Connect with us

Pelosi Speaks On Debt Ceiling Bills – Possibly Her Finest Hour (Video)

Published

on

On Saturday, Minority Leader and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi took to the floor of the House of Representatives and delivered what may be one of her finest performances ever.

Note that this speech was Saturday — prior to the current agreement President Obama announced last night that Congress must now vote on, so some of the details may be different, but listen to the overall concepts Pelosi posits.

David Mixner wrote that Pelosi, “restored sanity to the asylum with a powerful and right on target speech.” Agreed.

If the GOP continues down their current path — and you know they will — how long will it take for Pelosi to become the Speaker once more? Or, President…

Complete text follows full video.

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=M5sUiE3800A%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

“Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.  I thank the gentleman for yielding, applaud him for his superb leadership of this bill today, recognize the great leadership of Mr. Van Hollen as our Ranking Member on the Budget Committee—and he and Mr. Clyburn representing the values of the American people at the negotiating table for this.

“I rise in support of the Reid legislation, urge my colleagues to support it because it protects Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, because it is fair.

“But I want to use my time in the following way.  I listened very carefully and very attentively to our Speaker yesterday when he spoke.  And he used the term, ‘the bill is not perfect, but we did our level best.’  Our level best—one might infer from that that this process is on the level.  How can it be on the level if we are bringing a $2.5 trillion bill to the floor under suspension, the same way we might bring the naming of a post office?  $2.5 trillion dollars, 20 minutes on each side.  Members have said on both sides of the aisle, this is a very important debate.  Well if it is, why is it brought under suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote, guaranteeing that it will not prevail?  Not on the level.

“The word level, of course, enters into, is this a level playing field?  Is it on the level for America’s seniors to pay more for Medicare for fewer benefits while we give tax subsidies to Big Oil?  Is it on the level for us to throw people out of nursing homes by reducing Medicaid so we can give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas?  Is it on the level for us to make young people and their families pay more for their college education so we can give tax breaks to the high end?

“Is it on the level to bring [the] Boehner bill to the floor that makes all those cuts, undermines Social Security, eliminates Medicare, and doesn’t charge one red cent  to people who have benefitted so much from the greatness of our country.  Is it our best?  It is our best to drag this out for all this time, to keep in suspense as to whether we would honor our Constitutional responsibility to pay our debts?  The Constitution says the national debt has to be recognized.  It has to be recognized.

“And recognized we did—president after president, 32 times in recent memory, including when President Bush was president.  At that time, even though many of us did not agree with the war in Iraq, did not agree that tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, did not agree the giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.  We didn’t agree with that policy.  That’s how we got into debt, turning around from the surplus direction we were going in with President Clinton, whose last four budgets were in balance or in surplus.

“We didn’t agree how the President Bush took us into debt, but we never, never stood in the way of honoring the full faith and credit of the United States.  Why then, would this one time, with this President decide that we would put up barriers so extreme like changing the Constitution in order to lift the debt limit.  That’s a mathematical requirement.

“Of course, we must all reduce the deficit.  But is it our best to say we are going to use the debate to reduce the deficit to destroy the public space?  Look at their Appropriations bills they’re bringing before us, destroying the public space of clean air, clean water, food safety, the education of our children, the health, financial security of our seniors through Medicare and Medicaid.  That’s what they are doing.

“This isn’t—if we are just reducing the deficit here, we have come to those conclusions.  We have to do it.  We know how to do it.  But if they want to take it to the next step of destroying the public sector, we cannot go to that place when it affects the air our children breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat, the education they receive, the safety of the neighborhoods in which they live.

“The Speaker also said that the bill was not perfect.  Well, no bill is perfect, but I think that I disagree in one respect.  I think this bill is perfect, in its absurdity.  His bill was perfectly absurd, perfectly absurd.  Perfectly absurd, again, to say to a President after 32 times lifting the debt ceiling, ‘We are going to change the game for you, Mr. President.’

“It’s perfectly absurd for them to say that the bill they brought to the floor yesterday, the Boehner bill that they brought to the floor, was an agreement of the four leaders of the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican.  Either you don’t know what you’re talking about or it’s a perfect absurdity—I will not yield to you.

“It is very, very important that we all take a deep breath.  We have important work to do, an important decision to make.  Senator Reid has given us a direction to go—no cuts in the benefits for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security beneficiaries.

“I wish that we had revenues in there so that those who have benefitted from the greatness, the last 50 years of bipartisan progress for the American people, would be able to make their contribution, but not one red cent of revenue while we are saying kids should pay more for their student loans.

“So it’s time to end this theater of the absurd.  It’s time for us to get real.  It’s time for us to get real and listen to the wisdom of the American people.  They have said to us that they support, in overwhelming numbers, a bipartisan, balanced approach, in overwhelming numbers that we should all pay our fair share.  And they all agree that we should get this over with so we can get back to work putting the American people back to work by creating jobs.

“The Speaker chose, when he didn’t have the votes, instead of to reach out in a bipartisan way to see how we could work together, he chose to go to the dark side.  Let me repeat.  And I repeat, he chose to go to the dark side by putting forth a bill that he himself told his Members [it] would sink in the Senate—and I add, lead to default, lead to default.  We cannot default.  We are the greatest country that ever existed in the history of the world.  We are the United States of America.

“So let’s go from the dark side to the bright side of the American people.  Vote ‘yes’ on the Reid bill.  Thank you, my colleagues.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

15 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

17 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.