Just how “fair and balanced” is Fox News’ coverage? Even Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) — who is so dedicated to blocking the Democratic agenda that his colleagues nicknamed him “Dr. No” — says it’s too biased for him to watch.
Click above to see the most conservative senator’s thoughts on Fox — and share this video!
Video via The Okie
By Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — The Senate is poised Thursday to try again to extend unemployment benefits for 1.7 million Americans with a new Democratic proposal that aims to attract Republican support by prohibiting millionaires from receiving aid.
It remains to be seen whether Republican senators will sign on.
Democrats, who have the majority in the Senate, need a handful of Republicans to reach the 60-vote threshold required to advance the legislation. Several Republicans have indicated they want to provide benefits that have run out for the long-term unemployed; others in the party believe the aid is a disincentive to work.
But many Senate Republicans continue to balk over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s refusal to allow amendments that GOP leaders would like to attach to the bill, including some that are not directly related to jobless aid.
Their dispute stems from bitter filibuster fights last year, and Republicans are unlikely to give their support unless they are guaranteed a chance to amend the legislation.
In the meantime, Democrats are happy to continue raising the issue in an election year, which puts the party on the side of most Americans who favor extending unemployment aid.
President Barack Obama has pushed jobless aid as a central issue in the party’s reelection strategy. More than 1.7 million Americans are no longer eligible for benefits beyond the 26 weeks offered by most states. Benefits expired late last year, as Congress stalemated. An additional 72,000 people join the rolls each week.
The current proposal would extend benefits until March 31, and it meets the Republican demand that the costs be offset. The $6.4-billion price tag would be paid for by continuing a previously approved change in private pension requirements that is expected to temporarily increase tax revenues. Those with adjusted gross income above $1 million last year would be ineligible, drawing from a proposal by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).
“This will be a crucial vote and a critical test of whether Congress can listen to the American people and come together to do what is in the best interest of our economy,” said Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the bill’s sponsor, whose state now has the highest unemployment rate, at 9.1 percent.
AFP Photo/Alex Wong
Just days after Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) announced that he would retire at the end of the year, the battle lines are already being drawn in the race to replace him in the U.S. Senate.
On Monday afternoon, U.S. Representative James Lankford (R-OK) announced that he will be a candidate in the June 24 Republican primary (the general election will take place on November 4).
“After a great deal of thought, prayer and discussion with my family, I feel led to continue my Oklahoma common-sense and principled approach to attack the deep problems in the United States Senate,” Lankford said in a statement released by his campaign.
“I am willing to wage a hard-fought campaign for the opportunity to continue Dr. Coburn’s conservative legacy,” he added.
Lankford, who served as program director of the Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center before successfully winning election to the House in the Republican wave of 2010, is currently the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, making him the fifth-ranking member of the GOP majority. His strong support from party leadership, along with his solid fundraising — Lankford’s campaign committee has $454,738 in cash on hand — make him a strong contender in the special election to replace the infamously conservative Coburn.
Lankford’s leadership position may leave him vulnerable in the Republican primary, however. Despite his reliably Republican voting record, Lankford’s alignment with Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and his tepid support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants — along with votes to fund the government without defunding the Affordable Care Act — have left some on the right uneasy about his candidacy.
Before Lankford even announced his intention to run, the Senate Conservatives Fund — an influential political action committee founded by former senator Jim DeMint, and financially backed by heavy-hitting Republican fundraisers such as Koch Industries and Foster Friess — had already declared that the congressman is too moderate to garner their support.
“We won’t support Congressman Lankford’s bid for the Senate because of his past votes to increase the debt limit, raise taxes, and fund Obamacare,” Senate Conservatives Fund executive director Matt Hoskins said in a statement. “We have reviewed his record and it’s clear that conservatives cannot count on him to fight for their principles.”
Similarly, the Madison Project — a right-wing group that has gained notoriety in 2014 by attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and backing his primary challenger, Matt Bevin — immediately released a statement criticizing Lankford as insufficiently conservative.
Although Madison Project policy director Daniel Horowitz did acknowledge that “Lankford is not a purely liberal Republican and an anathema to Oklahoma,” he still warned that “Rep. Lankford is a quintessential status quo Republican.”
“There is no way someone like Lankford will change the country club culture of Senate Republicans; we will be changed by them,” Horowitz writes. “Sending another mediocre Republican to the meat grinder would be a waste of one of the most conservative seats.”
Instead of Lankford, the Madison Project urged Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) to “jump in the race and give voice to conservatives.” And while the Senate Conservatives Fund hasn’t explicitly endorsed Bridenstine, the freshman congresssman is the only House member to have received a donation from the group during the 2014 election cycle.
Bridenstine, who was elected with Tea Party support in 2012, is among the most conservative members of the 113th Congress. It’s not hard to understand why right-wing groups might favor him over Lankford; while Lankford is capable of delivering red meat to the base (such as the time that he blamed gun violence on welfare moms), he’ll never be able to match Bridenstine, who compares himself to Patrick Henry and once took to the House floor to rage that Barack Obama’s “dishonesty, incompetence, vengefulness and lack of moral compass” make him unfit to serve as president.
Bridenstine has not yet announced whether he will pursue the Senate seat. Oklahoma House Speaker T.W. Shannon is also reportedly mulling a run, while Rep. Tom Cole, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, and Governor Mary Fallin have all anounced that they will not run.
No matter how ugly the Republican primary gets, it is unlikely to yield a Todd Akin-like scenario in the general election; in deep-red Oklahoma, the Republican nominee is almost certain to win the general election, no matter how extreme he or she has to get to capture the nomination.
Photo: House GOP via Flickr
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) rose to the floor of the Senate on Thursday morning to introduce the Truth in Settlements Act, which is co-sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).
“Several years ago the government announced a $385 million settlement with Fresenius Medical Care for allegedly defrauding Medicare and other health programs for years,” Warren said. “When the agreement was originally announced, the Justice Department touted the sticker price as the agency’s largest civil recovery to date in a health care fraud case. But the DOJ didn’t say a word about the tax treatment. The agency’s failure to even consider that issue was a very costly mistake. By the time the company finished claiming all its tax deductions from the settlement, it ended up paying $100 million less than originally advertised. In other words, the taxpayers picked up more than a quarter of the tab.”
The senator also compared a settlement last year between Wells Fargo and the Federal Housing Finance agency for $335 million in fraudulent sales to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was about 6 percent of what JPMorgan paid to the same agency for a similar claim.
What was the difference in the two settlements?
“Well, we’ll never know because the JPMorgan settlement is public. But the much smaller Wells Fargo settlement is confidential.”
The bill implements several requirements on settlements made in disputes that are not being litigated, including a requirement that the government offer a rationale whenever an agreement is kept confidential.
The National Memo is a political newsletter and website that combines the spirit of investigative journalism with new technology and ideas. We cover campaigns, elections, the White House, Congress, and the world with a fresh outlook. Our own journalism — as well as our selections of the smartest stories available every day — reflects a clear and strong perspective, without the kind of propaganda, ultra-partisanship and overwrought ideology that burden so much of our political discourse.
