Flag Counter The Political Freakshow • Posts Tagged ‘hypocrite’

Michele Bachmann Belittled the 2009 Stimulus, Of Which She Received Money From?!

Only in American GOP politics could this happen!

Michele Bachmann, well-known decrier of the 2009 stimulus package (THAT DID WORK!!), who called the Obama administration “corrupt” and “gangster,” has now been found to have petitioned the federal government for funds that she now hates.

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Huffington Post with three separate federal agencies reveals that on at least 16 separate occasions, Bachmann petitioned the federal government for direct financial help or aid. A large chunk of those requests were for funds set aside through President Obama’s stimulus program, which Bachmann once labeled “fantasy economics.” Bachmann made two more of those requests to the Environmental Protection Agency, an institution that she has suggested she would eliminate if she were in the White House.

Taken as a whole, the letters underscore what Bachmann’s critics describe as a glaring distance between her campaign oratory and her actual conduct as a lawmaker. Combined with previous revelations that Bachmann personally relied on a federally subsidized home loan while her husband’s business benefited from Medicaid payments, it appears that one of the Tea Party’s most cherished members has demonstrated that the government does, in fact, play a constructive role — at least in her life and district.

“It had been a longstanding tradition in Congress to be fiscally conservative in every other district other than your own,” said John Feehery, president of QGA Communications and a top adviser to former Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert. “Bachmann apparently is being a traditionalist.”

A traditionalist, perhaps, but only when the cameras are off. When President Obama crafted a $787 billion stimulus package that included historic investments in state aid, infrastructure projects, health care and education reforms as well as a large swath of tax breaks, Bachmann led a chorus of conservatives in decrying the policy.

“During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy [of spending],” she said of the stimulus and auto industry bailout during a conference in Minnesota on May 4, 2009. “It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed.”

Less than three weeks later, she went looking for her piece of the pie.

On May 20, 2009, Bachmann wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, asking him to look into an application for aid that the city of Big Lake, Minn., had made to “develop and finance the Big Lake Rail Park,” which she described as “an ambitious commercial and industrial complex which will enhance economic development and job opportunities in this rural Minnesota community.” Toward the end of the letter, she added: “We must work together to ensure job creators have access to the vital credit they need to make projects like this a success.”

On May 22, 2009, she wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking for support for the St. Cloud, Minn., Metropolitan Transit Commission’s application for federal funds to “replace twenty-three 35-foot transit buses with compressed natural gas (CNG) powered buses.”

On June 4, 2009, she wrote LaHood again seeking grant funding to extend the Northstar Corridor commuter service from Big Lake to St. Cloud.

On June 19, 2009, she made an “urgent” request to LaHood to reverse a decision by the Federal Highway Administration that undermined a project in Waite Park, Minn. The project, she noted, had already received $2.578 million in federal funding through the stimulus package and was “only awaiting the final determination” from the FHWA.

On July 2, 2009, she wrote LaHood again, pleading for money for road improvements in Waite Park. She added that she was “pleased to learn” that Minnesota’s Department of Transportation was not going to “pull the nearly $2.8 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding set aside for the project.”

On Sept. 15, 2009, Bachmann wrote six separate letters to LaHood asking for help funding six projects (the Northstar line among them) through the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. The Center for Public Integrity and MinnPost has previously reported on those letters.

On Oct. 5, 2009, she wrote Vilsack again, praising him for putting money into the nation’s beleaguered pork industry and encouraging him to help “stabilize prices through direct government purchasing.”

Five days later, she was chastising the concept of government spending in public, saying that the president’s efforts to stem the fallout of the recession amounted to a charade. “We hear about fantasy football games. This is fantasy economics,” Bachmann said.

That the Department of Transportation was the primary target of Bachmann’s quest for federal funds isn’t surprising. The congresswoman has a record of trying to protect infrastructure projects from her party’s budget cutters, arguing that transportation projects should be exempt from the ban on earmarks that the House of Representatives instituted in November 2010. She was also far from the only conservative who attempted to get her hands on some of the $12 billion in funds that DOT received under the stimulus.

“Some members refuse to take stimulus and won’t have anything to do with getting government transit money flowing into their states. Others will say that they are against the idea of the stimulus or federal money flowing into the economy but if the money is there, they are going to try and get that money flowing into their district,” said Brian Darling, a senior fellow in government studies at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

But that doesn’t necessarily absolve Bachmann from attacks from her fellow party members, Darling continued.

“Some conservatives won’t like it,” he said. “No two ways about it. They will look at it and not like it because they don’t want members trying to funnel money back to their state.”

Even more problematic, however, could be Bachmann’s attempts to get money and assistance from the EPA, an agency that she once said should be “renamed the job-killing organization of America.”

In February 2007, well before Obama was in office, Bachmann co-signed a letter to the EPA urging its officials to help fund technical assistance programs and rural water initiatives “in small communities across Minnesota.” The authors of the letter, which included nearly the entire Minnesota congressional delegation at the time, noted that FY 2006 funding for the National Rural Water Association had been set at $11 million.

“We need to continue these efforts in 2007,” they wrote.

In other communications with the EPA, Bachmann was far colder to agency policy, criticizing spring 2009 federal management standards for coal combustion byproducts and 2008 National Ambient Air Quality standards. But in other instances, Bachmann turned to the EPA for constituent-related problems. In a Feb. 2, 2010, letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, she asked the agency to support a $270,806 grant application (filed with the EPA’s Clean Diesel Grant Program) that would help a St. Cloud bus company replace two older motor coach vehicles.

“Voigt’s Bus Service, with Community Transportation, Incorporated, is committed to bringing long-term benefits to the environment and the economy and they wish to accomplish this through the Clean Diesel Grant Program,” she wrote.

More than the specific funding requests, it is Bachmann’s private acknowledgement that the EPA can facilitate positive outcomes for both the environment and the economy that stands out for conservative activists. On her campaign website, after all, Bachmann refers to the EPA as the “Job Killing Agency.”

“There is a line between representing your district and then trying to lard up on all of this pork spending, pun intended,” said Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government. “There are very few in Congress who have been able to stand strong and say, ‘No I’m not going to do this.’ And they are, in our view, the heroes … By not being part of that group [Rep. Bachmann] isn’t unique, obviously. But I think that she would owe an explanation to the public as to why she did it. Why she asked for certain things, including things from EPA when she’s been very vocal about the overreach of the EPA?”

Both Bachmann’s presidential campaign and her congressional office did not return requests for comment for this article. In the past, the congresswoman has tried to draw a distinction between the national message she imparts and her professional responsibilities as a representative from Minnesota.

“It is my obligation as a member of Congress to ensure stimulus dollars are spent on the most worthy projects. I did just that when I supported applications for the TIGER grant program,” she said last year.

While Bachmann clearly petitioned the federal government for help in multiple venues, she was incredibly unsuccessful in her efforts. Minnesota’s sixth congressional district received more than $234 million in stimulus contracts, grants and loans, according to the Obama administration’s Recovery.gov website. That may seem like a hefty bundle, but it ranks last among the state’s eight congressional districts.

A Department of Transportation official, meanwhile, tells The Huffington Post that the federal government did not end up funding a single one of the projects for which Bachmann solicited help. The department did send funds to the Minnesota state government, which in turn backed transportation initiatives in the state. But the DOT official said that only a small sliver of that pool, if any, was likely to have ended up where Bachmann wanted.

In one instance, moreover, Bachmann wrote LaHood in support of the “Cold Spring Police Department’s application for funding through the COPS hiring Recovery Program.” That program, the DOT official confirmed, is operated by the Department of Justice. Bachmann was petitioning the wrong agency.

In the end, Bachmann’s ineffectiveness in securing federal help for constituents doesn’t mitigate the fact that she sought federal help in the first place. And for Republican primary voters, who have been fed a healthy diet of anti-government rhetoric during this election cycle, that may prove to be a blot on her record.

“This will come up in the context of the battle for the Republican nomination and it will be up to Mrs. Bachmann to explain these things adequately,” said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican operative. “The task for any good candidate is to explain why they did such and such which might not conform with party orthodoxy, and then pivot very quickly to convince enough primary voters why it is they who should be the nominee and not the other contenders.”

Sounds like Bachmann got some ‘plainin to do!

-Drew, Concerned American

Texas Governor Rick Perry: Big On Prayer, Not So Much On Charity

Honestly, nothing surprises me anymore with politics. 

Rick Perry used his grandiose prayer rally to garner support for praying for the nation, and to pimp out his presidential campaign. 

However, in the midst of all that, over the last ten years, he has barely been charitable.

Being charitable is a fundamental Christian tenet and standard. Does Perry not realize that, or is he someone who “picks-and-chooses” which things to do out of the Bible?

 Texas Governor Rick Perry sounded a humble note during his speech at his national prayer event last Saturday. In front of some 30,000 people, he pivoted away from the Tea Party rhetoric that had so typified — and electrified — his audiences during the past year. Instead, Perry opted for a vague plea for charity.

After introductory remarks, Perry gushed: “Like all of you, I love this country deeply. … Indeed the only thing that you love more is the living Christ. But our hearts do break for those who suffer, those afflicted by the loss of loved ones, the pain of addiction, the strife that they may find at home, those who have lost jobs, who have lost their homes, people who have lost hope.”

Benevolent charity has long been a cornerstone of conservative social policy, whether in the form of a religious group organizing large-scale relief programs or a quiet donor giving a helping hand to an individual man or woman. But how well conservative politicians might practice what they preach varies dramatically.

Rick Perry has had steady work as a politician since the mid-1980s, and his income increased dramatically when he became governor of Texas in 2000. Between 2000 and 2009,

he has earned $2.68 million, according to the Houston Chronicle

.

That’s a lot of means and opportunity to give back to all those who have lost their jobs, suffered through a harrowing addiction or endured a housing foreclosure.

And Texas has plenty of people in need, whether it’s the chronically unemployed in the Rio Grande Valley or the men and women huddled in Austin’s crowded shelters.

Yet Perry’s money hasn’t answered many prayers. A review of his tax records from the mid-1990s through 2009 show the governor has contributed very little to charity. When he has, Perry has given mainly to charities connected to his family, and even then, his donations have sometimes been slight. An analysis by the San Antonio Express-News in mid-June reported that of his $2.68 million, Perry “gave half a percent to churches and religious organizations, or $14,243.”

The Express-News goes on to note: “By comparison, Americans averaged gifts of nearly 1.2 percent of their incomes to churches and religious groups from 2004 to 2008, according to Empty Tomb Inc., an Illinois-based research firm specializing in U.S.-church giving trends.”

When asked about the governor’s contributions, a senior Perry adviser told The Huffington Post that Perry is not wealthy and never has been. The adviser did not know the details of Perry’s various donations. The Governor’s Office did not return a request for comment.

In 1996, Tax records show [PDF], the Perrys reported $182,318 in adjusted gross income with just $626 in gifts. Of that, $400 was non-cash donations to Goodwill. Most of the rest went to groups with a Perry tie: $100 to Perry’s alma mater Texas A&M, $76 to an A&M booster group and $50 to Helping Hand Home for Children.

In 1998, according to tax records [PDF], the Perrys donated to their children’s school, O’Henry Middle School. Their handout totaled $10. The Perrys later gave larger donations to Austin High School, when their two children attended in 2002 and 2003: They gave $50 each year to the school.

In 2007, tax records report [PDF] the couple donating a total of $90 to their church at the time, Tarrytown United Methodist. That year, they gave a total of $413 in cash contributions to charity. Their adjusted gross income was more than $1 million.

For many of his years in statewide elected office, Perry gave more in old clothes and used household items than cash. Goodwill and other thrift stores benefited the most from his largesse.

In 2002, the Perry family claimed in tax filings [PDF] $8,970 worth of clothes and shoes that they donated at a fair market value of $1,794.

In 2005, the Perry family claimed [PDF] one donation of clothing, shoes, and video equipment that came to $10,000 with a deductible market value of $5,000.

While it is impossible to know whether the Perrys overvalued their donations to Goodwill, experts on charitable giving say there is often a tendency to overvalue one’s discarded goods. In any case, the Perrys were not scrutinized for the donations.

“It is hard to know what kinds of donations Gov. Perry has made to our organization,” Jesús DeLeón-Serratos, communications manager for Goodwill Industries of Central Texas, said in an email to The Huffington Post. “While we do hand out receipts to be completed by donor (in compliance with IRS regulations — we are not responsible for the valuation of a donated item), we do not ask for personal information and do not track who gave what.”

DeLeón-Serratos said Goodwill was honored to get the donations from Perry. “We hope he continues to make donations to Goodwill and that he supports our efforts to find ways to put more Texans to work,” he said. “Whatever he donates, it definitely helps fund our mission through our workforce development programs.”

In 2007, the year the couple listed more than $1 million in income after selling their home, Anita Perry donated a silk beaded dress she had purchased for $7,500. She pegged the value at $2,500 in her donation to Austin’s Settlement Home For Children, where she sits on the advisory board.

The Home, along with Tarrytown United Methodist Church, where the family worshiped for many years, was the biggest recipient of Perry charity.

Andi Kelly, spokeswoman for the Settlement Home, said the Perrys have long donated clothing and other items for the organization’s charity garage sale fundraiser, as well as given cash contributions. The annual garage sale nets close to $500,000 for the home each year to support programs for abused and neglected children in the Austin area.

Anita Perry’s “connection to us stems from her platform for helping children and empowering women, which aligns with the mission of The Settlement Home for Children,” Kelly said in an email.

The Perrys have given large donations to other groups with a personal connection as well. In 2008, they gave $9,996 to the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault — a nonprofit where Anita Perry worked.

“We were pleasantly surprised,” recalled Torie Camp, the group’s deputy director. “We did not know it was coming.”

Perry did give more in some years than in others. In 2005, Perry gave more than $23,000, or about 12 percent of his income, to charity. While $6,235 of that value was in unwanted clothes, furniture and video equipment, he wrote checks for $5,000 to the United Fund of Cross Plains, Texas and almost $3,500 to the Helping Hand Home for Children. His increased giving may have come as a result of the pay raise he received that year.

Perry’s inconsistent track record on charitable giving puts him in the company of at least one other Republican candidate. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, is able to raise significant sums for organizations whose goal is to promote him and his brand, but when it comes to collecting funds for charity, the fundraising magic disappears. In 2009, tax records show, the Gingrich Foundation gave away just $135,000 to various organizations; Renewing American Leadership, Gingrich’s right-wing Christian non-profit with heavy ties the evangelical community, spent more than double that amount just on promotional mailings.

Michael Nilsen of the Association of Fundraising Professionals said Perry’s giving is “about average from what I’ve seen. Lower in some years, a little higher in some years” compared to other people in his income bracket.

Ken Berger, president of the watchdog group Charity Navigator, said someone in Perry’s income bracket typically donates 3 to 4 percent of his or her income. “Some years he’s below, some years above. Some years in the mid-range,” he said, adding that Perry appears to have upped his contributions once he moved into the governor’s mansion.

“Most of this is not showing a great philanthropist and also not showing anything significantly out of the norm,” Berger said.

What is so typical of some politicians is that they will make lots of money, but then turn around and not help anyone but themselves.

Hypocrites!

“Many Republican candidates are, in fact, holding fast to the no-new-taxes position that Bush embraced and then abandoned, even as they try to portray themselves as friends of senior citizens and the disadvantaged. Others are sounding more and more like populist Democrats. ‘Unlike some folks around here, I think everyone should pay their fair share, including the rich,’ Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., says in a campaign ad.” [Associated Press, 10/28/90]

“A twist of untraditional Republicanism is added to McConnell’s message when he says, ‘Unlike some folks around here, I think everyone should pay their fair share, including the rich. We need to protect seniors from Medicare cuts too,’” wrote Roll Call reporter Steve Lilienthal. “After proclaiming his independence from the President and Congressional leaders, McConnell reassures voters that he will back a ‘fair deal for the working families of Kentucky.’” [“Democrats Flood Airwaves Charging GOP Party of Rich,” Roll Call, 11/5/1990]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, back in 1990, supported raising taxes on the rich.

YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY!!

Source: thinkprogress.org

Florida, Your Governor Pays Less For Health Insurance Than Regular-State Employees, And You're Footing The Bill!!!

Millionaire and “Obamacare” basher Governor Rick Scott pays only $360 a year for his health insurance, by taking advantage of Florida’s low-cost program financed by taxpayers. Scott, a former hospital chain executive who once ran Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, which criticized the health care overhaul, is not accepting a gubernatorial salary. But he did decide to enroll in the state’s low-cost health program. Most of Florida’s insured state employees pay $50 a month for health insurance or $180 for family coverage. Scott, however, is one of an elite group of high-ranking officials—including legislators, judges and department heads—who are eligible for “special exempt service” at a lower rate. The governor’s office refused to address questions on why Scott signed up, claiming it was a private matter. Florida has one of the highest uninsured rates in the nation, but Scott contends that President Barack Obama’s health care law was a bad idea and should be overturned. Scott’s own involvement in the health care industry is controversial. He built his business, Columbia/HCA, into the world’s largest health care company. But his aggressive quest for profits rubbed many people wrong, and in 1997 he was kicked out by his own board of directors. Columbia/HCA was forced to plead guilty to overbilling state and federal health programs and paid a fine of $1.7 billion.-David Wallechinsky, Noel Brinkerhoff

Mitt Romney attacks President Obama for not having a jobs plan unveiled till September 6th…then, proceeds to announce that he is releasing a jobs plan of his own…but here’s the catch:

ROMNEY’S DOESN’T COME OUT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6TH ALSO!!!

What a hypocrite!!

-Drew, Concerned American

Cantor Double-Speak: He Was Against Bill To Offset Disaster Relief in 2004, Now He Wants Budget Cuts To Offset Disaster Relief

Just another example that Republicans only want one thing…to go against ANYTHING President Obama supports, EVEN IF THEY SUPPORTED IT OR STARTED THE BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

The debate over whether money spent on disaster relief in the wake of Hurricane Irene should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere has turned into a proxy fight over the role and reach of the federal government. And it’s producing its fair share of contortions on Capitol Hill.

Some of the same voices demanding cuts in exchange for relief today balked at applying such fiscal restraints in the past. That list includes the most vocal champion of offsetting the costs of repairing the damage caused by Hurricane Irene, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who recently said that “just like any family would operate when it’s struck with disaster,” Congress would “have to make sure there are savings elsewhere” to pay for the aftermath of the storm.

Yet a bemused Democratic source notes that in October 2004, Cantor voted against an amendment to an emergency supplemental bill for disaster aid that would have “fully offset” the cost of that supplemental with “a proportional reduction of FY05 discretionary funding” elsewhere. Funding for defense, homeland security, and veterans was exempted from the proposed cuts. But the amendment, introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), would do precisely what Republican leadership is proposing to do now.

“Many, many members have come to the floor to decry deficit spending. It will be interesting to see how many of them truly want to do something about it and support this amendment,” Hensarling said in his floor speech defending his amendment. “Mr. Chairman, the true question before us is, who will tighten their belt to pay for this $10.9 billion of hurricane damage? Families, or government? I vote for the government. Opponents of this amendment will argue that it will gut vital government programs. I simply reject that notion.”

The 2004 emergency supplemental was proposed after five hurricanes hit the United States, including Tropical Storm Gaston, which did damage to Cantor’s home district of Richmond. But Irene and this summer’s east-coast earthquake also hit Virginia, meaning that provincial interests aren’t necessarily what changed Cantor’s tune.

So what then accounts for the new approach to disaster relief? The size of the national debt, the majority leader’s spokesman Brad Dayspring emails.

[T]he national debt at the time was under $8 trillion and was $8.67 trillion when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, Today the debt stands at $14.625, meaning that while Democrats controlled the purse string, the national debt literally exploded. We are living in different times. Majority Leader Cantor, Whip [Kevin] McCarthy and Chairman [Paul] Ryan wrote an entire book last year about how the previous Republican majority lost its way, particularly on spending issues. That was one of the major reasons the Republican majority became the Republican minority from 2006-2010. House Republicans then ran, and won, an election pledging to be responsible stewards of federal tax dollars.

People and families affected by these disasters will certainly get what they need from their federal government. The goal should always be to find ways to pay for what is needed or to find offsets whenever possible, that is the responsible thing to do. Is the suggestion that Congress should completely ignore the $14 trillion debt and make no effort to try to pay for things? That seems quite extreme. People also expect their government to spend their dollars wisely, and to make efforts to prioritize and save when possible. They aren’t and shouldn’t be considered mutually exclusive concepts.

Cantor was hardly the only Republican in 2004 to cast aside calls to offset disaster relief with spending cuts. Hensarling’s amendment died upon introduction after it was opposed by 127 House Republicans and all but one Democrat. The federal assistance provided to Richmond following Gaston totaled nearly $20 million, according to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. Few complained that that money had increased the national debt. Indeed, as Senate Democrats have pointed out, Congress has approved 33 emergency appropriations for disaster relief since 1989 without offsetting that money with cuts elsewhere.

It should also be noted that while the Federal Emergency Management Agency has insisted that disaster aid won’t be hampered by budget battles, administrator Craig Fugate has said that the agency’s Federal Disaster Relief Fund has fallen to less than $800 million. The fund faces a potential $5 billion shortfall for the upcoming budget year, before accounting for Irene, which is estimated to have caused billions more in damage.

When will the Republicans figure out that the American people are on to them and their stupid hostage games they play with every American’s daily lives?

-Drew, Concerned American

Rep. Peter King, Supporter of Terrorist Group IRA, Speaks Before Parliament About Muslim Radicalization

Tomorrow, the British Parliament will hold a hearing on the “roots of violent radicalisation” in the Muslim community in that country. The first witness before the committee will be Rep. Peter King (R-NY). King will reportedly be the first member of Congress to ever address a committee of Parliament.

While there is nothing wrong with hosting a hearing examining violent radicalization among British Muslims — just as the British government is probing radicalization among the far-right in Britain — it is a serious error in judgment to invite King. The congressman has been both a vocal supporter of anti-British terrorism in the past and conducted one-sided terror hearings in the U.S. more intended to paint all Muslims with a broad brush than delve into the roots of radicalization.

As Salon’s Justin Elliott documented earlier this year, King was a vocal supporter of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) while it was committing terrorism against British civilians. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally, King said the United States should pledge “support” for the “brave men and women” using terrorism to resist the British presence in Northern Ireland:

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.”

King, who has said Muslims are “an enemy living among us” and that there are “too many mosques in this country,” is not an appropriate “expert” to testify about radicalization in the United States. Additionally, multiple witnesses that King had wanted to call during his own investigation had to withdraw or be dis-invited due to their anti-Muslim bias. One witness withdrew because he was involved with a militia that tortured and killed Muslims, and another was rejected because of her stridently anti-Muslim views targeting not just extremism but the religion itself.

Despite the fact that almost twice as many terror plots since 9/11 came from non-Muslim groups, King refused to widen his hearings to examine radicalization in other areas. He even questioned the patriotism of Muslims in the United States, accusing the community of not cooperating with law enforcement authorities — despite the fact that around a third of terror plots that have been broken up since the 9/11 attacks were broken up with the help and assistance of Muslim American communities.

It hardly seems fitting to invite a man who has been involved in advocating for anti-British terror groups and whose own investigation into Muslim terror was incompetent and politicized to be the first Member of Congress to ever testify before Parliament on an issue as important to address as homegrown Muslim radicalization

Ahh, Pat Robertson, always good for a fun quote or two. On his 700 Club, the religious broadcaster told Tuesday’s audience that if your spouse has Alzheimer’s, it’s OK to divorce him or her. He wouldn’t “put a guilt trip” on anyone who took such a step, he said. When asked by his co-host about that pesky little “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health” part of the marriage vows, Robertson explained, “If you respect that vow, you say ‘til death do us part.’ This is a kind of death.” The topic came up as Robertson was advising a viewer whose friend started dating again after his wife developed the disease, the AP reports. “I know it sounds cruel,” Robertson responded, “but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.” He also advised, “Get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer.” Click for more memorable Pat Robertson quotes.

Tell me again why this un-Christian hypocrite is allowed to spout his geriatric nonsense!

No one in their right mind would leave or divorce a spouse, simply because he/she has Alzheimers.

Wait, didn’t Newt Gingrich hand his wife divorce papers while she was in cancer treatment?

Must be a right-wing thing.

-Drew, Concerned American

Source: newser.com

Paul Ryan Wants To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class, And Lower Them On The Rich!!

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) resumed his attacks on President Obama’s economic policy Sunday morning, suggesting that the President’s plan to tax millionaires’ profits from capital gains in order to fund job creation efforts constitutes “class warfare”:

RYAN: It adds further instability to our system — more uncertainty — and it punishes job creation and those people who create jobs. Class warfare, Chris, may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics. We don’t need to divide people and prey on people’s fear and envy and anxiety. We need to remove the barriers so entrepreneurs can hire people. These tax increases don’t work. […]

This is a double tax… If we tax investment and tax more you will get less of it. It looks like to me not a very good sign. It looks like the President wants to move down the class warfare path. Class warfare will simply divide this country more, will attack job creators,  divide people, and it doesn’t grow the economy.

Watch it:

Ironically, Ryan was simultaneously calling for an end to the current temporary tax cuts, which would raise taxes by 50 percent on those making less than $106,000. While launching accusations of “class warfare,” Ryan is the one who would prefer that people with less money pay more, while those with more money keep more.

As Warren Buffett pointed out last month, the mega-rich pay “practically nothing” in payroll taxes and instead pay far lower tax rates on passive investment income. Congress has “coddled” billionaires, Buffett argued, rather than calling on them for serious “shared sacrifice.”

Ryan is clearly attempting to paint the President as being responsible for the growing divide between the middle class and richest Americans. In reality, it’s House Republicans who are rejecting all of Obama’s plans to create and protect jobs for all Americans. If millionaires’ capital gains were the key to creating jobs, the jobs would exist by now.

Surprise, Surprise: Rick Santorum Supported Individual Health Insurance Mandate in the 1994 Republican Primary

Rick Santorum regularly highlights his conservative record on health care reform by touting his successful election against former Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA), a Democratic champion of universal health care reform who campaigned on guaranteeing insurance for all Americans by encouraging employers and employees to share the cost of health benefits. “When I ran for the Senate in 1994, I ran against the man who was the author of Hillarycare in the United States Senate,” Santorum told Charles Krauthammer during an appearance on Fox News in October. “And I ran on a patient-driven, consumer-driven health healthcare system that is consistent with the philosophy of America, which is free markets, build it from the bottom up.” He expanded on the message following his surprising second-place finish in Iowa, “I’ve never been for government-run health care, never,” Santorum said to a crowd in Manchester, New Hampshire on Jan. 5. “Unlike the other two folks who are running here, who have supported individual mandates, who have supported top-down government health care, I never have.”

But as The French Revolution’s Nancy French discovers, Santorum did advocate for an individual requirement to purchase health insurance coverage — not in his general election challenge to Wofford, but in the Republican primary against businessman Joe Watkins. Watkins also backed the provision:

Allentown, PA’s Morning Call from April 7, 1994:

U.S. Rep. Rick Santorum, R-Pittsburgh area, and Joe Watkins, a Philadelphia businessman who worked in the Bush White House, are seeking the Republican Senate nomination, creating the only true Senate primary race….Santorum and Watkins both called for a “comprehensive restructuring” of health care. But they differed sharply on what elements should comprise a basic benefits package.

Watkins would include mental health services, long-term care, prescription drug coverage, dental services and preventive care such as immunizations. Santorum would not. Both reject abortion services. Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance. Both oppose higher taxes on alcohol or tobacco to help pay for care. They also oppose government-run health care and disagree with controls on doctor or hospital fees. They would cap malpractice awards.

Allentown, PA’s Morning Call from May 2, 1994:

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. Both oppose abortion services and support limits on malpractice awards. Santorum says non-economic damages should not exceed $ 250,000, adjusted annually for inflation, and lawyers’ contingency fees should be capped at 25 percent. […]

Santorum introduced the idea of a medical savings account, called Medisave, which has become part of the Gramm bill. Under it, workers would buy major medical insurance and could make tax-free contributions to a Medisave account, from which they would pay for preventive services.

Many Republicans who now argue that the Affordable Care Act’s individual requirement is unconstitutional supported a national mandate as an alternative to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal. In that sense, Santorum is in very good company. He joins Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Chuck Grassley, and Orrin Hatch and a growing list of prominent Republicans who came out against the conservative principle of personal responsibility in health care as soon as President Obama endorsed it.

Newt Gingrich Wants School Kids to Work As Janitors, But He Didn't Want to Work Himself As An Adolescent, Teenager, and Young Adult

Newt Gingrich has made headlines and raised eyebrows on the campaign trail for proposing to make poor children work as janitors in their school, saying it would help them understand the value of work and money.

But apparently, even on child janitorial work, Gingrich is employing a double standard. As Karen Tumulty notes, in a 1995 Vanity Fair profile, Gingrich seemed to refuse to get a job as a student. From the profile:

Newt, who avoided Vietnam with student and marriage deferments, resisted taking a job. During his college years, Newt called up his father and stepmother to ask for financial help. His stepmother, Marcella McPherson, can still hear his exact words: “I do not want to go to work. I want all my time for my studies…Bob Gingrich told me he will not help me one bit. So I wondered, would you people help me?” Big Newt began sending him monthly checks.

Dolores Adamson, Gingrich’s district administrator from 1978 to 1983, remembers, “Jackie [Gingrich’s first wife] put him all the way through school. All the way through the P.h.D…He didn’t work.” Adds Adamson, “Personal funds have never meant anything to him. He’s worse than a six-year-old trying to keep his bank balance…Jackie did that.”

Mitt Romney Wants to Defund Planned Parenthood, Yet He Went to One of Their Events in 1994

Yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney joined the religious right in supporting the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and said the government should do the same.

Of course, Romney’s past support for the right to choose has been well documented, but Romney’s connection to Planned Parenthood has been largely overlooked.

Mitt and Ann Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Massachusetts in 1994, and Ann wrote a $150 check to the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, various news outlets reported. “They were both there, and I remember very well chatting with both of them, and talking about his support for the pro-choice agenda,” Nicki Nichols Gamble, the president of the League told ABC News in 2007.

That year, the Boston Globe published this photo, which purportedly shows Romney at the fundraiser:


Asked about the fundraiser four years ago, Romney didn’t outright deny attending. “I attend a lot of events when I run for office. I don’t recall the specific event,” he told the AP in South Carolina four years ago.

During his successful race for Governor of Massachusetts 2002, Romney also signed a pro-choice pledge organized by Planned Parenthood.

See Think Progress’ full rundown of Mitt Romney’s evolving attitudes towards abortion.

Mitt Romney Touts His Record As Job Creator in Massachusetts...Yet, In Reality, The Economy Was "Below Average and Often Near the Bottom" During Romney's Governorship

Mitt Romney has built his presidential campaign on his expertise as a job creator, telling crowds at campaign rallies that only he has the experience to create the jobs our economy needs. His critique of President Obama’s performance, meanwhile, pulls no punches, as Romney often claims (falsely) that Obama “made the economy worse.”

Romney prefers to focus on his past as a corporate executive at Bain Capital, where he often invested in companies and laid off workers while reaping huge profits. But a closer look at Romney’s governorship of Massachusetts, from 2003 to 2007, reveals that his “experience” as a job-creator isn’t all that great. In fact, Massachusetts lagged behind the nation in virtually every economic measure, Andrew Sum, an economics professor at Northeastern University, told the Washington Post:

“There was not one measure where the state did well under his term in office. We were below average and often near the bottom,” said Sum, who is also the director of Northeastern’s Center for Labor Market Studies.

Romney’s campaign points out that he took over the state during a downturn, which is true. But Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation during Romney’s time as governor, and by the beginning of the Great Recession, it still had not replaced 100,000 jobs lost to the 2001 recession, making it one of only four states not to have replaced all its lost jobs over that time period. The state’s jobs record during that time more closely resembled those of Rust Belt manufacturing states like Michigan and Ohio than the high-tech economies of New York and North Carolina, two states to which it had once compared itself.

While the unemployment rate under Romney did fall, it was largely due to contraction of the labor force — a criticism Romney has often leveled at Obama. According to Sum, the only state that saw a sharper drop in its labor force during Romney’s tenure was Louisiana, the state that was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Without Romney in command, the state’s economy has rebounded much faster from the next recession it faced, creating jobs at nearly twice the national rate and ranking in the top 10 nationally. Romney is banking his presidential campaign on his experience creating jobs and leading an economy out of a downturn. If these numbers are any indication, that’s an experience the American people may not want.

Mitt Romney Receives Money From Contraceptive Companies He’s Planning to Restrict In Giving Birth Control

Mitt Romney has attacked the Obama administration’s regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide reproductive health care services — including contraception — by arguing that the rule is undermining the religious liberties of Catholics and imposing “a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.” As ThinkProgress has reported, Romney’s newfound sensitivities contradict his record as governor of Massachusetts — where he accepted a very similar contraception equity law — and his previous public commitments to increasing public funding for birth control. In 2005, Romney even asked the Massachusetts Department of Health to issue regulations requiring all hospitals to issue emergency contraception to rape victims, without providing an exception for Catholic hospitals.

Now, an examination of Romney’s financial investments reveals that the very same GOP frontrunner who is now petitioning the White House to extend the regulation’s conscience clause and exclude more women from the benefits of birth control is himself invested in and profiting from pharmaceutical companies that produce the frequently prescribed and extremely common medication:

Romney’s Goldman Sachs 2002 Exchange Place Fund, valued at over a million dollars in 2010, brought in nearly $600,000 in gains in 2010 and is invested in:

- Watson Pharmaceuticals: manufacturer of nine forms of emergency contraception (which Romney incorrectly identifies as “abortifacients“).
- Johnson & Johnson: launched the first U.S. prescription birth control product in 1931 and produces various forms of birth control.
- Merck: produces various forms of birth control
- Mylan: produces birth control medication and filed the first application for a generic birth control pill last year.
- Pfizer: a contraception producer that recently had to recall about a million packs of birth-control pills that weren’t packaged correctly.

Romney often disclaims any responsibility for or knowledge of his own investments by claiming that they are held in a private trust. But since filing his legally-required public financial disclosure reports and certifying that the information is “true, complete, and correct” to the best of his knowledge, the trust ceased to be a “blind trust” as he knew what was in it. Romney signed such disclosure forms last August and during his unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid in August 2007.

Source: thinkprogress.org

Sen. Scott Brown Criticizes Obama's Contraception Rule, When In The Past He Voted For A Stricter Rule

Last week, responding to an outcry from Catholic leaders and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, the Obama administration modified regulations requiring insurers and employers to provide contraception as part of their health care plans without additional co-payments. Under the new rule, religiously affiliated colleges, universities, and hospitals that raise religious objections to birth control can decline the benefit and their employees will still receive contraception coverage directly from the insurer.

Most Republicans are not satisfied with the modification, however, and are co-sponsoring legislation that would significantly broaden the conscience exclusion. On Monday night, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) joined the pack, with a spokesperson telling the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that the senator “appreciates President Obama’s willingness to revisit this issue, but believes it needs to be clarified through legislation” that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it.

But Massachusetts already requires insurers to carry contraceptive coverage for women and Brown voted for the provision as a member of the Massachusetts Assembly on Jan. 30, 2002, ThinkProgress has learned. At the time, the Catholic Conference of Massachusetts, lobbied against the measure and urged lawmakers to adopt an amendment exempting organizations that are affiliated with the Catholic church or have a moral objection to contraception. Brown supported that provision, but once it failed in a vote of 106 to 49, he voted ‘YES’ on the underlying bill, which only exempted “an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization” from offering birth control:

Since Obama’s new federal standard would allow church-affiliated nonprofits to eschew birth control coverage, it could offer greater conscience protections to Massachusetts’ Catholic colleges, universities, and hospitals. For instance, if Boston College is required to provide birth control under the Brown-approved law, it could drop the coverage — and leave the matter to its insurer — under Obama’s regulation.

Interestingly, Brown also voted for a 2005 bill mandating hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, even after lawmakers defeated his amendment to allow religious hospitals to opt out of the requirement. Brown split with then-Gov. Mitt Romney on the matter and joined the legislature in overriding his veto.

Brown’s office did not immediately respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment.

Top