and called it “a tremendously disappointing day for murder victims and their families.”
Dozens of family members of victims had signed a letter to the legislature supporting the bill, arguing that capital trials and appeals “drag victims’ loved ones through an agonizing and lengthy process, which often does not result in the intended punishment.”
The current and future mayors of Chicago took different sides, with Mayor Richard M. Daley supporting capital punishment, and Rahm Emanuel, who will became mayor this spring, saying the ban was the right thing to do.
Illinois joins a wave of states that have reconsidered capital punishment. New Jersey abolished the practice in 2007. The New Mexico Legislature ended the death penalty in 2009. New Mexico’s newly elected governor, Susana Martinez, a Republican, has asked the Legislature to reinstate it, though bills to do so have stalled. The Connecticut legislature voted to abolish the penalty last year, but the governor at the time, M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, vetoed the measure.
Ronald J. Tabak, a lawyer in New York who has argued death penalty cases, said that legislators were coming to understand that they could vote to abolish the death penalty without losing their next election, so long as they avoided moralistic arguments and focused instead on factors like accuracy, fairness and cost. “At least outside of the South, it is not the political death sentence, as often perceived by politicians, to be willing to vote for or be willing to sign into law an abolition bill,” Mr. Tabak
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10illinois.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)