Posts by Steve Benen

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."

Clinton Urges Passage of Health Care Bill... Maybe He Should Have a Talk With Ben Nelson
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 17, 2009 at 5:00 PM.

'TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS'.... Former President Bill Clinton releases a statement this afternoon:

"America stands at a historic crossroads. At last, we are close to making real health insurance reform a reality. We face one critical, final choice, between action and inaction. We know where the path of inaction leads to: more uninsured Americans, more families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums, higher federal budget deficits, and health costs so much higher than any other country's they will cripple us economically.

"Our only responsible choice is the path of action. Does this bill read exactly how I would write it? No. Does it contain everything everyone wants? Of course not. But America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"And this is a good bill: it increases the security of those who already have insurance and gives every American access to affordable coverage; and contains comprehensive efforts to control costs and improve quality, with more information on best practices, and comparative costs and results. The bill will shift the power away from the insurance companies and into the hands of consumers.

"Take it from someone who knows: these chances don't come around every day. Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder -- both politically for our party and, far more important, for the physical, fiscal, and economic health of our country."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rightwing Fringe Welcome at Conservative Confab, Gay Republicans Not So Much
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 17, 2009 at 8:23 AM.

In February, the Conservative Political Action Conference will get underway in D.C., and because CPAC has become the right-wing event of the year, the conservative movement's heavy hitters are anxious to be a part of it.

But let's note who, exactly, has become part of the conservative movement. For example, the 2010 CPAC gathering will be co-sponsored by the hyper-conservative John Birch Society. While JBS was, not too long ago, considered far too ridiculous for the American mainstream -- even Republicans considered Birchers a political pariah -- the bizarre group has slowly been welcomed into the fold as conservatives have become more extreme.

When Glenn Beck embraced the Birchers two years ago, Alex Koppelman reminded us, "The JBS is, after all, the group that believed fluoridated drinking water was a Communist mind-control plot. Oh, and its founder, Robert Welch, once accused Dwight Eisenhower -- and no, we are not kidding -- of being 'a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy.'"

And now the John Birch Society is co-sponsoring CPAC. When I talk about radicalism being mainstreamed by the right, this is what I'm talking about.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Team One Step Closer to Closing Gitmo
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 15, 2009 at 7:34 AM.

FROM GITMO TO THOMSON.... This is a welcome, important step towards closing the detention facility at Gitmo once and for all.

Dozens of terrorism suspects being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be moved to a little-used Illinois state prison that will be acquired and upgraded by the federal government, an Obama administration official said.

The critical step toward fulfilling President Obama's pledge to shut the Guantanamo detention center will be announced Tuesday, said the official, who reported that Obama has ordered the acquisition of the eight-year-old Thomson Correctional Center, about 150 miles northwest of Chicago.

As part of the plan, over the next six months, federal officials will upgrade the facility, to the point that it will have a security level described as "beyond supermax."

This afternoon, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, both of whom support the transfer, will be briefed on the policy at the White House.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

This Week in God
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM.

First up from the God Machine this week is word from the Supreme Court on the upcoming term's big church-state case.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a Christian student group's right to religious liberty and the freedom of association can trump a university's ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The case could set new rules for campus groups that receive funding through fees paid by the students.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a San Francisco chapter of the Christian Legal Society, which lost its recognition as a student group at the UC Hastings College of Law because it refused to abide by the school's anti-discrimination policy.

The law school said that officially recognized student groups must be open to all.

It's pretty straightforward. The state school only funds and recognizes student groups that don't discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation." The chapter of the Christian Legal Society refuses to allow LGBT students to join, so Hastings lost its status as an official student group.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Lieberman "Irritated" By Toothless Trigger
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM.

LIEBERMAN ON 'IRRITANTS'.... Based on the general outline of the Team of Ten's compromise plan, there's a public-option trigger, but it's awfully tough to pull.

The idea is to rely on the OPM plan -- we'd have a national, non-profit health plan along the lines of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the plan for federal employees and has experience negotiating with private plans. The OPM would select non-profit plans that met government standards to participate, and they'd be available for state exchanges for consumers to select.

But what happens if insurers don't step up and the national non-profit plans don't materialize? That probably wouldn't happen, but if it does, then a public option would kick in.

So, the public option aspect of this has all been negotiated away, in exchange for other progressive goals. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), whose opposition has been based on an evolving, almost-fanatical hatred of public-private competition, has to be thrilled, right?

Wrong.

"I've told them that I can't support a trigger -- no, actually, to be more explicit: If they say that it's unlikely to be [pulled] then it's unnecessary," Lieberman said. "It's an irritant. And I keep saying to my colleagues: the underlying bill, that I would say 60 of us in the caucus support, that is, the parts that we support in the underlying bill, are so full of progress -- let's get that done, and stop trying to squeeze in things that some of us, respectfully, just won't accept."

The trigger being considered would be pulled, according to a Senate aide briefed on the compromise, if private health insurers, managed by the federal government, do not offer nation-wide non-profit plans starting in 2014. If pulled, it would create a national public option. The measure was added to the agreement at the last moment at the insistence of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). But it may still prove an obstacle to passage of the health care bill.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Sen. Jim DeMint Outraged at GOP's Shift to the Left?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM.

THE ALTERNATE REALITY.... By most measures, congressional Republicans have spent 2009 executing a scorched-earth strategy. The GOP has moved sharply to the right, has abandoned even the pretense of bipartisan cooperation, has embraced and elevated some of the more radical elements of the party's coalition, and recommended policy proposals that even some conservatives described as "insane."

And yet, there are still some Republican officials who are outraged by their party's moderation.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Howard Dean's Pleased with Health Compromise ... For Now
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM.

About a week ago, Howard Dean argued that a health care bill without a public option "is worthless and should be defeated."

Now that Senate Democrats have endorsed a compromise measure that scales back the public option to a trigger -- in exchange for Medicare buy-in and the OPM plan -- is Dean still on board with the reform effort? Actually, yes.

In a boost for the Senate health care deal reached yesterday, Howard Dean said in an interview with me moments ago that the current compromise contains "real reform," and said that as it stands now, progressives could support it.

Dean also confirmed various details about the deal that he'd learned in direct conversations with Senators involved in the discussions -- detail that news orgs had mostly attributed to anonymous sources. Dean's general support for the bill could give it a boost among progressives who say it falls short of real reform.

Dean seems to feel pretty strongly about this, making the rounds this morning to tout his (conditional) support for the new deal.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will Someone Please Explain the Meaning of "War Bond" to Ben Nelson?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 9, 2009 at 6:34 AM.

BEN'S BONDS.... I assume someone will get around to explaining the policy to him eventually.

The United States would begin financing its military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan with war bonds under new legislation introduced Tuesday.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) unveiled the "United States War Bonds Act of 2009" early this afternoon, which would authorize the Treasury Department to begin selling bonds to fund the wars.

The bonds, Nelson said, would be purposed with helping to pay for the military efforts, in particular the surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, without having to resort to the "war surtax" that has been discussed by some liberals in the House and Senate.

John Cole asked, "He really does not understand that all of our debt is structured through bond sales and the like, does he?"

No, I don't think he does.

Alex Koppelman's explanation was nice and simple: "The problem with this logic is that bonds -- even war bonds -- aren't free money. At some point, those who invested expect to be paid back, and with interest. In order to accomplish that, the government has to use money it gets from ... well, from tax dollars."

Eric Cantor on How to Create More Jobs: Umm...Create More Jobs!
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 8, 2009 at 7:25 AM.

ERIC CANTOR, POST TURTLE.... House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) visited the conservative Heritage Foundation last week to unveil what he called "a no-cost jobs plan." Andrew Leonard summarized the pitch: "Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes. That's the plan."

It was, of course, the Bush/Cheney agenda -- which helped get us in this mess in the first place -- warmed over.

A week later, Cantor appeared at the Economist's World in 2010 conference. The frequently-confused GOP leader said his party has plenty of important "big ideas" and policy proposals. The Economist's Daniel Franklin asked Cantor to identify the Republicans' big idea on jobs. Pat Garofalo reports that Cantor couldn't think of anything specific.

FRANKLIN: What is the big idea? "Jobs" is not an idea.

CANTOR: The big idea is to get, to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again.

I almost feel bad for the guy. Cantor was elected to Congress before he was able to learn anything about public policy, and was put in the GOP leadership before he could speak intelligently about any issue.

Eric Cantor as a congressional leader is a classic example of a post turtle -- you know he didn't get up there by himself; he obviously doesn't belong up there; he can't get anything done while he's there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Get Off John McCain's Lawn!
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 7, 2009 at 4:27 AM.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), his near-constant media attention notwithstanding, doesn't seem to be having any fun.

Yesterday, the senator was all worked up about Medicare cost-savings, claiming not to know what "the deal is." Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) rose to explain it to him, and McCain didn't take it especially well.

Note in the video that McCain is incensed by all the lobbyists in the halls of Congress. I guess he liked lobbyists better when he hired dozens of them to run his campaign operation last year.

The confrontation came a day after Senator Hothead told Don Imus, "I'm madder than I've ever been." The comment came in response to a question about the economic recovery package, which McCain called an "outrageous use of taxpayers' dollars."

McCain, whose temperament has always been disturbing, is angrier now than he's ever been because of a recovery package that rescued the economy from collapse? That seems odd.

I'm reminded of something Sen. Thad Cochran (R) of Mississippi said about his long-time colleague last year: "[McCain] is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Sherrod Brown Calls GOP's Bluff on Health Reform; Ruins Cheap Partisanship of Vitter, Coburn
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 4, 2009 at 10:06 AM.

Watching the Senate debate health care reform this week has been pretty frustrating. We've seen enough obstructionism, lying, and grandstanding to last quite a while, and the chamber is just getting started.

But for all the annoyances, there's been at least some entertainment. Take this story, for example.

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are preparing an amendment to force members of Congress into any public option health plan that becomes law, frustrating at least one Senate Democrat who wants to join the effort.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said he is trying to co-sponsor the amendment -- but that Coburn and Vitter won't let him.

Apparently, Coburn and Vitter, two of the most right-wing members of the chamber, think they have a clever scheme to stick it to those rascally Democrats. "They want a public option so bad?" the argument goes. "We'll show them -- we'll force them to get coverage through a public plan!"

Brown thinks that's a great idea, which basically takes away all of Coburn's and Vitter's fun.

"They've not said yes to allow me to be a co-sponsor," Brown told The Hill on Thursday. "I've called their office four times. I'm proud of the public option, I think it would be great and we ought to join it and show the country how good it is. I think my interest may be more genuine than theirs, but I'd like to work with them if they'll let me. If they just want to score partisan points, I still want to work with them."

It's Not About the Deficit, It's About Jobs
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 3, 2009 at 8:00 AM.

The White House jobs summit kicks off today, though expectations for major breakthroughs are fairly low. The event will reportedly feature "130 corporate executives, economists, small-business owners and union leaders to the White House to sound out ideas for accelerating job growth during the worst labor market in a generation." It can't hurt to kick some ideas around, but it's hard to imagine meaningful new policy proposals emerging from the forum.

The Washington Post report on the summit, however, noted that Obama administration officials are "unwilling to make any investments that would add significantly to the nation's ballooning deficit." Labor leaders have put forward ideas -- aid to cash-strapped states, more funding for infrastructure projects -- but "taken together, those initiatives could cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- a tab Obama seems unwilling to shoulder."

It reminded me of something Dean Baker said via email this week. (I'm republishing his note with his permission.)

Remember the Bush vs. Clinton debates in 1992? The highlight of the townhall debate was when a young woman asked President Bush how the debt affected him personally. He gave the normal answer about how he worries about his grandchildren blah, blah, blah.

The woman looked at Bush like he was from Mars. Then Clinton stepped up and asked the woman whether she knew people who lost their jobs. She said yes. Then Clinton went on to say that as governor of a small state, when there were layoffs, he almost certainly knew some of the people affected.

This was the sort of answer the woman was looking for. She had asked a question about the debt, but she was really asking about the economy. I think that discussions of the debt are often a placeholder for concerns about the economy.

I looked up the transcript of that '92 debate, and Dean's description is spot-on. The specific question was, "How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives. And if it hasn't, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them?"

Bush started talking about interest rates, and then transitioned to talking about his grandchildren. He eventually said, "I'm not sure I get it. Help me with the question and I'll try to answer it."

The moderator intervened: "I think she means more the recession, the economic problems today the country faces rather than the deficit."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Is Politico Coddling Dick Cheney Again?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM.

CHENEY STENOGRAPHY.... By some accounts, White House aides aren't especially impressed with Politico. It's understandable.

Take this morning, for example, where the lead Politico story, kicking off coverage of President Obama's speech on the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, is a lengthy chat with the corrupt, incompetent clown who helped create the mess the president is trying to clean up.

On the eve of the unveiling of the nation's new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting "weakness" to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits. [...]

Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. "I basically don't," he replied without elaborating.

And in response, Politico didn't elaborate either. Sure, the piece does a fine job of publishing all of the various, baseless attacks against the White House trying to clean up Cheney's messes, but the article makes no meaningful effort to tell the reader why the depraved rhetoric falls somewhere between literally unbelievable and hopelessly insane.

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama's foreign and national security policy, saying Obama's nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects "weakness" and that the president is looking "far more radical than I expected."

"Here's a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing," Cheney said. "I think our adversaries -- especially when that's preceded by a deep bow ... -- see that as a sign of weakness."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Has Obama Done More Than Any Other President in Their First Year?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 30, 2009 at 4:28 AM.

President Obama's detractors on the right believe the president has racked up some accomplishments, all of them awful. The more widespread impression among news outlets and many who voted for the president is that Obama hasn't accomplished much at all.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg has a contrarian piece this weekend, arguing that the opposite is actually true. If health care reform is completed by mid-January, Weisberg argues, the president will deliver a State of the Union address in a couple of months "having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency."

We are so submerged in the details of [the health care] debate -- whether the bill will include a "public option," limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox -- that it's easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government's role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Where Does Karl Rove Find the Nerve to Criticize Anyone About Deficits?
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 27, 2009 at 4:29 PM.

When Karl Rove helped run the White House, he accepted certain beliefs as truths. He believed, for example, turning massive surpluses into massive deficits was entirely reasonable. He believed reckless tax cuts for the already rich were an example of responsible governing. He believed expanding the size of government, adding to entitlements, increasing the federal role in education, and putting it all on future generations' tab, was perfectly sensible. He believed fiscal responsibility was a punch-line.

And now that Karl Rove is outside the White House, he believes he's entitled to complain about deficits from his perch in the media establishment.

What seems to concern the president is not the problem runaway spending poses for taxpayers and the economy. Rather, what bothers him is the political problem it poses for Democrats.

Last year, Mr. Obama made fiscal restraint a constant theme of his presidential campaign. "Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending," he said back then, while pledging to "go through the federal budget, line by line, ending programs that we don't need." Voters found this fiscal conservatism reassuring.

However, since taking office Mr. Obama pushed through a $787 billion stimulus, a $33 billion expansion of the child health program known as S-chip, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations spending bill, and an $80 billion car company bailout. He also pushed a $821 billion cap-and-trade bill through the House and is now urging Congress to pass a nearly $1 trillion health-care bill.

Rove wants to see an "honest appraisal" of where we are. Good idea. The stimulus was necessary because Rove's old boss left the president an economy on the verge of wholesale collapse. S-CHIP expansion was necessary because Rove's old boss rejected a bipartisan measure to help low-income children go to the doctor. Rescuing the auto industry was necessary because it was a continuation of Rove's old boss' policy and the nation couldn't afford to cut off American manufacturing at the knees at the height of the recession. Cap and trade, Rove neglected to mention, wouldn't add to the deficit, and is necessary because Rove's old boss ignored the climate crisis for eight years. The health care reform bill would cut the deficit significantly, and is necessary because Rove's old boss fiddled while the dysfunctional health care system got worse.

That's an "honest appraisal."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »