Jessi and I saw the new Into the Woods movie yesterday as part of our sibling holiday gift exchange. It is my favorite musical, so I was looking forward to it, even if also somewhat worried about it getting messed up in the transition to screen.
I was, overall, satisfied with and impressed by the adaptation—it was well-cast, well-sung, well-acted, well-directed, and well-filmed—although it made me miss the stage version. Several songs were cut, understandable given that the movie was still 124 minutes long, but whereas some cuts worked without sacrificing plot, depth, or character development, others, in my opinion, did not. This left the second act (I’m going to use the theater terms) much weaker than the first.
The strongest sell for the movie is the cast. Meryl Streep is, well, Meryl Streep. She will be excellent in pretty much anything, and this was no exception. Her voice was impressive, especially in capturing the indignant anger and pleading (and almost vulnerable) sadness in “Stay with Me,” which the Witch sings to Rapunzel to ty to dissuade her from leaving with her Prince. The special effects used for her exits (she disappeared into a whirlwind of leaves) were a nice touch. The Witch in the first act is presented as an old crone, an interpretation I prefer to the rather monstrous and almost bestial interpretations in some recent stage versions. Meryl Streep’s post-transformation Witch doesn’t have the vampishness of Bernadette Peters’s portrayal, but she has the regality and commanding presence.
Emily Blunt brought a lot of warmth to her portrayal of the Baker’s Wife and had a surprisingly good voice as well. Her face is very expressive, which worked well for the character's humorous scenes. Anna Kendrick did well as Cinderella. She has already shown that she can sing in past movies, and she is pretty in a friendly, girl-next-door way that is fitting for the role. The sound of her voice worked well for conveying the nervousness of “On the Steps of the Palace” as well the comforting but somber sweetness of “No One is Alone." The staging of the former scene was well-done: it was presented as a moment frozen in time, with the song representing her internal deliberations. The contrast between the gold of the dress, the golden lighting, and the darkness of night was visually captivating.
Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen were very funny as the two princes and did an excellent job of camping it up in “Agony,” one of the show’s most amusing numbers. Chris Pine’s narcissistic Prince was likewise funny in “Moment in the Woods,” where he seduces the Baker’s Wife. Lilla Crawford was younger than some of the Little Red’s I’ve seen in past productions (who are often late teenagers or older, something that works better for the sexual angle of the story), but she did very well in this feature film debut. James Corden was funny as the Baker, and he and Blunt had a good rapport. MacKenzie Mauzy was a solid Rapunzel. Daniel Huttlestone did well as Jack, although I think they cast that role too young. Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, and Tammy Blanchard were funny as Cinderella’s evil step-family. Tracey Ullman was fine as Jack’s Mother; I think she could have played it in a more shrill and shrewish (and comical) way, with frumpier costuming. The line “Well, she was not quite beautiful” was dropped from the introduction. Perhaps Ullman complained about it, or the writers were too nice to leave it in.
Johnny Depp, however, was unfortunately miscast as the Wolf. His voice is not deep enough for the role, so the pitch “Hello Little Girl” had to be raised for him (and thus the song lost much of its villainous and sexually predatory quality). The costume wasn’t quite right; the lupine nature of the face was largely reduced to a set of whiskers, which looked more feline than canine. Depp’s acting was fine, but I think they should have chosen someone else. According to IMDB, Alan Cumming was considered to play the Wolf; he probably would have been better.
In stage versions, the Wolf and Cinderella’s Prince are typically played by the same actor, and I think something is lost by eliminating this double-casting. In the end of “I Know Things Know,” Little Red explains that she has realized that “nice is different than good.” This contrast between “nice” and “good” defines both the predatory feigned friendliness of the Wolf and the charm-sans-sincerity of the Prince.
A number of songs were cut, as was inevitable. Some cuts make sense because of the translation from stage to screen. An example of this is “First Midnight,” with its memorable aphorisms like “Opportunity is not a lengthy visitor” and “The slotted spoon won’t hold much soup.”
Jack’s “I Guess This is Goodbye” is less essential to plot development and thematic explanation than Little Red’s “I Know Things Know,” so cutting it makes sense. It also wouldn’t work as well with such a young Jack. On stage, the song often mixes both sadness and humor. When Jack looks like an older teenager (say, 17 or 18) whose best friend is a cow, he more clearly seems “touched” (a description of him by his mother that was dropped from the introduction). The line “I'll see you soon again. I hope that when I do, it won't be on a plate” captures this mix of sadness and humor, particularly because of the reaction it provokes from the Baker and his Wife.
The Baker's Wife's song “Maybe They’re Really Magic” was dropped, although that actually changes the character a bit. In the movie, the Baker and his Wife know that the beans they give Jack are magical, even if they don’t know much beyond that. However, in the stage version, the Baker’s Wife knowingly lies to Jack about their magical powers, not just their going rate on the market. The Baker’s Wife shows that she will do whatever it takes to get her wish, for “if the end is right, it justifies the beans.” This song shows her as the more strong-willed and determined of the two, and it marks her attempt to assert her role in the quest—that is their quest, not just his. The song also highlights the essential moral ambiguity of the woods with lyrics like “There are rights and wrongs and in-betweens. No one waits when fortune intervenes.” Blunt's Baker's Wife still knows what she wants and will do what it takes to get it, but I think some of her character development gets lost without this song.
A few lines got dropped along the way. One of Cinderella’s sisters no longer orders her to “Put it in a twist.” (It might have been dropped for time or for difficulty. Try saying it five times fast, and you’ll know what I mean.) The exchange “It was lonely atop that tower”/ “I was not company enough” was dropped from “Stay With Me.” Cinderella’s “Shiver and quiver, little tree/Silver and gold fall down on me” was dropped; the tune was playing as the background to her sartorial transformation. The lines “And then out of the blue/And without any guide” from “On the Steps of the Palace” were changed for no apparent reason to “Though thinking it through/Things don’t have to collide.”
The introduction sequence also changes slightly because of the demands of film. On a stage, you can have the characters singing simultaneously or in tandem because you see them all at once. On screen, you want to separate the introductions of each character more distinctly so that you can avoid quick camera cuts. This sequence (along with other parts) did feel a bit jumpy on screen in a way that it doesn't on stage.
Despite such changes, the first act was largely faithful to the original, capturing its charm and its humor. The second act, however, fails to fully capture the darkness and depth of the stage version.
One of the biggest flaws of the screen adaptation is the abrupt transition to the second act. In the stage show, the first act ends with the song “Ever After,” the song that brings the fairy tale trajectory to its standard happy close: “All that seemed wrong was now right, and those who deserved to were certain to live a long and happy life.” We have two happy couples (Cinderella plus price, Rapunzel plus prince), two happy expecting parents (the Baker and his Wife), a safe Little Red and Grandmother, and a newly wealthy Jack and Mother. And, as the song notes, only those “who deserved to” were certain to live happy lives. One of exception is Cinderella’s evil stepsisters, whose eyes have been pecked out by birds (“I was greedy/I was vain/I was haughty/I was smug/We were happy/It was fun/But we were blind/Then we went into the woods to get our wish and now we’re really blind.”). The other is the Witch, who has regained her looks but lost her magical powers (“I had everything but beauty/I had power/And a daughter like a flower, in a tower/Then I went into the woods to get my wish, and now I’m ordinary/Lost my power and my flower.”). The fact that the Witch lost her powers with her transformation is largely ignored in the movie. It’s acknowledged briefly when she tries to prevent Rapunzel from fleeing the castle with her Prince after the Giant-induced earthquake, but its significance is lost.
The happy ending of the first act is cut far too short in the movie because it immediately transitions to the affairs of the second act. At the wedding party for Cinderella and her Prince, the Giant’s Wife is already wreaking destruction. We barely see the “happily ever after” before it begins to break down. In the stage show, “Act II: Prologue” smoothes this transition, beginning “Once upon a time….later.” The characters each have a new wish. Cinderella wishes to sponsor a festival. Jack misses his kingdom in the sky. And the Baker and his Wife wish for more room now that they have a baby. Despite this, they are all very happy. The rumbling earthquake caused by the Giant’s Wife ruptures that bubble of contentment and sends them all back into the woods for another journey. Little Red’s house was destroyed, and she needs to go find her grandmother. The Baker and his Wife want to inform the royal family of the Giant and also want to help Little Red find her grandmother. Jack wants to slay this new Giant (who we realize is seeking vengeance against Jack because of his theft and murder in the first act). And Cinderella learns from birds that something has happened to her mother’s grave, so she disguises herself as a commoner so that she can have freedom of movement again, something she lacks in the golden cage of royalty. This establishes a new journey into the woods, no longer to realize a longing, but to stave off danger. This sequence helps set the dark tone of the second act, and when the characters sing "Into the Woods" again, you can hear the anxiety in their voice.
The movie softens the second half as well. Rapunzel no longer goes mad (a result of her having spent her whole life locked up in a tower), and her beautiful singing is no longer replaced with a deranged screaming that repels, rather than enchants, her Prince. She also does not meet a tragic fate at the feet of the Giant’s Wife. The “Witch’s Lament” (“No matter what you say/Children won’t listen…”) takes on a very different tone in the movie. For one, it’s shortened significantly, and it’s no longer sung in front of the other core characters. But more contrastingly, the Witch is singing to a daughter who has abandoned her for her Prince (which we already knew from the first act), not to a daughter who has met a tragic fate because of her inability to cope with the world. Protecting a child from growing up and protecting a child from death invoke very different sentiments.
The movie allows Rapunzel and her Prince to be exceptions to the rule that no one gets a "happily ever after." Cinderella and her Prince are in a broken marriage. The Baker's Wife is killed by the Giant's Wife, her husband now widowed and with a child to take care of by himself (which he briefly considers abandoning). Jack is orphaned, his mother killed by the Giant's Wife. Little Red is orphaned, her mother and grandmother both seemingly killed. The With, having already lost her power, sees her daughter get killed (crushed by the Giant's Wife) and then ultimately self-destructs/vanishes. The royal family (Cinderella's stepmother and stepsisters, along with the steward) are on a journey to nowhere, with the castle and village both destroyed. But rather than seeing Rapunzel go insane and die and her Prince become a philandering dolt with an irrational fear of dwarfs, we see them ride a horse off to presumed safety, living happily ever after. It doesn't fit.
The reprise of “Agony” also gets cut, which is unfortunate because it is funny like the original (which was done well). The Princes, in this reprise, demonstrate their disillusionment with their wishes from the first act, going to the woods to leave their “happily ever after” brides in search of new maidens (this time, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White). Rapunzel's Prince remains faithful in the movie, just as his wife remains sane. The infidelity of “Moment in the Woods” is, however, kept, and Pine and Blunt—as noted earlier—are both very funny and expressive in that scene. However, the once-off seduction doesn’t convey the Prince’s insincerity as well as his “agonizing” search for a new wife.
The second act also cuts the song “No More,” the duet between the Baker and the Mysterious Man who turns out to be his father. The earlier appearances of the Mysterious Man were eliminated or substituted for with the Witch. Although there is a brief scene between the Baker and his father (whom we can recognize from a flashback of the scene where he stole from the Witch) with the music of “No More” playing in the background, the scene lacks the emotional depth and resonance of the duet, which is an anguished lamentation about the lack of happy endings, with attention given to the relations between parents and children: “We disappoint, we disappear, we die, but we don't. They disappoint in turn, I fear. Forgive, though, they won't.” It offers the anguish complementary to the somber and fearful hope of “No One is Alone.” "No More" is the song of running away (which the Baker considers doing) whereas "No One is Alone" is the song of staying on in the face of fear, doubt, and complexity. We must face the darkness of the world with resolve; we cannot wish it away. But we are not fully alone (“You move just a finger/Say the slightest word/Something’s bound to linger/Be heard”—lines that were unfortunately cut from the song in the movie).
The double-casting of the Mysterious Man and the Narrator, common on the stage, is gone because the Narrator, as a presence, has been eliminated (which makes sense in film). The characters no longer kill off their Narrator as they do on stage, an act that advances the tone of uncertainty, confusion, and danger and shows the icy pragmatism of the Witch who suggests it. However, using the Baker as the Narrator works well because it more directly and seamlessly connects the end of the film to the beginning.
The visual aspects of the film are captivating—the costuming, the woods, the night shots, the panoramic views of the village. And the cast was, as noted, very strong. But if I had my “wish,” it would have been for a darker, deeper, and longer second act to the movie.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Friday, December 26, 2014
The Sunday Shows as Authoritarian Self-Parody
I always like looking at the guest lists of the Sunday shows each
week. I never watch them. For one, I don't own a TV. But even if I did,
I'm not enough of a masochist.
The Sunday shows are funny in a dark way. Funny because they always seem to try to outdo themselves in authoritarian self-parody and irrelevance to and ignorance of the lives of the vast majority of the population. Funny in the way something can be funny while also being deeply depressing.
Let me use CBS's Face the Nation and CNN's State of the Union this week as examples.
Here's Face the Nation:
The fact that Rudy Giuliani, who has not held elected office since 2001 and has spent his post-mayoral career enriching himself with a security consulting firm and fossil fuel lobbying job, is treated as the go-to guy for discussions about policing shows how invested these shows are in the police state.
If you don't feel like watching an NYPD lovefest, you could turn to CNN's State of the Union, where you can learn that Gitmo is good, Cuba is bad, and Rick Perry is awesome:
The Sunday shows are funny in a dark way. Funny because they always seem to try to outdo themselves in authoritarian self-parody and irrelevance to and ignorance of the lives of the vast majority of the population. Funny in the way something can be funny while also being deeply depressing.
Let me use CBS's Face the Nation and CNN's State of the Union this week as examples.
Here's Face the Nation:
Tensions remain high in New York City, as the community lays to rest the first of two police officers murdered last week in the line of duty. People are defying Mayor Bill de Blasio's public requests for a moratorium on demonstrations - they've returned to the streets to protest what they call unfair police tactics. We'll be joined by NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani to discuss this issue that has been a challenge all year and has reached a fever pitch in America's biggest city.What a debate! One guy thinks the NYPD is good and right and should keep killing unarmed black teenagers (or adults). And the other guy also thinks the NYPD is good and right and should keep killing unarmed black teenagers (or adults). And they also both think the NYPD should have more power and that anti-police brutality protesters are bad.
The fact that Rudy Giuliani, who has not held elected office since 2001 and has spent his post-mayoral career enriching himself with a security consulting firm and fossil fuel lobbying job, is treated as the go-to guy for discussions about policing shows how invested these shows are in the police state.
If you don't feel like watching an NYPD lovefest, you could turn to CNN's State of the Union, where you can learn that Gitmo is good, Cuba is bad, and Rick Perry is awesome:
Sen. Lindsey Graham takes on Obama administration plans to transfer dozens of Guantanamo detainees in the next six months, arguing the U.S. should be concentrating on filling up the prison, not closing it, because "terrorism is on the march." He joins us. Then, Sen. Robert Menendez says the U.S. government has "thrown the Cuban regime an economic lifeline." We'll talk to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the U.S.-Cuba relationship, North Korea and the consequences of cyber-attacks.By contrast, the utter vapidity of ABC's This Week's "2014 Game Changers" seems like though-provoking analysis.
And, Gov. Rick Perry as he leaves the Texas Governor's office and preps for a possible 2016 run for the White House.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
The 16 Million Children Living in Poverty Must Be Really Excited About the News about the Dow
I've seen a lot of Democrats and liberals talking on Twitter today about how GDP growth
in the last quarter was 5% and how the Dow topped 18,000, with the
S&P at a high as well. This is all treated as a sign of how
wonderful Obama has been for the economy.
First of all, the Dow and the S&P are stock indices. Only about half of the adult population in the US own stocks, a record low. And those gains will be going disproportionately to the wealthiest among that half.
GDP is also not a measure of well-being; it is a measure of aggregate economic activity. And as it is an aggregate number, it ignores distributional concerns. Moreover, the GDP will treat all economic activity as normatively the same, regardless of whether it serves an extractive or generative purpose.
Because of the limitations of these statistics in reflecting economic well-being, we can have such positive stats coexist with others that show a much less rosy view of the economy.
Take, for instance, the fact that the child poverty rate is at a record high, which translates to 16 million children living in poverty. (And that says nothing of those above the federal threshold for poverty who are nonetheless living in precarious economic conditions). There are 1.3 million students in public schools who are homeless. I'm sure they're all thrilled about the Dow.
Last year, the median income was at 1988 levels, a sign of the often-cited phenomenon of wage stagnation for the middle class.
The recovery has been predominantly limited to the wealthiest, with the top 1% receiving 95% of post-recession income gains. (Granted, the data for such analysis ends in 2012, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that such gap narrowed significantly over the past two years.)
Just as it hasn't been a recovery for the 99%, it hasn't been one of "good jobs" either. 44% of the jobs created since the start of the Great Recession have been low-wage jobs ($9.48-$13.33 per hour), whereas only 22% of the jobs lost were such low-wage jobs.
And although the unemployment rate has fallen significantly (if still not enough) since the worst of the recession, it provides only a partial picture because it excludes discouraged and underemployed workers. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the decline in such numbers has not been nearly so great.
Democrats risk sounding like cold, removed technocrats if they tell people that they should be celebrating a recovery that they have not yet felt.
First of all, the Dow and the S&P are stock indices. Only about half of the adult population in the US own stocks, a record low. And those gains will be going disproportionately to the wealthiest among that half.
GDP is also not a measure of well-being; it is a measure of aggregate economic activity. And as it is an aggregate number, it ignores distributional concerns. Moreover, the GDP will treat all economic activity as normatively the same, regardless of whether it serves an extractive or generative purpose.
Because of the limitations of these statistics in reflecting economic well-being, we can have such positive stats coexist with others that show a much less rosy view of the economy.
Take, for instance, the fact that the child poverty rate is at a record high, which translates to 16 million children living in poverty. (And that says nothing of those above the federal threshold for poverty who are nonetheless living in precarious economic conditions). There are 1.3 million students in public schools who are homeless. I'm sure they're all thrilled about the Dow.
Last year, the median income was at 1988 levels, a sign of the often-cited phenomenon of wage stagnation for the middle class.
The recovery has been predominantly limited to the wealthiest, with the top 1% receiving 95% of post-recession income gains. (Granted, the data for such analysis ends in 2012, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that such gap narrowed significantly over the past two years.)
Just as it hasn't been a recovery for the 99%, it hasn't been one of "good jobs" either. 44% of the jobs created since the start of the Great Recession have been low-wage jobs ($9.48-$13.33 per hour), whereas only 22% of the jobs lost were such low-wage jobs.
And although the unemployment rate has fallen significantly (if still not enough) since the worst of the recession, it provides only a partial picture because it excludes discouraged and underemployed workers. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the decline in such numbers has not been nearly so great.
Democrats risk sounding like cold, removed technocrats if they tell people that they should be celebrating a recovery that they have not yet felt.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Before Leaving Town, the Senate Passed a Corporate Tax Giveaway. Who were the only 8 Ds to vote NO?
n Tuesday, before leaving town, the Senate voted to pass H.R. 5771,
the so-called Taxpayer Increase Prevention Act. The House had voted for
this corporate tax giveaway two weeks ago in a strong bipartisan vote of
378 to 46 because everybody loves giving out tax cuts for Christmas.
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) gave a strong floor speech on the folly of the bill:
Unfortunately, just like in the House, the bill passed easily: 76-16.
44 Democrats, 1 Independent (Angus King), and 31 Republicans voted for it.
8 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted against it.
Who were the 8 Democrats who voted against it?
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) were not present for the vote. Bernie, I believe, was already en route to Iowa for previously scheduled talks.
Brown, Manchin, and Warren had all voted to filibuster and reject the CRomnibus bill Saturday night. Merkley, Whitehouse, and Wyden had voted against its final passage with them, but had voted for cloture.
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) gave a strong floor speech on the folly of the bill:
The so-called “tax extenders” package includes the one-year extension of a hodgepodge of over four dozen tax provisions. This extension is not for the year ahead of us, as one might reasonably expect, but rather for the year that’s mostly past us. In other words, we will be extending for 2014 tax programs that expired at the end of 2013. This means that, for the most part, the bill will offer credits and deductions to reward things that have already happened while doing absolutely nothing to help businesses and individuals plan for the future.
If tax policy is intended to influence behavior, the extenders bill is a double failure: it spends money rewarding things that have already happened and offers no incentives for businesses and individuals for the year ahead.
Let’s take for example the production tax credit for wind energy, a program I strongly support that encourages the construction of wind farms. The provision in the extenders bill offers this incentive for properties for which construction has commenced by the end of 2014. That’s three weeks from now. Instead of giving energy companies time to plan and prepare wind projects, we’re saying: if you happen to have one ready to go, you’ve got until the end of the holiday season to break ground. The clock is ticking.
In contrast to Congress’s temporary, year-to-year treatment of the wind tax credit and other incentives for renewable energy, Big Oil and Gas enjoy permanent subsidies in the tax code. It’s long past time to reform the tax code so it reflects America’s 21st Century energy priorities. Permanent incentives for oil and gas and temporary programs for renewable energy is simply upside-down public policy.
In total, there are 50 or so extensions in this bill, and the only thing they seem to have in common is that Congress repeatedly packages them together. It’s truly a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Let’s start with some of the good provisions. In addition to clean energy incentives, the bill extends a popular tax credit that encourages businesses to hire veterans, a host of incentives for energy efficiency, and a provision that ensures that families that lose their homes in foreclosure don’t incur tax bills for the deficiencies. These provisions have strong bipartisan support.
Then there’s the bad: the unjustifiable tax giveaways. These include so-called “bonus depreciation,” a program that allows corporations to deduct the costs of equipment right away instead of spreading out the deductions over the life of the equipment. Congress first included this provision in 2009 in the Recovery Act when it made some sense. The idea was to encourage businesses to accelerate their purchases when the economy most needed the investments. We’ve extended it so many times, though, that now we’re just giving money away to corporations for buying things they would have bought anyway. That’s a nice subsidy for the businesses, but not a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
The bill also includes tax giveaways for NASCAR tracks and racehorses. While I know these sports are popular, it’s hard to justify subsidizing them with taxpayer dollars at a time when we’re running large deficits and face the prospect of more budget sequestration.
And then there’s the ugly, the stuff that does actual harm. There’s a pair of provisions in the bill--the “active financing” and “controlled foreign corporation look through” provisions--that reward U.S. corporations for shifting money overseas to avoid paying taxes. Sadly, there are already a number of provisions in the tax code that encourage companies to move operations and assets overseas. We should repeal those provisions, not enhance them as the extenders bill does.He also called out Republican hypocrisy: the same Republicans demanding that an extension of emergency unemployment compensation be offset have no problem with increasing the deficit by $41 billion via tax giveaways.
Unfortunately, just like in the House, the bill passed easily: 76-16.
44 Democrats, 1 Independent (Angus King), and 31 Republicans voted for it.
8 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted against it.
Who were the 8 Democrats who voted against it?
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) were not present for the vote. Bernie, I believe, was already en route to Iowa for previously scheduled talks.
Brown, Manchin, and Warren had all voted to filibuster and reject the CRomnibus bill Saturday night. Merkley, Whitehouse, and Wyden had voted against its final passage with them, but had voted for cloture.
Warren, Markey, and Baldwin Demand Answers from USTR on Backdoor Financial Deregulation in the TPP
On Tuesday, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) sent a letter
to US Trade Representative Michael Froman demanding answers about
backdoor financial deregulation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The senators highlight three parts of the TPP that could undermine current and future efforts to regulate Wall Street and prevent another financial crisis:
(1) Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows foreign companies or investors to sue governments for losses in expected profits
(2) "Market access" provisions that could prohibit restrictions on predatory financial products, like risky forms of derivatives
(3) Limitations on governments' ability to impose capital controls, which could stymie efforts to prevent future financial crises as well as efforts to pass a financial transaction tax
The senators asked USTR Michael Froman to respond to their questions, with negotiating text documentation, by January 6th.
Here is the text of the letter:
The senators highlight three parts of the TPP that could undermine current and future efforts to regulate Wall Street and prevent another financial crisis:
(1) Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows foreign companies or investors to sue governments for losses in expected profits
(2) "Market access" provisions that could prohibit restrictions on predatory financial products, like risky forms of derivatives
(3) Limitations on governments' ability to impose capital controls, which could stymie efforts to prevent future financial crises as well as efforts to pass a financial transaction tax
The senators asked USTR Michael Froman to respond to their questions, with negotiating text documentation, by January 6th.
Here is the text of the letter:
Dear Ambassador Froman:
We are concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could make it harder for Congress and regulatory agencies to prevent future financial crises. With millions of families still struggling to recover from the last financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, we cannot afford a trade deal that undermines the government’s ability to protect the American economy.
Our concerns relate to three specific provisions that could be part of the TPP:
Investor-State Dispute Settlement
The investor-state dispute settlement process permits foreign companies to bypass American courts and challenges U.S. government policies before a panel of private attorneys that sits outside any domestic legal system. If the foreign company prevails, the panel can order compensation from American taxpayers without any review by American courts. The investor-state dispute settlement process thus gives foreign companies a greater right to challenge U.S. government policies than their American counterparts. And because the investor-state process is available only to investors, it gives investors a far greater ability to challenge state practices than it gives labor unions, environmental groups, or any non-investor with an interest in a trade deal.
Past trade deals have included terms that allowed foreign firms to use the investor-state dispute settlement process to challenge a wide range of government financial policy decisions. For example, in 2006, an investor-state dispute settlement panel ordered a government to pay a foreign company $236 million because the government had not bailed out a private bank in which the foreign company owned a stake.
Similar provisions in the TPP would be troubling enough because they would expose a broad array of critical American financial regulations to challenge by many additional foreign companies. Yet at a recent congressional briefing, a representative from your office stated that U.S. negotiators hoped to include an even broader provision in the TPP—one that would guarantee foreign companies a “minimum standard of treatment” with respect to U.S. financial regulations. No prior U.S. trade deal has exposed U.S. financial policies to that vague obligation. The “minimum standard of treatment” provision has been the basis for the majority of successful investor-state claims to date under U.S. deals, and if it is extended to financial companies in the TPP, it could expose American financial regulations to challenge on the basis that they frustrated a foreign company’s expectations.
We believe that the TPP should not include an investor-state dispute settlement process. Including such provisions in the TPP could expose American taxpayers to billions of dollars in losses and dissuade the government from establishing or enforcing financial rules that impact foreign banks. The consequence would be to strip our regulators of the tools they need to prevent the next crisis.
Market Access
We are also concerned about including provisions in the TPP that would commit the American financial sector to “market access” rules similar to those stipulated by the World Trade Organization. Such rules could be interpreted by international panels to prohibit basic, non-discriminatory restrictions on predatory toxic financial products—such as particularly risky forms of derivatives—because those restrictions deny access to the U.S. financial markets. Such rules could also be interpreted to prohibit or curtail certain limitations on the size or the operations of financial firms, such as regulations to shield depositors’ money from high-risk trading.
To protect consumers and address sources of systemic financial risk, Congress must maintain the flexibility to impose restrictions on harmful products and on the conduct or structure of financial firms. We would oppose including provisions in the TPP that would limit that flexibility.
Capital Controls
We also would oppose the inclusion of terms in the TPP that could limit the ability of the government to use capital controls. The International Monetary Fund and leading economists have endorsed capital controls as legitimate policy tools for preventing and mitigating financial crises. If the TPP were to include provisions from past pacts that required unrestricted capital transfers, it could limit Congress’ prerogative to enact not only capital controls, but basic reform measures like a financial transaction tax.
Accordingly, we request that you answer the following questions by January 6, 2015:
(1) What is USTR’s position on the inclusion of each of these provisions in the TPP?
(2) If the USTR supports the inclusion of any of these provisions in the TPP, why does USTR believe that these provisions will help Congress and regulatory agencies prevent future financial crises?
In addition, we request that you provide us with all U.S. proposals and bracketed negotiating texts relating to the three provisions discussed in the letter. This includes, but is not limited to, the bracketed negotiating text for the TPP’s chapters on investment, financial services, dispute settlement, and exceptions, and any related U.S. proposals. Since leaders of TPP negotiating countries recently stated that TPP negotiations are nearing their conclusion, we request that you provide these materials by January 6, 2015.Last year, Elizabeth Warren gave an impassioned speech against the confirmation of USTR Michael Froman because of the threat of backdoor financial deregulation in the TPP and the lack of transparency in the negotiating process. Froman, unsurprisingly, is a former Citigroup executive, having joined the firm with the rest of Bill Clinton's Treasury team.
Froman was confirmed 93 to 4 to 1. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie
Sanders (I-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) all opposed
his confirmation. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voted present.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is likely to be a major part of Obama's agenda in his final two years, particularly because Congressional Republicans largely support it as well. Unfortunately, too many Democrats support such corporate-written trade deals as well.
Based on recent trade votes, only 17 members of the Democratic caucus are likely to join Warren in opposing the TPP:
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
That number needs to be a lot higher.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is likely to be a major part of Obama's agenda in his final two years, particularly because Congressional Republicans largely support it as well. Unfortunately, too many Democrats support such corporate-written trade deals as well.
Based on recent trade votes, only 17 members of the Democratic caucus are likely to join Warren in opposing the TPP:
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
That number needs to be a lot higher.
NYT/CBS Poll: Americans Support a Public Option
Over the past two years, the New York Times has been running a great
series of articles on the outrageous cost of health care in the US, Paying Til It Hurts. If you haven't already read them, you should.
The NYT decided to complement its reporting with a survey about how Americans interact with the costs of the health care system.
The following two questions were of most interest to me:
(1) Would you favor or oppose a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
(2) Would you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?
Here were the results:
As you can see, a solid majority of Americans supported a public option for health insurance, which Democrats cravenly tossed aside during the health care debate.
Although I would have liked to have seen majority support for single payer as well, 43% is still a solid basis of support on which to build, and it likely includes a majority of self-identified Democrats and perhaps even a majority or plurality of Independents. I would be very interested to see the partisan breakdown on these questions.
Governor Pete Shumlin of Vermont unfortunately is giving up on the state's plan for a single payer system, but as this poll shows, there is a real desire among the public for such a system that would combine true universality, quality, and efficiency.
The NYT decided to complement its reporting with a survey about how Americans interact with the costs of the health care system.
The following two questions were of most interest to me:
(1) Would you favor or oppose a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
(2) Would you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?
Here were the results:
As you can see, a solid majority of Americans supported a public option for health insurance, which Democrats cravenly tossed aside during the health care debate.
Although I would have liked to have seen majority support for single payer as well, 43% is still a solid basis of support on which to build, and it likely includes a majority of self-identified Democrats and perhaps even a majority or plurality of Independents. I would be very interested to see the partisan breakdown on these questions.
Governor Pete Shumlin of Vermont unfortunately is giving up on the state's plan for a single payer system, but as this poll shows, there is a real desire among the public for such a system that would combine true universality, quality, and efficiency.
Roll Call Flashback: Which Democrats Voted to Entrench the Embargo on Cuba? (1996)
On March 12, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the so-called Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, more commonly known as
the Helms-Burton Act (after its original sponsors Senator Jesse Helms and
Representative Dan Burton).
The Helms-Burton Act was designed to further entrench the embargo on Cuba into US foreign policy.
Here are some of its provisions:
12 of the senators who voted YES (7R, 5D)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
5 of the senators who voted NO (5D):
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Secretary of State John Kerry was a NO vote (although he had voted YES on the original Senate version of the bill). VP Joe Biden was a YES vote. Outgoing governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was a NO vote.
The final vote in the House was 336 to 86.
230 Republicans and 106 Democrats voted for it. 80 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted against it.
Who was there in the 113th Congress that just finished?
36 House Republicans who voted YES:
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Don Young (AK)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Buck McKeon (CA-25)
Ed Royce (CA-39)
Ken Calvert (CA-42)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
John Mica (FL-07)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Tom Latham (IA-04)
Ed Whitfield (KY-01)
Hal Rogers (KY-05)
Dave Camp (MI-04)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Howard Coble (NC-06)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Pete King (NY-02)
Steve Chabot (OH-01)
John Boehner (OH-08)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Ralph Hall (TX-04)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Bob Goodlatte (VA-06)
Frank Wolf (VA-10)
Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
22 House Democrats who voted YES:
Corrine Brown (FL-05)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Pete Deutsch (FL-21)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
25 House Democrats who voted NO:
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
George Miller (CA-11)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-07)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Some former representatives have moved on to other careers.
There are three Republican governors who voted YES when in the House:
Nathan Deal (GA)
Sam Brownback (KS)
John Kasich (OH)
And there is one Democratic governor who voted NO when in the House: Neal Abercrombie (HI).
There are 14 senators who voted YES when in the House (8 R, 6 D):
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
And 3 Senators who voted NO when n the House (2 D, 1 I):
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
The Helms-Burton Act was designed to further entrench the embargo on Cuba into US foreign policy.
Here are some of its provisions:
• International Sanctions against the Cuban Government. Economic embargo, any non-U.S. company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba.
• United States opposition against Cuban membership in International Financial Institutions.
• Exclusion of certain aliens from the United States, primarily senior officials or major stock holders, and their families, of companies that do business in Cuba on property expropriated from American citizens. To date, executives from Italy, Mexico, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom have been barred.
• Provides power to the Legislative Branch to override an Executive Branch cancellation of the embargo.
• Prohibits recognition of a transitional government in Cuba that includes Fidel or Raúl Castro.
• Prohibits recognition of a Cuban government that has not provided compensation for U.S. certified claims against confiscated property, defined as non-residential property with an excess of $50,000 value in 1959.The conference report for the Helms-Burton Act passed the Senate on March 5, 1996, by a vote of 74 to 22. 47 Republicans and 27 Democrats supported it. 18 Democrats and 4 Republicans opposed it. Who of these senators were still in the 113th Congress?
12 of the senators who voted YES (7R, 5D)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
5 of the senators who voted NO (5D):
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Secretary of State John Kerry was a NO vote (although he had voted YES on the original Senate version of the bill). VP Joe Biden was a YES vote. Outgoing governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was a NO vote.
The final vote in the House was 336 to 86.
230 Republicans and 106 Democrats voted for it. 80 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted against it.
Who was there in the 113th Congress that just finished?
36 House Republicans who voted YES:
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Don Young (AK)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Buck McKeon (CA-25)
Ed Royce (CA-39)
Ken Calvert (CA-42)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
John Mica (FL-07)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Tom Latham (IA-04)
Ed Whitfield (KY-01)
Hal Rogers (KY-05)
Dave Camp (MI-04)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Howard Coble (NC-06)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Pete King (NY-02)
Steve Chabot (OH-01)
John Boehner (OH-08)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Ralph Hall (TX-04)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Bob Goodlatte (VA-06)
Frank Wolf (VA-10)
Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
22 House Democrats who voted YES:
Corrine Brown (FL-05)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Pete Deutsch (FL-21)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
25 House Democrats who voted NO:
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
George Miller (CA-11)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-07)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Some former representatives have moved on to other careers.
There are three Republican governors who voted YES when in the House:
Nathan Deal (GA)
Sam Brownback (KS)
John Kasich (OH)
And there is one Democratic governor who voted NO when in the House: Neal Abercrombie (HI).
There are 14 senators who voted YES when in the House (8 R, 6 D):
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
And 3 Senators who voted NO when n the House (2 D, 1 I):
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Which 32 Senate Democrats Just Sold You Out to Give Wall Street a CRomnibus Christmas?
After a long day of voting yesterday, the Senate passed the so-called
"CRomnibus," part continuing resolution, part omnibus, almost all bad.
The two provisions that have been criticized the most by Democrats are the rider that weakens campaign finance regulations by increasing the amount that an individual can donate to a party committee in a year from $32,400 to $324,000, thus giving rich people even more say than they already have, and the rider that guts Dodd-Frank and sets the stage for future bank bailouts. Elizabeth Warren has spoken eloquently and forcefully against the latter provision, which was, in fact, directly written by Citigroup.
However, the toxicity of the deal did not end there:
The two provisions that have been criticized the most by Democrats are the rider that weakens campaign finance regulations by increasing the amount that an individual can donate to a party committee in a year from $32,400 to $324,000, thus giving rich people even more say than they already have, and the rider that guts Dodd-Frank and sets the stage for future bank bailouts. Elizabeth Warren has spoken eloquently and forcefully against the latter provision, which was, in fact, directly written by Citigroup.
However, the toxicity of the deal did not end there:
But there’s so much more to the CRomnibus than just those two riders. Under the bill, trustees would be enabled to cut pension benefits to current retirees, reversing a 40-year bond with workers who earned their retirement packages. Voters in the District of Columbia who approved legalized marijuana will see their initiative vaporized, with local government prohibited from taxing or regulating the drug’s sale. Trucking companies can make roads less safe by giving their employees 82-hour work weeks without sufficient rest breaks. Pell grants for college students will be cut, with the money diverted to private student loan contractors who have actively harmed borrowers. Government financiers of overseas projects will be prevented from stopping funding for coal-fired power plants. Blue Cross and Blue Shield will be allowed to count “quality improvement” measures toward their mandatory health spending under Obamacare’s “medical loss ratio” provision, a windfall saving them millions of dollars.
I’m not done. The bill eliminates a bipartisan measure to end “backdoor” searches by the NSA of Americans’ private communications. It blocks the EPA from regulating certain water sources for farmers. It adds an exception to allow the U.S. to continue to fund Egypt’s military leadership. In a giveaway to potato growers, it reduces nutrition standards in school lunches and the Women, Infant and Children food aid program. It halts the listing of new endangered species. It stops the regulation of lead in hunting ammunition or fishing equipment. It limits contributions to the Green Climate Fund to compensate poor countries ravaged by climate change. I could go on. And even if the offending measures on derivatives and campaign finance were removed, all of that dreck would remain.Despite the toxicity of the bill--and the fact that it will enable Republicans to demand more---President Obama, with the help of good friend Jamie Dimon, whipped Democrats in the House to vote for it, as Nancy Pelosi refused to support it herself. Most of Pelosi's caucus did side with her (139 members), but 57 voted against her to join the Republican majority in rolling back the regulatory state.
After a long day of voting, the Senate passed the CRomnibus late yesterday night by a vote of 56 to 40.
32 members of the Democratic caucus and 24 Republicans supported it. 22 members of the Democratic caucus and 18 Republicans opposed it.
So who were the naughty 32?
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
John Walsh (D-MT)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Many of them were unsurprising, but I was particularly disappointed in Baldwin, Murphy, and Schatz, who are all freshmen with fairly progressive voting records so far.
And which 22 were nice?
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Of those 22, the nicest were Brown, Franken, Manchin, McCaskill, Sanders, and Warren, who also voted against cloture (i.e. allowing the bill to proceed). That vote was 77 to 19.
Every Democrat who lost re-election voted for it. They are probably angling for a future career in lobbying now.
To quote myself from the other day....
A Republican Senate aide told The Hill, "If liberal Democrats vote for this package it shows that conservatives can use must-pass legislation to repeal the regulatory state." Granted, many of these Democrats are not "liberals." But the vote nevertheless shows that Republicans will be able to roll back various parts of the regulatory state (financial, environmental, labor, etc.) over the next two years by shoving such provisions into "must-pass" bills that Obama will sign and lobby Democrats to pass.
Welcome to the next two years.
32 members of the Democratic caucus and 24 Republicans supported it. 22 members of the Democratic caucus and 18 Republicans opposed it.
So who were the naughty 32?
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
John Walsh (D-MT)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Many of them were unsurprising, but I was particularly disappointed in Baldwin, Murphy, and Schatz, who are all freshmen with fairly progressive voting records so far.
And which 22 were nice?
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Of those 22, the nicest were Brown, Franken, Manchin, McCaskill, Sanders, and Warren, who also voted against cloture (i.e. allowing the bill to proceed). That vote was 77 to 19.
Every Democrat who lost re-election voted for it. They are probably angling for a future career in lobbying now.
To quote myself from the other day....
A Republican Senate aide told The Hill, "If liberal Democrats vote for this package it shows that conservatives can use must-pass legislation to repeal the regulatory state." Granted, many of these Democrats are not "liberals." But the vote nevertheless shows that Republicans will be able to roll back various parts of the regulatory state (financial, environmental, labor, etc.) over the next two years by shoving such provisions into "must-pass" bills that Obama will sign and lobby Democrats to pass.
Welcome to the next two years.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Which Senators that Opposed Arming the Syrian Rebels Voted for the NDAA that Does the Same Thing?
Back in September, Congress voted on arming the Syrian rebels. The C.R. that contained that provision passed the Senate 78 to 22. 10 Democrats and 12 Republicans opposed it.
Here are those 10 Democrats:
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
And here are those 12 Republicans:
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
That allocation of funding to the Syrian rebels--something that will get the US even more entrenched in a violent conflict in a region where the US has a history of making matters worse--was included in the FY 2015 NDAA.
As I noted last week,
Here are those 10 Democrats:
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
And here are those 12 Republicans:
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
That allocation of funding to the Syrian rebels--something that will get the US even more entrenched in a violent conflict in a region where the US has a history of making matters worse--was included in the FY 2015 NDAA.
As I noted last week,
The FY 2015 NDAA is filled with wonders of bipartisan legislating: prohibitions on ending unnecessary weapons programs, a maintenance of existing prohibitions on releasing/transferring those imprisoned by the US at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, more military aid for Ukraine, more military aid for the Syrian rebels, even more military aid for Israel than Obama asked for, requirements to keep nuclear weapons in "warm" status so that they can potentially be used, $63.7 billion for the Pentagon slush fund, and the sale of sacred Native American lands to a foreign mining company.Julia Harte of the Center for Public Integrity has a must-read piece up at POLITICO on the slush fund that is the Pentagon's Overseas Contingency Operations. Not that the rest of the Pentagon is a model of fiscal prudence. The agency has been unable to pass an audit and is only likely to be "audit-ready" in 2017, if even then.
The NDAA passed the Senate easily as it always does. The final vote was 89 to 11.
Of those 11 votes, 5 came from the Democratic caucus:
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
And 6 came from the Republican caucus:
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Here was Senator Gillibrand's statement on the vote:
Those senators include 7 Democrats:
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
And then 6 Republicans:
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Chris Murphy at least addressed the inconsistency in his statement on the vote, but his defense only amounted to the fact that there's a lot of pork for defense contractors in Connecticut.
Of those 11 votes, 5 came from the Democratic caucus:
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
And 6 came from the Republican caucus:
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Here was Senator Gillibrand's statement on the vote:
“While there are priorities of mine that I have fought hard for in this bill, and I am proud they are in the final bill, I could not in good conscience vote in favor of this bill authorizing the arming of Syrian rebels,” said Senator Gillibrand. “I remain unconvinced this is the correct approach, and previous history suggests that arming Syrian rebels will be an ineffective solution with potentially serious unintended consequences in the long-term.”
Gillibrand pushed hard for a series of measures aimed at better assessing sexual assault in the military, in addition to protecting sexual assault survivors' mental health records to ensure that victims aren’t afraid to seek care because their records will likely be used in courts martial. Gillibrand also secured, among others, approval of a measure ensuring critical care for military children with developmental disabilities, a measure tracking the services’ progress on combat integration, and a measure directing the services to create cyber career tracks.Here is Senator Sanders's statement on the vote:
“I am voting no because I have very serious concerns about our nation's bloated military budget and the misplaced national priorities this bill reflects.
“At a time when our national debt is more than $18 trillion and we spend nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the time is long overdue to end the waste and financial mismanagement that have plagued the Pentagon for years.
“The situation is so absurd that the military is unable to even account for how it spends all of its money. The non-partisan watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, said ‘serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense made its financial statements un-auditable.’
“I support a strong defense system for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. At a time when the country is struggling with huge unmet needs, however, it is unacceptable that the Defense Department continues to waste massive amounts of money.”I commend both Gillibrand and Sanders for their votes and for the reasoning behind them. However, I am disappointed in the senators who voted against arming the Syrian rebels back in September only to support a bill now that does the same thing (and many other bad things as well).
Those senators include 7 Democrats:
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
And then 6 Republicans:
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Chris Murphy at least addressed the inconsistency in his statement on the vote, but his defense only amounted to the fact that there's a lot of pork for defense contractors in Connecticut.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Welcome to the Next 2 Years: 57 Dems Vote to Give Wall Street a Cromnibus Christmas Present
Just now, the House passed the "CRomnibus"--part continuing
resolution, part omnibus bill, part Pentagon slush fund, part austerity,
and part rollback of the regulatory state.
Although they are far from the only toxic pieces of the deal (You can--and should--read a review of its parts here), negotiated by Democratic and Republican appropriators, the two pieces that have faced the most criticism from Democrats have been the part gutting campaign finance laws and the part promising to bail out the banks when they lose money from risky trades (a part that was, in fact, written almost entirely by Citigroup).
Although Nancy Pelosi has rhetorically opposed the deal and did vote NO on it, she did not whip against it. Some progressive Democrats, led by Maxine Waters, were whipping against it. But they had to face the opposing whipping team of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and their good friend Jamie Dimon.
Ultimately, Democrats, as one could--unfortunately--expect, provided the votes needed to pass the bill. The final vote was 219 to 206. 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats voted for it. 139 Democrats and 67 Republicans voted against it.
Here are the 57 Democrats who just sold you to to Wall Street:
Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
George Miller (CA-11)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
David Price (NC-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Henry Waxman (CA-33) apparently voted for it and then changed his vote at the last minute when it was no longer "needed."
Note that Steny Hoyer, Pelosi's #2, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC chairwoman, are both on the list.
Yesterday, a Republican Senate aide told The Hill, "If liberal Democrats vote for this package it shows that conservatives can use must-pass legislation to repeal the regulatory state." Granted, many of these Democrats are not "liberals." But the vote nevertheless shows that Republicans will be able to roll back various parts of the regulatory state (financial, environmental, labor, etc.) over the next two years by shoving such provisions into "must-pass" bills that Obama will sign and lobby Democrats to pass.
Welcome to the next two years.
[Post-Script: The bill title is "An Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a team of experts to address the energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and Freely Associated States through the development of energy action plans aimed at promoting access to energy." They simply attached the $1.3 trillion appropriations bill as an amendment to a random bill the Senate already passed. Because Congress.]
Although they are far from the only toxic pieces of the deal (You can--and should--read a review of its parts here), negotiated by Democratic and Republican appropriators, the two pieces that have faced the most criticism from Democrats have been the part gutting campaign finance laws and the part promising to bail out the banks when they lose money from risky trades (a part that was, in fact, written almost entirely by Citigroup).
Although Nancy Pelosi has rhetorically opposed the deal and did vote NO on it, she did not whip against it. Some progressive Democrats, led by Maxine Waters, were whipping against it. But they had to face the opposing whipping team of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and their good friend Jamie Dimon.
Ultimately, Democrats, as one could--unfortunately--expect, provided the votes needed to pass the bill. The final vote was 219 to 206. 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats voted for it. 139 Democrats and 67 Republicans voted against it.
Here are the 57 Democrats who just sold you to to Wall Street:
Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
George Miller (CA-11)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
David Price (NC-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Henry Waxman (CA-33) apparently voted for it and then changed his vote at the last minute when it was no longer "needed."
Note that Steny Hoyer, Pelosi's #2, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC chairwoman, are both on the list.
Yesterday, a Republican Senate aide told The Hill, "If liberal Democrats vote for this package it shows that conservatives can use must-pass legislation to repeal the regulatory state." Granted, many of these Democrats are not "liberals." But the vote nevertheless shows that Republicans will be able to roll back various parts of the regulatory state (financial, environmental, labor, etc.) over the next two years by shoving such provisions into "must-pass" bills that Obama will sign and lobby Democrats to pass.
Welcome to the next two years.
[Post-Script: The bill title is "An Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a team of experts to address the energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and Freely Associated States through the development of energy action plans aimed at promoting access to energy." They simply attached the $1.3 trillion appropriations bill as an amendment to a random bill the Senate already passed. Because Congress.]
Day After Torture Report Release, Congress Votes to Give the CIA More Money
You may have been wondering how Congress would respond to the release
of the torture report, which documented countless violations of the law
on many levels.
Well, the House decided its response yesterday: give the CIA more money:
Here are the 55 Democrats who voted NO:
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
Katherine Clarke (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Here are the 45 Republicans:
Justin Amash (MI-03)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
David Brat (VA-07)
Jim Bridenstine (OK-01)
Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Curt Clawson (FL-19)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
John Mica (FL-07)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Richard Nugent (FL-11)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Phil Roe (TN-01)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Austin Scott (GA-08)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Rob Woodall (GA-07)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Well, the House decided its response yesterday: give the CIA more money:
The House on Wednesday cleared the intelligence authorization for fiscal 2015 with little opposition a day after the release of a Senate report asserting that the CIA used torture on detainees and misled lawmakers.
Specifics of the intelligence authorization are limited because much of it is classified. It authorizes activities and funding for the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA) and Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said the authorization increases the president's budget request by less than one percent and is consistent with the 2013 budget pact.
"The bill's modest increase reflects the committee's concern that the president's request does not properly fund a number of important initiatives and leaves several unacceptable shortfalls when it comes to the matters of national security," Rogers said.
…
Lawmakers also noted the measure authorizes additional resources to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 passed 325 to 100. 184 Republicans and 141 Democrats voted for it. 45 Republicans and 55 Democrats voted against it.
Here are the 55 Democrats who voted NO:
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
Katherine Clarke (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Here are the 45 Republicans:
Justin Amash (MI-03)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
David Brat (VA-07)
Jim Bridenstine (OK-01)
Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Curt Clawson (FL-19)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
John Mica (FL-07)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Richard Nugent (FL-11)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Phil Roe (TN-01)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Austin Scott (GA-08)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Rob Woodall (GA-07)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
The "Hague Invasion Act" and How the US Treats Accountability for Human Rights Abuses
Since the release of the "torture report" (the heavily redacted
525-page executive summary of a 6,3000 page document), civil liberties
groups have renewed their call for the criminal prosecution for the
architects and administrators of the torture program.
Here is ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero:
Here is ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero:
This should be the beginning of a process, not the end. The report should shock President Obama and Congress into action, to make sure that torture and cruelty are never used again. The Department of Justice needs to appoint a special prosecutor to hold the architects and perpetrators of the torture program accountable for its design, implementation, and cover-ups. Congress must assert its constitutional role in the system of checks and balances, and oversee the CIA, which in this report sounds more like a rogue paramilitary group than the intelligence gathering agency that it’s supposed to be. The president needs to use the moral authority of his office to formally recognize both the torture program’s victims and those in government who resisted this shameful and illegal policy.Here is Center for Constitutional Rights Legal Director Baher Azmy:
The long-delayed Senate report proves what we have been saying since 2006: that the CIA engaged in a sophisticated program of state-sanctioned torture, notable for its elaborate planning and ruthless application. We have witnessed firsthand the devastating human consequences in meetings with our clients at Guantanamo. The report also exposes the CIA’s lies about how the program operated and the utility of the information obtained: False claims about the usefulness of that information were used to justify and cover up monstrous crimes. We renew our demand for accountability for those individuals responsible for the CIA torture program. They should be prosecuted in U.S. courts; and if our government continues to refuse to hold them accountable, they must be pursued internationally under the principles of universal jurisdiction.Although CCR is not talking about the International Criminal Court, the talk of international courts reminded me of a lesser-known law in the US, the American Service-Members' Protection Act, known also as the "Hague Invasion Act."
The law,
passed as an amendment to a supplemental appropriations bill in 2002,
requires the US to "to protect...the maximum extent possible, against
criminal prosecutions carried out by the International Criminal Court"
any members of the Armed Forces or elected or appointed officials.
It developed the nickname of the "Hague Invasion Act" because it implies that the US would go so far as to invade the Hague, the site of the ICC, if need be.
The amendment passed in the senate 75 to 19 on June 6, 2002.
The NO votes were the following:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
22 Senators who voted YES are still in the Senate:
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
The YES contingent also included former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Governor Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island.
It developed the nickname of the "Hague Invasion Act" because it implies that the US would go so far as to invade the Hague, the site of the ICC, if need be.
The amendment passed in the senate 75 to 19 on June 6, 2002.
The NO votes were the following:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
22 Senators who voted YES are still in the Senate:
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
The YES contingent also included former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Governor Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island.
Friday, December 5, 2014
DNC Appoints Corrupt, Anti-Gay, Pro-Pollution Governor to "Autopsy Report" Task Force
Yesterday, I talked about how Debbie Wasserman Schultz appointed an oligarch who funds the Republican Party to the DNC's post-election "let's-pretend-to-figure-out-what-we-did-wrong-and-do-better-next-time" task force.
Another questionable inclusion is Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky, the only elected official on the task force.
Steve Beshear deserves credit for making his state an example of successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act. But that doesn't mean he's a good governor.
Let's look at some other parts of Beshear's record.
First of all, there's his defense of discrimination:
As a friend of coal, Beshear also wars against the EPA for doing its job. He has opposed the EPA's power plant regulations and is planning to war against the EPA's new smog regulations.
His most famous moment in warring against the EPA and shilling for coal came in his "state of the state" address in 2011, in which he criticized EPA efforts to curb toxic runoff into waterways from coal mines:
Another questionable inclusion is Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky, the only elected official on the task force.
Steve Beshear deserves credit for making his state an example of successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act. But that doesn't mean he's a good governor.
Let's look at some other parts of Beshear's record.
First of all, there's his defense of discrimination:
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) announced Tuesday that his state will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Beshear's decision comes after state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) announced earlier in the day that he would not appeal the ruling, calling banning gay marriage "discrimination." Beshear will instead hire outside legal counsel to handle the appeal.Marriage equality is bad, says Steve Beshear, because of birth rates:
Gov. Steve Beshear's lawyers say Kentucky's ban on gay marriage should be retained because only "man-woman" couples can naturally procreate — and the state has an interest in ensuring that they do.
Appealing a federal judge's decision that the state's ban on recognizing gay marriages violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, Beshear's hired counsel say Kentucky has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation to support "long-term economic stability through stable birth rates."When he's not defending discrimination, he's using state tax dollars to fund religious propaganda like Kentucky's Creationism-themed theme park:
Gov. Steve Beshear (D) has been a strong proponent of the $150 million project, even holding a press conference at the Capitol yesterday to tout the state’s involvement. Saying there’s nothing “remotely unconstitutional” about taxpayers incentivizing the Ark park, Beshear said, “The people of Kentucky didn’t elect me governor to debate religion. They elected me governor to create jobs.” Daniel Phelps, a geologist and president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, called the governor’s support of the proposal “embarrassing for the state.”And he has no problem funding for such corporate welfare/religious propaganda while simultaneously cutting education funding:
When Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) proposed his 2012-2013 budget this week, he admitted that it was “inadequate for the needs” of the state’s people. “We should be making substantial investments in our physical and intellectual infrastructure to bring transformational change to our state,” Beshear said. “This budget does not allow us to do enough of that.”
Beshear’s assessment of his own budget is, unfortunately, correct. The budget makes $286 million in cuts, including a 6.4 percent cut to a higher education system that has been plagued by funding cuts and rising tuition for years.
....
Although the main funding formula for K-12 schools wouldn’t be cut, population growth means spending per student would decline. Also, education officials say the current year’s population estimate was low, resulting in a cut of more than $50 million to that funding formula.Or maybe he's doing the bidding of the coal industry:
Gov. Beshear’s administration fired the director of the state’s division of mine permits after he refused to issue permits under a controversial policy that allowed companies to begin mining before obtaining the legal right to enter all of the land in their plans. The fired director sued under the state Whistleblower Act, and the state settled the lawsuit for $270,000.
Alliance Resource Partners, a coal producing company, had sought permits under the controversial rule. Documents filed as part of the whistleblower lawsuit hinted at the extent of the company’s influence on the Beshear administration’s decisions. The company recommended nominees who were appointed to a federal panel on mountaintop removal mining, and Gov. Beshear’s administration has also appointed other officials tied to Alliance to state positions.The above passage comes from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's piece on the worst (i.e., most corrupt) governors. He was one of only two Democrats (the other being Andrew Cuomo) to make it onto the list. What an honor!
As a friend of coal, Beshear also wars against the EPA for doing its job. He has opposed the EPA's power plant regulations and is planning to war against the EPA's new smog regulations.
His most famous moment in warring against the EPA and shilling for coal came in his "state of the state" address in 2011, in which he criticized EPA efforts to curb toxic runoff into waterways from coal mines:
Coal provides 90 percent of our electricity and — because our rates are low — has helped us build a robust manufacturing industry. But all that is in jeopardy because Washington bureaucrats continue to try to impose arbitrary and unreasonable regulations on the mining of coal. To them I say, 'Get off our backs! Get off our backs!'I'm sure he'll have great advice.
DNC "Autopsy Report" Task Force Includes Google Exec Who Gives Big Bucks to Republicans
One month ago, the Democrats had a rather grim day at the polls, at an election that saw the lowest turnout since World War II.
This, in theory, would offer the Democratic Party an opportunity to reflect on how to better connect with and energize voters. There are many good suggestions out there. I'd flag David Dayen's article in the Fiscal Times "The So-So Society: Democrats Have Forgotten What Made Them Great" and Richard Kirsch's article for the Roosevelt Institute's blog Next New Deal "News Flash: Progressives Have a Winning Economic Narrative -- and Democrats Who Used It Won."
Another appropriate response would be to bring in new leadership. Steve Israel resigned from his position as chairman of the DCCC thankfully--even though Pelosi offered him a third term. However, Debbie Wasserman Schultz remains chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. After the election, one might have thought she might resign. (One would have, of course, thought wrong.) The DNC could have made the chair(wo)manship a full-time position and hired someone who does not also have the responsibilities of representing a congressional district (or holding any other elected office at the moment).
Debbie Wasserman Schultz stayed on, and today she announced the members of the task force she created to investigate what went wrong in the 2014 election and what Democrats can do better in 2016. You only need to see one name on the list to realize that Democrats have learned nothing (and are choosing to learn nothing): Google Chairman Eric Schmidt.
Now, I'm not talking about his creepy (and creepily intense) techno-optimism. That's another story. And I'm not talking about the inherently problematic nature of putting the chairman of a tech monopoly in a task force designed to figure out how to connect with the economic concerns of middle-class and working-class voters. That's a rant that writes itself. I'm talking about the fact that he's also funding the Republican Party.
When I saw his name, the first thing I did was look him up in the Center for Responsive Politics's Open Secrets database.
First, I saw that he donated to the NRSC last year.
And also Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy:
And that he donated to Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):
And that he donated to former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa:
Yes, he donated more to Democrats than Republicans this cycle. But that he donated to Republicans at all raises a major red flag. And it certainly means that he shouldn't be appointed to a party building task force.
This, in theory, would offer the Democratic Party an opportunity to reflect on how to better connect with and energize voters. There are many good suggestions out there. I'd flag David Dayen's article in the Fiscal Times "The So-So Society: Democrats Have Forgotten What Made Them Great" and Richard Kirsch's article for the Roosevelt Institute's blog Next New Deal "News Flash: Progressives Have a Winning Economic Narrative -- and Democrats Who Used It Won."
Another appropriate response would be to bring in new leadership. Steve Israel resigned from his position as chairman of the DCCC thankfully--even though Pelosi offered him a third term. However, Debbie Wasserman Schultz remains chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. After the election, one might have thought she might resign. (One would have, of course, thought wrong.) The DNC could have made the chair(wo)manship a full-time position and hired someone who does not also have the responsibilities of representing a congressional district (or holding any other elected office at the moment).
Debbie Wasserman Schultz stayed on, and today she announced the members of the task force she created to investigate what went wrong in the 2014 election and what Democrats can do better in 2016. You only need to see one name on the list to realize that Democrats have learned nothing (and are choosing to learn nothing): Google Chairman Eric Schmidt.
Now, I'm not talking about his creepy (and creepily intense) techno-optimism. That's another story. And I'm not talking about the inherently problematic nature of putting the chairman of a tech monopoly in a task force designed to figure out how to connect with the economic concerns of middle-class and working-class voters. That's a rant that writes itself. I'm talking about the fact that he's also funding the Republican Party.
When I saw his name, the first thing I did was look him up in the Center for Responsive Politics's Open Secrets database.
First, I saw that he donated to the NRSC last year.
And also Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy:
And that he donated to Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):
And that he donated to former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa:
Yes, he donated more to Democrats than Republicans this cycle. But that he donated to Republicans at all raises a major red flag. And it certainly means that he shouldn't be appointed to a party building task force.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Slush Funds, Sacred Land Sales, and Lots of Weapons: FY 2015 NDAA Passes 300 to 119.
Yesterday, Democrats and Republicans decided that they could stop pretending to care about deficits and pass a bunch of corporate tax breaks.
Today, they showed us yet again that no one cares about the deficit except when it can be used as a rhetorical tool to cut social welfare spending and passed the deficit-increasing $585 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The FY 2015 NDAA is filled with wonders of bipartisan legislating: prohibitions on ending unnecessary weapons programs, a maintenance of existing prohibitions on releasing/transferring those imprisoned by the US at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, more military aid for Ukraine, more military aid for the Syrian rebels, even more military aid for Israel than Obama asked for, requirements to keep nuclear weapons in "warm" status so that they can potentially be used, $63.7 billion for the Pentagon slush fund, and the sale of sacred Native American lands to a foreign mining company.
Wait, there's a sale of sacred Native American lands in the NDAA?
Of course there is:
Today, they showed us yet again that no one cares about the deficit except when it can be used as a rhetorical tool to cut social welfare spending and passed the deficit-increasing $585 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The FY 2015 NDAA is filled with wonders of bipartisan legislating: prohibitions on ending unnecessary weapons programs, a maintenance of existing prohibitions on releasing/transferring those imprisoned by the US at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, more military aid for Ukraine, more military aid for the Syrian rebels, even more military aid for Israel than Obama asked for, requirements to keep nuclear weapons in "warm" status so that they can potentially be used, $63.7 billion for the Pentagon slush fund, and the sale of sacred Native American lands to a foreign mining company.
Wait, there's a sale of sacred Native American lands in the NDAA?
Of course there is:
The defense authorization act...also included a deal to give an Australian-English mining firm 2,400 acres of federal land in Arizona that includes sites sacred to the Apache and Yavapai tribes.
The firm, Rio Tinto, owns a uranium mine in Africa in which Iran owns a 15 percent stake. A bill that backers could not get through Congress was added to the must-pass NDAA negotiations between Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who both will soon retire from the Armed Services Committee chairmanships. It gives Rio Tinto, through a subsidiary called Resolution Copper, ownership of vast acreage in the Tonto National Forest to mine copper. Many believe that copper will be shipped to China, which owns 10 percent of Rio Tinto.But don't worry: there's still no authorization for the US's bombing campaign against ISIS. Money for it? Sure. But an AUMF would require debate and, well, there's just never time.
The NDAA passed with a comfortable margin of 300 to 119.
194 Republicans and 106 Democrats voted for it. 32 Republicans and 87 Democrats voted against it.
Here are the 87 Democrats:
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Katherine Clarke (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Louise Slaughter (NY-25)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Here are the 32 Republicans:
Justin Amash (MI-03)
David Brat (VA-07)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Curt Clawson (FL-19)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
David Jolly (FL-13)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Richard Nugent (FL-11)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Dennis Ross (FL-15)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Mike Simpson (ID-02)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Glenn Thompson (PA-05)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
If you were to actually look for the NDAA on the House Clerk's website, you might have trouble at first. Then you will realize that it was attached as an amendment to the Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014, which passed unanimously earlier this year.
Don't you love Congress?
194 Republicans and 106 Democrats voted for it. 32 Republicans and 87 Democrats voted against it.
Here are the 87 Democrats:
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Katherine Clarke (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Louise Slaughter (NY-25)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Here are the 32 Republicans:
Justin Amash (MI-03)
David Brat (VA-07)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Curt Clawson (FL-19)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
David Jolly (FL-13)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Richard Nugent (FL-11)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Dennis Ross (FL-15)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Mike Simpson (ID-02)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Glenn Thompson (PA-05)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
If you were to actually look for the NDAA on the House Clerk's website, you might have trouble at first. Then you will realize that it was attached as an amendment to the Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014, which passed unanimously earlier this year.
Don't you love Congress?
After Passing Corporate Tax Cuts, Congress Decides to Fund New Program by Cutting Medicare
Yesterday, the House voted to extend a slew of corporate tax breaks 378 to 46.
After that, they passed the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act, a bill that creates tax-free savings accounts for people with disabilities. The bill was bipartisan, with 380 co-sponsors almost evenly divided between the two parties.
However, although Republicans were fine to pass "unfunded," deficit-increasing tax breaks, they demanded an offset for the ABLE Act.
So where did they get the money?
After that, they passed the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act, a bill that creates tax-free savings accounts for people with disabilities. The bill was bipartisan, with 380 co-sponsors almost evenly divided between the two parties.
However, although Republicans were fine to pass "unfunded," deficit-increasing tax breaks, they demanded an offset for the ABLE Act.
So where did they get the money?
The bill makes up for the cost of the tax-free accounts by making a number of changes to Medicare payments and other provisions, including a nine-cent raise in the cargo fuel excise tax, charging 15 percent more on certain federal payments to Medicare providers as a means to collect taxes, and raising the age by one year at which Social Security disability insurance benefits would kick in. It also would stop Medicare payments for penis pumps, among other things.Ah, yes, Congress decides to cut from Social Security and Medicare.
Say what you will about penis pumps (some have laughed at them, others defended them), but Congress should not be dipping into Medicare to fund other programs. It sets a bad precedent.
Nevertheless, the bill passed with a wide bipartisan majority of 404 to 17.
12 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against it.
The 5 Republicans were Justin Amash (MI-03), Jim Bridenstine (OK-01), Tim Huelskamp (KS-01), Walter Jones (NC-03), and Mark Sanford (SC-01).
Here are the 12 Democrats:
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
David Scott (GA-13)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Here is DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23) on her vote:
And here is Jim McDermott:
Nevertheless, the bill passed with a wide bipartisan majority of 404 to 17.
12 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against it.
The 5 Republicans were Justin Amash (MI-03), Jim Bridenstine (OK-01), Tim Huelskamp (KS-01), Walter Jones (NC-03), and Mark Sanford (SC-01).
Here are the 12 Democrats:
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
David Scott (GA-13)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Here is DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23) on her vote:
"I am a co-sponsor of the ABLE Act, a laudable piece of legislation meant to help people with disabilities set up tax-free savings accounts. However, I decided not to vote for the bill once Republicans insisted on funding it by making permanent cuts to Medicare. I cannot in good conscience support Medicare cuts that will have a direct impact on the care that some seniors receive. At a time when we are concerned about the long-term solvency of Medicare and looking for ways to strengthen the program, cutting it is bad policy. I believe there were plenty of other pay-for options the Congress could have considered to fund the ABLE Act."Here is Chairman of the Democratic Caucus Xavier Becerra as well:
“It's a laudable and worthy goal to incentivize savings and ensure that families of individuals with disabilities have access to the resources they need. But Congress has a responsibility to ensure that limited resources benefit those who need the help the most. Unfortunately, this bill is yet another example of an upside-down tax code that provides the greatest benefits to those of greatest means, not to middle class families living paycheck to paycheck.
"Additionally, using Medicare savings to offset non-health related programs sets a dangerous precedent. While there are elements to this bill that both sides can agree on, this bill takes one step forward and two steps back."Here is Mark Takano:
“When it was first introduced, I proudly co-sponsored the ABLE Act, which would establish tax-preferred savings accounts for Americans with disabilities. Undoubtedly, these accounts would have helped millions of individuals and families cover many different needs.
“However, throughout the legislation process, Members of the House who are in favor of doing away with our safety net saw the ABLE Act as a way to cut Social Security benefits. I have long promised to vote against any piece of legislation that would cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, and even though I supported the original intent of this bill, I could not vote in favor of this modified version.”
And here is Jim McDermott:
"The ABLE Act isn't the issue here. The issue is how we're going to pay for it," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). "Mark my words, when it comes time to offer another tax break, my colleagues on the other side will come after Medicare again. And the next time the cut will be deeper and easier because we did it today."
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
House Votes 378 to 46 to Give Corporate America a Big Christmas Present
Today, the House voted to give corporate America a big Christmas present: lots and lots of tax breaks.
Although many Democrats have been pushing for a two-year tax extender package, the House decided to vote to retroactively extend over 50 tax breaks that expired in 2013 for just one year.
Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, had the following to say about the vote:
Although many Democrats have been pushing for a two-year tax extender package, the House decided to vote to retroactively extend over 50 tax breaks that expired in 2013 for just one year.
Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, had the following to say about the vote:
“The bill passed today does little for working families, but lots for corporations already booking big profits. Too many Americans are working in jobs that don’t sustain their families. Nearly 75% of the tax breaks in the package will make their struggle to attain the American Dream even tougher.
“The bill is full of deficit-financed corporate giveaways that won’t stimulate the economy or help working Americans. The bill retroactively restores the bonus depreciation tax break, which doesn’t increase economic growth because it helps companies pay for equipment they’ve already purchased. It also costs $1.49 billion. The active financing exemption allows companies to keep a huge amount of profits overseas and costs $5 billion. The bill also provides tax breaks for motorsports tracks such as NASCAR ($33 million) and racehorses ($45 million).
“If I could vote to support provisions in the bill that help low-income families and their communities, I would. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit creates 100,000 affordable housing units each year. The exclusion for mortgage debt forgiveness helps families selling underwater homes avoid a huge tax bill if the bank forgives the difference between their selling price and their original purchase price. The New Market Tax Credit encourages investments in low-income communities around the country.
“But the bad clearly outweighs the good in this bill. It also doesn’t raise any revenue to fill the hole left by corporate tax breaks, which means Republicans will say we can’t afford to renew unemployment insurance, expand Head Start or invest to rebuild our roads, schools and bridges.
“Today’s package gives away too much to big business, while doing little to help working families make ends meet.”(emphasis added)
The "Tax Increase Prevention Act" passed easily 378 to 46. 20 Democrats and 26 Republicans opposed it.
Here are the 20 Democrats:
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
Here are the 26 Republicans:
Justin Amash (MI-03)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Curtis Clawson (FL-19)
Tom Cotton (AR-04)
Tom Duffy (WI-07)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
John Fleming (LA-04)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Andy Harris (MD-01)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
James Lankford (OK-05)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Mike Pompeo (KS-04)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Bill Shuster (PA-09)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Ed Whitfield (KY-01)
Here are the 20 Democrats:
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
Here are the 26 Republicans:
Justin Amash (MI-03)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Curtis Clawson (FL-19)
Tom Cotton (AR-04)
Tom Duffy (WI-07)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
John Fleming (LA-04)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Andy Harris (MD-01)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
James Lankford (OK-05)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Mike Pompeo (KS-04)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Bill Shuster (PA-09)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Ed Whitfield (KY-01)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)