Rachel Maddow's Blog, page 3379

A bright-red reminder from the Lone Star State

Associated Press, Getty Images

Recent events in Texas have reinvigorated progressives in the state, and served as a shot in the arm for Democratic efforts to turn the Lone Star State into a competitive battleground. After state Sen. Wendy Davis' (D) rise to national prominence, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) drew widespread criticism for going after her personally, a Democrat could be forgiven for imagining a toss-up gubernatorial race in 2014.

But Public Policy Polling reminds us this afternoon that Texas is still Texas, and its deep-red hue hasn't faded yet.

PPP's new Texas poll finds that Wendy Davis made a good impression on voters in the state last week -- but that Rick Perry has also enhanced his political standing considerably over the last five months, making him tough to beat for reelection. [...]

Davis would trail Rick Perry by 14 points in a hypothetical match up, 53/39. While Davis' standing has improved over the last five months so has Perry's.

This is obviously just one poll; the election is still over 16 months away; and Davis hasn't even launched a campaign. But given the excitement of the last week, and the resurgence of progressive activism on display in Austin yesterday, it was easy to forget that Texas is among the nation's most Republican-friendly states. No Democrats hold statewide office, and the state voted for Mitt Romney over President Obama last year by 16 points -- and Romney wasn't even especially popular in the state.

"Battleground Texas," in other words, has a long way to go.

As for the rest of the PPP results, a plurality of Texans (39%) have a favorable opinion of Davis and a near majority (45%) support the filibuster she launched last week. Less than a third of the state (30%) believes Perry should seek yet another term, but he nevertheless leads Davis in a hypothetical match-up by double digits, boosted in part by increased support from the far-right GOP base.

Meanwhile, the anti-abortion bill, SB5, is not widely known by Texans -- 52% of the state has no opinion on the proposal -- though opponents outnumber supporters, 28% to 20%.

The importance of Republicans with life experiences

Every year, I watch House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) speak at the Aspen Ideas Festival, hoping he'll go beyond trite talking points and demonstrate some degree of intellectual rigor or policy depth. And every year, I'm disappointed.

But this year appearance -- Cantor fielded questions from National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, who has demonstrated some degree of intellectual rigor and policy depth -- included a few moments that stood out for me.

Watch on YouTube

For example, Cantor noted there are millions of Americans "struggling with stagnant wages, with increasing costs of health care, energy, tuition," which is true. The Majority Leader added that congressional Republicans "have solutions that deal with that." I'm delighted to hear that. And what are those solutions? Cantor and his party want Americans to be thrifty -- that's his "solution."

The Virginia Republican went on to endorse the goals of the Dream Act, which drew applause from the audience that was unaware of the fact that Cantor voted against the Dream Act. He also complained that President Obama doesn't schmooze him enough; he continues to pretend massive spending cuts from 2011 don't exist; and he hinted that Republicans are prepared to once again hold the debt ceiling hostage, threatening to harm Americans on purpose.

Conor Friedersdorf said whatever Cantor's strengths may be, "communicating a compelling vision to the American people isn't one of them."

But there was one exchange in particular that got me thinking. Ponnuru noted Cantor's support for increased government spending on medical research, and asked, "What do you tell your Republican colleagues who are inclined to say, 'Look, we spent too much money as it is?'" The Majority Leader replied:

"Well, you know, it's interesting. I really became passionate about the issue of medical research and funding for several reasons. I've got a father who nearly for 12 years now has suffered from a neurological disorder called Shy-Drager -- very much of an orphan disease, symptoms like Lou Gehrig's, but it lasts for a very long time. And no cures.

"I then run into a constituent -- she's now 12 -- but she was years ago when she turned one, was diagnosed with a very rare form of brain cancer and had a tumor. Pediatric disease, no cure.

"And just the pure passion is us should say as human beings, it is imperative for all of us to try and dedicate ourselves to finding something that can help these people."

I imagine most Americans would find it hard to disagree with any of this, but that's not what made it interesting.

Listening to Cantor argue that he supports increased funding on medical research in part because of his ailing father reminded me of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) arguing in support of marriage equality because of his gay son. And Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) changing his mind about Medicaid because of his own interactions with the program. Or any number of Republican policymakers changing their mind about federal disaster relief after it's their constituents who are hit with a brutal storm.

As I argued in March, it seems the key to American social progress in the 21st century is simple: more conservatives having more life experiences.

I realize that human nature being what it is, we're far more inclined to take an issue seriously when we're confronted with it in a deeply personal way. A family that never gave much thought to Multiple Sclerosis gets involved with MS fundraising once a loved one is diagnosed; a couple that was indifferent to climate change reconsiders when a storm destroys their home; a father reconsiders his opposition to abortion rights when it's his daughter that needs to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

We're people, so our perspectives change when we deal with unexpected life challenges. I get it.

But policymakers have unique responsibilities -- they have to try to consider how every proposal will affect everyone. Their duties require expansive empathy, as they hopefully ask themselves who'll benefit from their decision, who'll suffer, and whether they're prepared to accept the tradeoff. How would they vote on a measure if they knew it would do harm to someone they care about? Would their answer be different if the harm was limited to people they don't know personally?

Cantor opposes government spending, accept the spending that's needed to help his dad. Putting aside the fact that the sequestration cuts Cantor supports actually undermine medical research, as does the Paul Ryan budget plan Cantor voted for, shouldn't the Majority Leader apply similar scrutiny to the rest of his governing vision?

DeMint's vision of 'limited government'

Associated Press

The Heritage Foundation's Jim DeMint published a daily essay this morning on marriage equality, which struck me as ... what's the word I'm looking for ... hilarious.

The crux of the piece is that opponents of equal rights for all Americans "deserve to be treated with dignity" -- the classic "be tolerant of my intolerance" sort of schtick. Consider this gem:

[The Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act] denies dignity to the millions of Americans and their elected officials who have voted to pass laws that tell the truth about marriage.

I've read that sentence several times, trying to make sense of it, but I'm at a bit of a loss. In fact, I'm not sure if DeMint even knows what "dignity" means, exactly. The former senator seems to be arguing that the nation has a choice: we can extend basic human decency to all Americans and eliminate the need for second-class citizenship or we can make proponents of discrimination feel good about themselves. We're apparently supposed to endorse the latter.

DeMint went on to argue, "The marriage debate will continue, and all Americans need to be civil and respectful." (He perhaps forgot to read his own 2007 book on social conservatism.)

But I was even more amused by DeMint twice referencing "limited government."

The Heritage Foundation will be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage continues to grow and that marriage proponents can express their views in this debate. Go to TheMarriageFacts.com today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage. And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage -- that union of one man and one woman -- is important for children, civil society, and limited government.

Right, because a "limited" government is one that stops people from getting married, codifies discrimination in law, and denies some Americans equal treatment under the law for entirely arbitrary reasons.

Look, I don't expect DeMint to change his mind on civil rights anytime soon, but it'd be easier to take him seriously if he acknowledged reality: he wants big government to impose rules that advances his social worldview. His vision, for good or ill, requires an imposition of discriminatory values, based on a narrow religious view, while asking millions of law-abiding Americans to be less free.

DeMint can try to spin this as "limited" government, but that doesn't make it any less laughable.

Unsportsmanlike conduct on health care policy

Associated Press

We talked yesterday about Senate Republican leaders contacting the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, PGA, and NASCAR, urging them not to partner with Washington on informing the public about health care benefits Americans are legally entitled to. The point is simple: the Republican senators still hope to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, and if people don't participate in the system because they're unfamiliar with what's available, "Obamacare" could fail.

Following up, Jonathan Cohn raised a good point about the larger context.

As you have read in a few places, perhaps even here, the federal government is starting a public education campaign about Obamacare -- not to promote the law, mind you, but simply to inform the public about the new insurance options that will be available once the law takes full effect. In 2005, the Bush Administration ran a similar campaign to let seniors know about the Medicare drug benefit. A year later, Massachusetts officials launched their own effort to educate residents about insurance options that the state's new health law was making available. In that campaign, Massachusetts authorities famously enlisted the Boston Red Sox as partners.

This latter point, about "Romneycare" in Massachusetts, offers a perfect parallel. When a Republican governor created a system practically identical to President Obama's health care model, he needed to get the word out so residents of the Bay State would sign up. It made sense to partner with the Red Sox, and it worked beautifully -- the team played "a central role" in getting the word out to the public.

Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn are likely aware of this, and desperately hope to avoid similar circumstances. As a result, they're using their power to pressure sports leagues to help keep Americans in the dark, even if that means (especially if that means) undercutting federal law and families going without benefits to which they're entitled.

But the 2005 campaign with the Bush/Cheney administration's Medicare Part D offers another important reminder from the recent past -- Democrats didn't like anything about this legislation, but they didn't try to sabotage the American system after it passed.

When Medicare Part D was considered in Congress, the Bush White House lied about its cost, while Republicans used ugly tactics to force through legislation that gave unnecessary funds to insurance companies. For Dems, the bill was a disaster -- it'd be easier, more efficient, and more cost effective, they said, to cover prescription drug costs through the public program, rather than relying on private insurers. Making matters worse, the GOP demanded that literally every penny of the cost of the program be added to the deficit -- Bush didn't want any of it paid for at all.

But Republicans were in the majority and had the White House, so Democrats lost the fight.

But note what Norm Ornstein told Cohn about what happened next:

Democrats were furious with how the Medicare prescription drug bill passed. But once it was law, they weren't going to punish needy seniors to sabotage Bush's accomplishment. It is remarkable to use threats of congressional power to intimidate sports organizations so that people who need insurance or need help knowing what is available to them will suffer by being kept in the dark. Stick it to millions so you can stick it to the president? That is statesmanship? No, it is cruel and outrageous.

The point here isn't to jump up and down, yelling, "Republicans stink." Rather, the point is to appreciate the extent to which the parties play by different rules, even when millions of Americans' access to basic health care is on the line.

Monday's Mini-Report

Today's edition of quick hits:

* Egypt: "Egypt's military on Monday said mass protests calling for the resignation of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi were an 'unprecedented' expression of the will of the people and gave the government 48 hours to meet the opposition's demands."

* Arizona: "Arizona authorities struggled for answers Monday after 19 highly trained firefighters were trapped and killed by a windblown wildfire -- a blaze the governor vowed to stop 'before it causes any more heartache.'"

* Texas: "Thousands of orange-clad abortion rights supporters packed the south lawn at the Capitol on Monday, cheering and fighting GOP-sponsored legislation that would make it more difficult for women to get abortions."

* Obama in Tanzania: "After receiving the most ecstatic welcome of his weeklong trip to Africa, President Obama on Monday called for a new partnership with the continent, one that would help sustain its recent run of tremendous economic growth while broadening the rewards to as many people as possible."

* Keep an eye on this one: "After four days of the most intense Middle East peace push in years, Secretary of State John Kerry left Israel on Sunday without securing a public commitment that the two sides would return to the negotiating table, though he insisted that 'real progress' had been made and said that a resumption of talks 'could be within reach.' In what has become a familiar refrain, Mr. Kerry promised to return to the region soon."

* Putin plays nice: "Fugitive NSA leaker Edward Snowden has applied for political asylum in Russia, but President Vladimir Putin says he can stay only if he stops 'damaging our American partners.'"

* In related news: "The leaders of France and Germany added their voices on Monday to the growing outrage over reports that the United States has been spying on its European Union allies, raising new suggestions that talks on a new trans-Atlantic trade agreement may be at risk."

* Post DOMA: "An American man in Florida and his husband, who is from Bulgaria, have become the first same-sex married couple to be approved for a permanent resident visa, an immigration milestone that comes after the Supreme Court struck down a federal law against same-sex marriage."

* And the public likes what it sees: "A record majority of Americans approve of same-sex marriage in the wake of two landmark Supreme Court decisions, a USA TODAY poll finds.... By an unprecedented 55%-40%, Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights of traditional marriage."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

'I would call these cuts obscene'

courthouselover/Flickr

In 2010, Republicans took control of North Carolina's General Assembly for the first time since the 19th century, and in 2012, the party took the next step electing a conservative Republican governor, Pat McCrory. The result has been predictable but striking: the state's policy agenda has shifted to the very far right with breakneck speed.

David Graham pulled together a helpful round-up of some of the more reactionary elements of Republican governance in the Tar Heel State in 2013, but Ned Resnikoff paid particular attention to the fact that North Carolina is now the "only state in the union with no safety net for the long-term jobless."

"Thanks to reforms in the state's unemployment insurance laws, North Carolina's 71,000-plus long-term unemployed residents will lose access to the federally funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program.

North Carolina is losing eligibility to the federal program because of a new law, signed by the governor in February of this year, which reduces the number of weeks that unemployed people are eligible for state-funded benefits and cuts the maximum weekly benefit amount by roughly one third, from $535 to $350. It is the latter provision that has cost North Carolina workers its eligibility: States looking to receive federal EUC money are forbidden from cutting weekly benefits. The federal government granted a special exemption from that rule to four other states last year, North Carolina's request for a similar exemption was ignored.

"I would call these cuts obscene," said Michael Leachman, director of state fiscal research for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The national standard for state unemployment benefits 26 weeks, which North Carolina will cut to 19. What's more, while in 49 states, jobless Americans can access federal resources once state benefits are exhausted, in North Carolina, those struggling to find work will simply be out of luck.

Paul Krugman added that the policy is based on the apparent belief that life is "too easy" for the unemployed, so North Carolina Republicans have decided to punish them.

[North Carolina] was hit hard by the Great Recession, and its unemployment rate, at 8.8 percent, is among the highest in the nation, higher than in long-suffering California or Michigan. As is the case everywhere, many of the jobless have been out of work for six months or more, thanks to a national environment in which there are three times as many people seeking work as there are job openings.

Nonetheless, the state's government has just sharply cut aid to the unemployed. In fact, the Republicans controlling that government were so eager to cut off aid that they didn't just reduce the duration of benefits; they also reduced the average weekly benefit, making the state ineligible for about $700 million in federal aid to the long-term unemployed.

Keep in mind, this isn't just cruel; it's counter-productive. Unemployment benefits, especially when the economy is struggling, are an excellent, hyper-efficient form of stimulus -- North Carolinians who are out of work aren't going to stick jobless aid into a mutual fund; they're going spend it quickly just to get by.

So, by punishing these struggling folks on purpose, state policymakers in the state are also punishing every business in the state that might have benefited from their patronage.

What we're left with is a state with high unemployment, well above the national average; desperate jobless people who'll have no real safety net, who'll soon lose their meager buying power; and state businesses with fewer customers. It's a recipe for even more miserable economic conditions, made possible when voters elected far-right candidates to run the entire state government.

Why student-loan interest rates were allowed to double

Associated Press

Congress had until midnight yesterday to reach a deal on keeping student-loan interest rates low, but as we discussed on Friday, lawmakers barely tried to reach an agreement and the deadline came and went. Suzy Khimm reports today on the consequences.

Borrowing costs for lower-income students shot up on Monday, jumping from 3.4% to 6.8% on subsidized Stafford loans from the federal government. For the average borrower, that means an additional $761 for every loan they take out through the program, according to Mark Kantrowitz, a financial aid expert and publisher of Edvisors Network.

Neither party is thrilled about the outcome. But in contrast to last year's student loan fight, when both presidential candidates took to the bully pulpit on the issue, there seems to be little sense of urgency coming from Congress or the White House, despite the absence of any clear resolution.

Part of the reason there was no 11th-hour scramble to reach a deal is that the timing is relatively inconsequential. I was under the impression that the rate hike would apply to everyone currently paying back their Stafford Loans at 3.4%, but that is not the case -- a Senate source confirmed this afternoon that the higher rate only applies to new loans, not existing ones. In other words, the rate hike only applies to those who received their student loan literally today.

And since most students seeking higher-ed loans will be going through the process for the fall semester, the calendar offered lawmakers a bit of a cushion.

But what about those folks who are adversely affected by the higher rate? Both parties think they can work something out eventually, and apply the lower rate retroactively to today's date.

Is that likely? At this point, Senate Dems haven't been able to pass a bill, but they nevertheless have a plan.

Khimm added:

Senate Democrats do have a new plan of action, rallying behind a short-term fix that would extend the lower 3.4% rate for subsidized Stafford loans for one year. That's what Congress did last year when the deadline first came up, prompted by 2007 legislation that lowered the rates for just five years.

The new Senate plan has the support of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Iowa's Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate's health and education committee. The $4.6 billion fix would be paid for "by closing a loophole that currently allows those who inherit certain IRAs and 401(k)s to avoid paying the taxes on those accounts for many years," according to a statement from Harkin's office. It would also have a retroactive fix for loans made in the month of July at the higher 6.8% rate.

We don't yet know if this can pass either chamber, but expect the fight to heat up once lawmakers return next week.

Texas, take two

The Texas Tribune has resumed live streaming from the Texas legislature for the second special session. Below is what's happening in the Texas Senate, where anti-abortion law SB5 has been taken up again.

NOTE: So far the audio is terrible. NBC has a version as well and it's also terrible, so we just have to endure until they work it out at the source. 

UPDATE MERE MINUTES LATER: Well, that was quick. They just agreed to adjourn until July 9 at 11 a.m.

UPDATE 2, Switching to the House: Over in the House they've taken up Jodie "Clean 'er out" Laubenberg's House Bill 2 (here's pdf text):

UPDATE 3: Oooookay. Texas House is now also adjourned until Tuesday, July 9 at 10 a.m. I'll just take the video box down now.

Looking for ways around immigration's 'cruel math'

Associated Press

There's ample evidence that Republican Party leaders realize it's in the GOP's interest to approve comprehensive immigration reform. But House Republican lawmakers look at this as individuals with short-term interests, not party members concerned with long-term demographic challenges.

And with this in mind, the notion that comprehensive immigration reform will pick up the support of most House Republicans -- a minimum threshold that must be met, according to GOP leaders, before there's even a vote -- is increasingly hard to imagine.

District by district across the country, there are few House Republicans who have a strong political incentive to support the Senate bill.

An analysis by The Wall Street Journal showed that only 38 of the House's 234 Republicans, or 16%, represent districts in which Latinos account for 20% or more of the population.

Paul Waldman described this as the "cruel math of immigration reform in the House." If comprehensive immigration reform needs the support of at least 117 House Republicans - half the 234-member caucus -- before the bill could even be considered, and only 38 House GOP members can personally be persuaded by demographic data from their home districts, then the arithmetic points in a very discouraging direction.

Unless, that is, the House can pass immigration reform with those 38 House Republicans, give or take a few.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) reiterated over the weekend, that they won't even allow a vote on the bill unless most Republicans endorse it. The "cruel math" suggests that's almost certainly impossible -- this is a far-right House GOP caucus representing far-right constituents who oppose reform. Barring a dramatic shift, the votes will not materialize.

But there's another way, which I talked up on Friday: a discharge petition.

To briefly recap, generally the only bills that reach the House floor for a vote are the ones House leaders support (or at least tolerate). But if 218 members -- regardless of party -- sign a discharge petition, their preferred legislation is brought up for a vote whether the majority party's leadership likes it or not.

In the case of immigration reform, there are 201 Democrats in the House caucus. If literally all of them are prepared to support the bipartisan Senate bill, they would need 17 House Republicans -- just 7% of the 231 GOP House members -- to join them on the discharge petition. If, say, 10 conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats from Southern states balked, they would need 27 Republicans to break party ranks.

How realistic is this scenario? At least on paper, it's not that far-fetched -- there are, according to the Wall Street Journal piece quoted above, 38 House Republicans whose districts have a significant number of Latino voters. What's more, according to National Review, there are as many as 40 House Republicans who consider themselves moderates, unhappy with their party's far-right direction. We can assume there's a fair amount of overlap between these two groups, but either way, the point is the same: if reform proponents need 20 or so House GOP members who'd like to see immigration reform pass, they exist.

So what's the trouble? Kevin Drum said last week that the problem with my argument is that it "actually makes sense." (This is, incidentally, my favorite criticism ever.) So let's dig in to the various areas of concern.

* GOP leaders will tell their members not to sign the discharge petition. That may be true, but if Boehner and Cantor actually want reform to pass, and I suspect they do, they're unlikely to press members very hard. In fact, just the opposite might happen -- Republican leaders can quietly tell 20 of their members that it's fine with the Speaker's office if they sign the discharge petition and they won't be punished later.

* Members will be afraid to sign the discharge petition fearing intra-party repercussions. It's true that signing a discharge petition would be a fairly bold move, but if you're a moderate in this caucus, your career prospects are limited anyway. Besides, if their colleagues flipped out, these members could go back to their districts and use this as an example of how they're beholden to no one in Washington.

* The number of GOP moderates has been greatly exaggerated and the votes don't exist. This may be true, and I can't prove otherwise. But there are reportedly 40 members of the so-called Tuesday Group, but if that's been exaggerated and there really only 30, that's still enough.

* If reform passes, Republicans will want credit. Brian Beutler made this argument the other day, but I'm not convinced it's a problem. Last week, 70% of Senate Republicans voted against reform and the RNC took credit anyway. If the House passes the bill with Republican votes, the RNC would do the same thing, even if most of the party rejects it. Besides, if most party leaders want to get the issue off the table, credit may not matter that much.

I'm not making a prediction, per se. In other words, I'm not saying immigration reform will pass because there will be a successful discharge petition. Rather, I'm saying immigration reform will die at House GOP hands on its current trajectory and proponents will probably need an alternative strategy. The discharge petition strikes me as the most plausible of the available options.

James Clapper apologizes after 'heated controversy'

Associated Press

At a public congressional hearing in March, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper a rather straightforward question: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" The DNI responded, "No, sir."

Revelations of NSA activities in June made it pretty obvious that Clapper's response wasn't true. In fact, Wyden, who told Clapper in advance that the question was coming, knew that the response wasn't accurate, and gave the DNI an opportunity to clarify his answer after the hearing. Clapper declined.

What's Clapper's defense? A few weeks ago, he told NBC's Andrea Mitchell the question was "not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no," so he "responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying, 'No.'" As Fred Kaplan explained, that defense was ridiculous.

Two weeks later -- more than three months after the hearing -- Clapper finally decided to try walking his comments back.

Acknowledging the "heated controversy" over his remark, Clapper sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 21 saying that he had misunderstood the question he had been asked.

"I have thought long and hard to re-create what went through my mind at the time," Clapper said in the previously undisclosed letter. "My response was clearly erroneous -- for which I apologize."

Given the fact that Clapper knew the question was coming, and talked to Andrea Mitchell about his effort to slice the truth as thin as he could, I'm hard pressed to imagine how he could have misunderstood the question, but that appears to be his new version of events.

For the record, I'm still not sure why Senate Republicans are giving him a pass on this.

As we discussed a few weeks ago, GOP senators calling for Obama administration officials to resign is about as routine as drinking a cup of coffee in the morning. Last month, Republicans were comfortable accusing the Attorney General of "perjury," even when it didn't make any sense. There are very few top administration officials who haven't, at one point or another, heard from GOP lawmakers who asked them to quit.

Two years ago, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for Clapper to resign for having said something that was objectively true. And yet, at least so far, I'm not aware of any Senate Republicans pushing the DNI to give up his post.

Perhaps Republicans are less concerned because Clapper said something untrue to a Democrat? Maybe Republicans are giving him a pass because they like the NSA program he was lying about?

Whatever the explanation, it would appear Clapper will be able to weather the storm.