Tag Archives: Joe Lieberman

Beware Wannabe Speakers Bearing Gifts

13 Monday Sep 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, Democrats, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Speaker-in-waiting (he hopes) John Boehner says a few reasonable sounding words on Face the Nation and the headlines are about a ‘shift in policy,’ a ‘crack in Republican solidarity,’ a ‘victory for the Obama administration,’ and ‘Republicans caving on the tax cut battle.’ Three words of advice:

Don’t buy it.

First, why would anyone believe a word Boehner says? Then look at the entirety of his comments. Yes, he said,  “If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for it.” He also added, “But I’m going to do everything I can to fight to make sure that we extend the current tax rates for all Americans.” One hand giveth, the other taketh away.

Here’s what the Orangeman is doing as I see it. One, he’s taking a campaign issue away from the Democrats. He’s not going to let them beat the GOP over the head with ‘defenders of the rich’ for the next seven weeks, so he appears to show willingness to compromise.

Two, Boehner uses the qualifier “if the only option I have is…” because he knows that’s not the only option he’s going to have. He knows that, like everything else, the battle over extending the tax cuts is going to be in the Senate, not in the House. He knows that there are already 4 Democratic Senators—Bayh, Conrad, Nelson, and Webb—plus Joe Lieberman, who have come out in support of extending all the tax cuts for at least some period of time.

That’s why he also said this during the interview: “I don’t control the agenda on Capitol Hill. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do…”

Here he’s painting the Democrats into somewhat of a corner. He and the Republicans can say, ‘See, it’s not us, it’s them. We’re not the obstructionists here. We’re willing to compromise but the president can’t get members of his own party to go along with him.’

Boehner hasn’t turned reasonable, it’s all a political calculation. Caveat emptor—let the buyer beware.

The Unintended Consequences of Lieberman’s Law

06 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in Politics, Republicans, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the ‘Be Careful What You Ask For You Just Might Get It’ Department comes this from Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog concerning Joe Lieberman’s proposal to strip citizenship from Americans affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations:

“Lieberman’s law would amend an earlier statute that details other things that can cost you citizenship: Serving in the army of a foreign state, pledging allegiance to a foreign state, and so on. In those cases the State Department decides whether your disloyalty merits loss of citizen status. Lieberman’s law would add involvement with a foreign terror organization — as opposed to a foreign state — to this list….

Who would determine whether you’re involved with a foreign terror group? The State Department. It already decides what is and isn’t designated as a terror organization. Lieberman’s law would also empower State to determine whether you are in league with one of these groups.”

Three of the organizations on the State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) are Hamas, Hezbollah, and Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Would any of these relationships count as “affiliation” with a terrorist organization?

“[Grover] Norquist is a founding director of the Islamic Institute, a socially conservative Muslim think tank that eschews international issues in favor of domestic issues such as tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. In addition, Norquist’s lobbying firm…was officially registered as a lobbyist for the Islamic Institute as well as for Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and former executive director of the American Muslim Council.

[At] an anti-Israel protest outside the White House on October 28, 2000. Alamoudi revved up the crowd, saying: ” I have been labeled by the media in New York as being a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here? ” The crowd cheered. ” Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas … I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. “

How about this interview of Tom Tancredo by John Hawkins of Right Wing News?:

John Hawkins: Let me ask you another question, it’s Iran related. I heard that you support the National Council of Resistance (NCR), a political arm of the Mujahedin-e Kalq (MEK)…

Tom Tancredo: Yes, I do.

Another MEK friend in high places:

“In June 2004 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “designated MEK members as civilian ‘protected persons’ under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention,”… Rumfeld’s “decision controverted [Department of State], International Committee of the Red Cross (IRC), and Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) recommendations…”

One more name on the State Department FTO list is the Real IRA:

“…during the 1980s and 90s, the NSA and CIA collected intelligence on financial transactions between the United States and Ireland and Northern Ireland involving Irish terrorist groups supported by Peter King. The group Irish Northern Aid (NORAID) funneled money to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) that was used to buy weapons used to blow up civilians and members of the British government, military, and police.

King was an active supporter of NORAID, a tax-exempt front for the IRA. Martin Galvin, King’s friend and former NORAID chief, rejected the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement and supports the agenda of the terrorist “Real IRA.”

Let the citizenship-stripping begin.

The End is Near: Glenn Beck is the Voice of Reason

05 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Congress, Politics, Republicans, terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

OK, it’s official, we are through the looking glass on the treatment of suspected terrorists. Glenn Beck is the voice of reason and sanity. Yes, you read that right, Glenn Beck, reason, and sanity all in the same sentence. On Fox and Friends yesterday, Beck said of Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-born American citizen arrested in the attempted Times Square bombing:

“He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. He has all the rights under the  Constitution. We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular. We do the right thing.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.The award for the most extreme, knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) reaction comes from Joe Lieberman. He proposes taking away the citizenship of those who are “affiliated” (whatever that means) with foreign terrorist organizations when they are “apprehended and charged.” 

My own Senator finds that “interesting”:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the head of of the GOP’s Senate campaign arm, is open to Lieberman’s idea. “I’m interested in Senator Lieberman’s approach. He is one of our leading members when it comes to national security issues and I would be interested in exploring that. I think at some point an act of war is a treasonous act, which could be a basis for relinquishing one’s citizenship,” he said.

I propose that we take away the citizenship of those who advocate that we take away the citizenship of others. I think that might solve the problem.

A Public Option Will Destroy Competition? What Competition?

30 Tuesday Jun 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The next time you hear one of our elected officials in Washington rail against President Obama’s proposed public option on health insurance by saying it will “destroy the marketplace” (Richard Shelby) or that there’s “plenty of competition in the private insurance market” (Joe Lieberman) remember this report from Heath Care for America Now (HCAN).

The only thing in danger of being destroyed is the monopoly the large insurance companies presently hold, and which they are willing to make any amount of campaign contributions (aka bribes) to continue.

Consider the following:

“In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven’t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated.”

“Highly concentrated,” according to the U.S. Justice Department means that one company holds more than a 42 % share of the market, a level reached in 31 states.

“In Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas, and Iowa, the two largest health insurers control at least 80% of the statewide market.”

In Senator Shelby’s own state of Alabama, Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 83% of the statewide market, the highest rate in the nation for a single company. Is this what he is intent on preserving? Apparently so.

Right here in Texas, two companies, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, control 59% of the market. Our own Senator John Cornyn was one of 9 GOP senators who sent a letter to President Obama which said “a federal government takeover of our healthcare system would take decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and place them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.” I suppose placing those decisions in the hands of an insurance company “bureaucracy” is acceptable.

But having a monopoly can be a very profitable enterprise:

“Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. In 2007 alone, the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million—an average of $11.9 million each.

That is 468 times more than the $25,434 an average American worker made that year. Moreover, the health insurance industry invests more in buying back its own stock and rewarding its shareholders than in improving system operations, reducing premiums, or in developing ways to pay doctors and hospitals fairly.”

For those of us who pay premiums however, it’s not such a sweetheart deal. They have risen more than 87%, on average, over the past 6 years. From 1999-2007, while the average U. S. wage growth was 29%, the average premium growth was 120%.

This is the status quo that Shelby, Lieberman, Cornyn, the big insurance companies, and their lobbyists want to maintain. It’s up to us to let them know that another 15 years of business as usual is unacceptable.