Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3362

The video Steve King thinks he wants you to see

It's been about a year since American Bridge, a progressive group, filmed Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) comparing immigrants to dogs. As the Iowa Republican's bigotry comes into sharper focus -- and gains national notoriety -- the comments from last May continues to be relevant.

But the funny thing is, King doesn't see the problem. In fact, just yesterday, the congressman tried to use the American Bridge clip in a fundraising appeal, arguing, "In this video it is clear I complimented legal immigrants." He urges supporters to watch the clip and "make a generous donation."

Watch on YouTube

What King and his staff apparently didn't realize is that American Bridge can access its own YouTube account. Brett LoGiurato explained:

On the donation page, King's campaign embedded a YouTube video that was clipped by a tracker from American Bridge, the liberal opposition-slinging group that first spotted the comments.

In response to King using their video, American Bridge decided to have some fun with their video and made a few key alterations near its start. The first pop-up tells viewers, "Don't listen to Steve King's excuses. Comparing immigrants to dogs is offensive." The second pop-up links to a video compilation of some of King's more controversial remarks throughout his time in Congress.

Oops.

Issa seeks new angle on discredited IRS controversy

Associated Press

Remember how the IRS "scandal" first started? The inspector general for the IRS issued a report pointing to special scrutiny applied to Tea Party groups, but ignoring comparable scrutiny of progressive organizations. Why didn't IG J. Russell George provide a more accurate report highlighting trouble for groups on both sides? According to the IG himself, congressional Republicans told him to paint an incomplete picture on purpose.

The result was something of a fiasco: a controversy erupted to great fanfare, but then collapsed when we realized Tea Partiers hadn't been singled out for unfair treatment, and liberal and non-political groups faced similar IRS scrutiny. The whole "scandal" was a mirage that quickly faded.

But Republicans don't want to let go, especially after all the fun they had in May. So what happens now? As Dave Weigel reported, House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and his allies now want another "narrowly-focused" investigation from the IG's office.

In a letter from Issa and Rep. Jim Jordan, the IG is being asked to dig into reporters of tax-exempt conservative groups being subjected to audits. Based on information from conservative non-profits like the Free Congress Foundation, the Leadership Institute, and the Clare Booth Luce Institute, Issa and Jordan ask the IG whether any groups were targeted "for audits or examination based on their political beliefs or ideology." The answers on this in the first investigation were inconclusive, as were the stories, but they should be grist for something. [...]

The last couple of months suggest where this is heading. The Leadership Institute is obviously conservative, and run by longtime RNC committeeman Morton Blackwell, but plenty of liberal groups with 501 statuses are run by partisans -- and they weren't audited in 2011 or 2012, were they?

I've seen some suggestion that this means the IRS story is "expanding." That's a nice spin, but it's wrong -- this isn't expansion, it's redirection.

Issa kept trying to tap a dry well, to the point at which most sensible people decided it was time to ignore him. Desperate, the California Republican has begun digging again, assuring the political world that maybe this time he'll find something useful.

Perhaps Fox and Peggy Noonan will find these partisan antics compelling, but I'm at a loss to explain why.

Obama offers another bargain for House GOP to refuse

Associated Press

President Obama's first attempt at a "Grand Bargain" was, from a progressive perspective, a genuinely horrible idea. The proposal, which was tilted heavily in Republicans' favor, trading some new tax revenue for massive entitlement cuts. Fortunately for liberals, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said any plan that calls for any GOP concessions must be rejected.

The White House tried again with another offer on a big deficit-reduction package earlier this year, with the president prepared to accept Medicare reforms and even "chained CPI" in Social Security in exchange for Republican concessions on taxes. Again, the GOP wasn't interested.

With this in mind, as Obama brings a new offer to the table, it's probably best to keep expectations in check.

President Obama, in a bid to break a stalemate with the Republican-controlled House, will announce Tuesday that he will agree to cut corporate tax rates in return for a commitment from Republicans to invest in middle-class jobs.

Using a cavernous Amazon distribution center in Chattanooga, Tenn., as his backdrop, Mr. Obama will describe a "grand bargain" on jobs that White House officials say will stimulate the economy, as well as give businesses the lower tax rates they have long sought. It will be the first new proposal of his economic offensive.

As regular readers may recall, the president has discussed corporate tax reforms before. The problem with the status quo is that it doesn't work especially well -- the corporate tax rate is 35%, but thanks to a series of loopholes and tax giveaways, plenty of corporations pay a rate much lower than that (and some end up paying nothing at all). The resulting structure is a mess that features high rates, but low revenue.

But Obama's previous interest in corporate tax reforms were a little different than this new pitch -- the administration has previously talked about tying lower corporate rates to a larger package of systemic reforms, but today the president is proposing a different kind of offer. Republicans can get the lower corporate rates they want, while Democrats get the investments in job creation they want.

The private sector will likely find this offer especially appealing, since it would benefit on both ends -- corporations would get a tax break plus the benefit of investments in infrastructure and domestic manufacturing.

But congressional Republicans, true to form, are already denouncing the offer.

But Republicans were quick to dismiss the proposal, saying it was less a "bargain" than an effort to extract a major new fiscal stimulus program while offering a cut in corporate taxes that was designed to raise billions of dollars in additional revenue.

"It's the opposite of a concession," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner.

The Speaker's office added that they don't want more investments in job creation; they want more tax breaks.

Of course, if recent trends are any indication, the White House no longer cares what Boehner's office is whining about on any given day. Rather, Obama apparently thinks the real action is in the Senate, where he thinks he can strike governing deals with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his allies, that, at least in theory, isolate the House GOP and pressure the far-right House majority to do something.

So, the salient question isn't how quickly the Speaker turns down yet another compromise offer, but rather, what compromise-minded Senate Republicans think of Obama's proposed deal.

A looming 'invisible threat'

NOAA

Jeff Goodell recently had an item in Rolling Stone that caught my attention. Goodell wrote a piece on rising sea levels that will very likely, in years to come, drown South Florida -- a problem that cannot be solved with sea walls and fresh sand. "Miami, as we know it today, is doomed," Harold Wanless, the chairman of the department of geological sciences at the University of Miami, told Goodell. "It's not a question of if. It's a question of when." As a Miami native, I found it rather terrifying.

And I thought of the article after seeing this report.

A rise in sea levels threatens the viability of more than 1,400 cities and towns, including Miami, Virginia Beach and Jacksonville, unless there are deep cuts in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, says an analysis out Monday.

Prior emissions have already locked in 4 feet of future sea-level rise that will submerge parts of 316 municipalities, but the timing is unclear and could take hundreds of years, according to the paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. If global warming continues at its current rate through the year 2100, at least an additional 1,100 cities and towns will be mostly under water at high tide in the distant future.

"It's like this invisible threat," says author Benjamin Strauss, a scientist at Climate Central, a non-profit, non-advocacy research group based in Princeton, N.J., that's funded by foundations, individuals and federal grants.

That joke about rising sea levels at the Republican National Convention last year looks even less funny as time goes on.

Indeed, the political angle to this, unfortunately, matters quite a bit.

Last year, state Republican lawmakers in Virginia insisted on changing the "sea level rise" study in the General Assembly to one on "recurrent flooding." Why? Because according to one GOP official, "sea level rise" is a "left-wing term" that people shouldn't use.

That same month, state Republican lawmakers in North Carolina went even further. A state-appointed science panel warned officials that sea levels will rise 39 inches over the next century and said North Carolina needs to prepare. Republicans balked -- officials would be prohibited from relying on the scientific evidence, and would instead have to use a historical model to set expectations. North Carolina would prepare for only 8 inches of sea level increase, since that's what happened over the last century.

I realize that the Strauss report is just one study, and that there's competing research that offers different results. But the evidence pointing to rising sea levels is overwhelming no matter which source you rely on, and it's a reminder of just how serious the climate crisis really is.

The risk posed by those who'd prefer to stick their heads in the sand is hard to overstate.

The 'Refuse to Enroll' campaign gets to work

Associated Press

The uninsured seek health care at a free clinic.

When Reuters reported last week that Republicans and their allies "are mobilizing ... to dissuade uninsured Americans from obtaining health coverage," it caused a bit of a stir. After all, what kind of people would invest time and energy into convincing struggling families to turn down access to affordable health care? Who would be so callous as to put partisan spite over the basic health care needs of their community?

Well, now we know. The Dayton Daily News has hidden the story behind a paywall, but the paper reported yesterday on groups like the "Citizens' Council for Health Freedom," which is rallying behind the "Refuse to Enroll" campaign.

With time running out, opponents of the Affordable Care Act have taken to the airwaves in Ohio and elsewhere with ad campaigns not only attacking the bill's merits but also actively encouraging uninsured Americans not to sign up for coverage under the health care law.

The Obama administration has acknowledged the success of the law, commonly referred to as Obamacare, depends in large part on broad-based participation in federal and state-run health exchanges that will begin selling government-subsidized health plans to the uninsured on Oct. 1.

The anti-enrollment campaigns reflect the resignation and desperation of many Obamacare opponents who have given up hope of a government repeal or court-ordered injunction to stop full implementation of the law beginning next year.

This is clearly an important stage in the larger fight. Desperate right-wing activists know the law won't be repealed; they know it can't be stopped in the courts; and they know there's a limit to Republican efforts to sabotage the federal health care system. So they've been reduced to one last-ditch effort: convince people with no health care coverage to voluntarily turn down affordable insurance so as to advance their ideological cause.

And why do conservative activists want this? It's not altogether clear, exactly, but apparently their hatred for President Obama has overwhelmed their judgment and basic sense of morality to a degree that can only be considered alarming.

Twila Brase, for example, is putting the "Refuse to Enroll" campaign on her radio show, which is "broadcast on more than 350 stations nationwide, including the American Family Radio Network with stations throughout Ohio." And she'll have lots of company, including support from her Koch brothers allies.

The conservative group Americans for Prosperity, which has a chapter in Ohio, has launched another campaign attacking Obamacare with television and online ads that began airing in Ohio last week.

Joan McCarter summarized this nicely: conservatives "have to convince people that either paying through the nose for insurance or going without, all to make a political point, makes sense. Because 'Freedom' means never being able to go to the doctor. Seriously. They are spending millions of dollars to try to con people out of getting affordable health insurance."

To reiterate what we discussed last week, I hope folks will pause to let this sink in for a moment. Unlike every other industrialized democracy on the planet, the United States -- easily the wealthiest nation on earth -- has tolerated a significant chunk of its population going without basic health care coverage. These Americans and their families can't afford to see a doctor and are one serious illness from financial ruin. Many have died because they live in a country that allows people to go without access to basic care.

After nearly a century of politicians talking about the problem, President Obama actually signed the Affordable Care Act into law three years ago, giving working families a level of health-care security they've never had before, and throwing a life preserver to the uninsured. Now, Republicans aren't just actively trying to sabotage the law, they're telling struggling Americans it's better to drown than accept the life preserver.

'Why should I care what they think? I am doing what I believe to be right and what is required by my oath.'

-- Bruce Hanes, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, register of wills, on why he is giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the opposition. See also: Results from our Limerick, Pennsylvania, marriage-equality limericking bee.

This Week in God

Getty Images

First up from the God Machine this week is a court case out of Pennsylvania that's likely to be pretty important in the right's drive to block contraception access.

At issue is a cabinet-making company called Conestoga, whose Mennonite owners oppose birth control on religious grounds. They filed suit challenging the contraception provisions in the Affordable Care Act, arguing that their faith applies to their for-profit business -- the Hahn family, which owns Conestoga, doesn't like birth control, so the family wants to leave contraception access out of the company's health plan.

As of yesterday, that argument didn't go over well in court.

A federal appeals court said Friday that the owners of a private company could not challenge the contraception mandate in President Obama's healthcare law.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said the owners of Conestoga, a cabinet-making company, could not challenge the mandate because of their personal religious beliefs.

It's a pretty straightforward decision -- corporations may be people (my friend), but according to the 3rd Circuit, the Hahn family can have its religious beliefs, but the cabinet-making company does not have religious beliefs of its own.

"We simply conclude that the law has long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself," wrote Judge Robert Cowen. "A holding to the contrary -- that a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise -- would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners."

The ruling added, "The [contraception provision] does not impose any requirements on the Hahns. Rather, compliance is placed squarely on Conestoga. If Conestoga fails to comply with the Mandate, the penalties ... would be brought against Conestoga, not the Hahns."

This may seem like common sense, but the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby has filed a nearly identical lawsuit -- its owners don't like birth control for religious reasons, either -- and as Sarah Posner recently explained, this company has had far more success at the 10th Circuit.

And when two federal appeals courts disagree on the same question, the U.S. Supreme Court generally intervenes to settle the dispute. We may, in other words, soon see a major legal showdown over whether corporations have their own distinct freedom of religion that affords businesses the right to block their employees' access to contraception.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), talking to a religious right audience, made a spirited case against marriage equality. "On marriage there is no issue in which we need to be more on our knees because the momentum is with the opponents of traditional marriage. We're facing an assault on marriage." He scolded "unelected judges" who think "we know better" on marriage, and urged pastors to "to speak to your congregations and to mobilize the people, and mobilize them more than anything to pray."

Watch on YouTube

* In North Carolina, state Rep. Nelson Dollar (R) defended his party's hyper-aggressive budget plan by insisting, "Today is the day when history will mark this General Assembly did what was morally right in the eyes of God." Well I guess that settles it, then. (Thanks to reader D.R. for the tip.)

* There's an interesting fight underway in Ohio, where a proposed Holocaust memorial featuring Jewish imagery, drawing complaints from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

* And the White House this week hosted a Ramadan celebration, including an Iftar dinner. President Obama noted at the event that throughout the nation's history, "Islam has contributed to the character of our country."

Maddow show: Gone fishin'

As befits the season, Rachel is taking a bit of vacation time tonight, and the show staff has followed suit, so there's no show tonight.

To help stave off withdrawal, our friend @fauxpinky points out that Rachel's SXSW talk, the full, official, hour-long thing that kicked off the Drift-in-paperback book tour earlier this year, is available online (though frustratingly without the embedding feature enabled). We've seen short bits of this shot from shaky phone cameras in the audience, but as far as I know, this length and quality is new.

Also, if you already attended a Drift tour talk about are looking for something a little different, I only recently listened to her totally fun appearance on Employee of the Month. No video with this one but it's a very entertaining 40-ish minutes.

See you Monday!

Highlights from the great marriage equality limerick-off

I'm calling these "highlights" because there's no way to declare a winner in such an outstanding collection of submissions to our marriage equality limerick bee challenge. To recap: among individual pioneers bringing marriage equality to states was featured a Pennsylvania clerk who issued the state's first same-sex marriage license to a pair of women from Limerick, Pennsylvania.

Our challenge to readers to write actual limericks to honor the bravery of Bruce Hanes and those like him was met with a wave of creativity.

Here are a couple of good ones that came in through Facebook, with many more noteworthy submissions from here on the MaddowBlog posted after the jump. Thanks very much to everyone who participated:

Doug Lotz

My mom used to say "Oh No Way!"

A wedding is not for the Gay!

But she says it no more

And on 8/24

She'll stand next to me proudly that day!

Rich Kasper

Pre-Windsor the prospects were grim,

For full marriage rights, her-her, him-him.

But the Court has now spoken.

The spell has been broken,

For regular marriage, not skim.

David UK

Dear children, there once was a day

When two men or two women could say,

"I love you,"--and mean it,

But the law stood between; it

Said marriage was not for the gays.

(David's was actually a two-parter, but what grabbed me was his "mean it/between it" rhyme.)

Sharon Neeman

The Supreme Court said DOMA is dead;

Gays and lesbians, hasten to wed!

Love, honor and cherish;

Watch bigotry perish

And tolerance flourish instead!

Rob in CT

Though bigots are still making noise

When girls marry girls , or boys boys,

The hearts that are open

Changed laws, and here's hopin'

Closed minds can soon share in our joys.

Sid Schwab

There's good news when living in Penn

Sylvania if you are men

Or women who love

Each other above

The opposite sex: now you can.

Madeleine Begun Kane

Same sex couples are quick to endorse

The spread of gay marriage, of course.

But the happiest folks

Are THESE women and blokes:

Hungry lawyers who handle divorce.

Friday's Mini-Report

Today's edition of quick hits:

* As Morsi supporters in Egypt continue their protests, the Egyptian military urged citizens to take to the streets to show their support for ... the Egyptian military.

* In related news: "Former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi is under investigation for a slew of charges including murder, according to the state news agency, stoking tensions throughout Egypt as rival political camps took to the streets."

* The Obama administration, meanwhile, confirmed today what has long been suspected: "it won't call the overthrow of Egyptian President Morsi earlier this month a military coup, arguing it doesn't have to make a determinations under U.S. law."

* Guantanamo Bay: "White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement Friday ... that President Barack Obama 'remains determined to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay' and, in support of those efforts, the Defense Department has signaled its intention to send two detainees to Algeria."

* Snowden: "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a letter sent to the Russian minister of justice this week that the United States would not seek the death penalty against Edward J. Snowden, and would issue him a passport immediately so he could travel back to the United States."

* North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) said today he "planned to sign into law the state's newest abortion restrictions -- breaking his 2012 campaign promise to not sign any further restrictions on abortion into law."

* Ethics: "The House Ethics Committee announced Friday that it was pushing ahead with an investigation into Representative Peter Roskam of Illinois, a member of the House Republican leadership, and that it was pursuing inquiries into three other lawmakers, including Michele Bachmann."

* Gov. Rick Perry (R) is outraged that the Justice Department is trying to protect all Texans' voting rights, but as Adam Serwer explained, "Unfortunately for Perry, his objections don't make much sense, common or otherwise."

* The suspense continues: "The White House says President Barack Obama is not expected to name a new chairman of the Federal Reserve until the fall, lowering expectations for an imminent announcement."

* It's a shame she wasn't wrong: "I didn't want to be right," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says about her prediction that striking a key prong of the Voting Rights Act will lead to a wave of minority voter suppression, "but sadly I am."

* Imagine that: "After Trumpeting Journolist Claims, Fox Silent On Groundswell."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.