Connect with us

Veteran’s Day: Jim DeMint Is The One Percent Who Voted Against Veterans

Published

on

Republican Senator Jim DeMint, as Rachel Maddow said Thursday evening, “has a frigging problem,” and is the one percent in the United State Senate who voted against a jobs bill for veterans. The Senate Thursday voted on the “Vow to Hire Heroes” bill, which offers a tax credit to businesses, helps vets get jobs, doesn’t add to the deficit, and, as Maddow proclaimed, it’s “the least-controversial bill ever,” that’s even “good for our souls.”

Senator Jim DeMint is the only Senator who voted against it, saying it was “inherently unfair,” not to veterans, but to America.

“We’re pandering to different political groups with programs that have proven to be ineffective,” DeMint said on the Senate floor, the Beaufort Gazette reported. “All Americans deserve the same opportunity to get hired. I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work.”

So, exactly when should the government “privilege one American over another,” Senator? I’m finding it hard to think of a group more deserving, and a situation more necessary.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript via MSNBC:

>>> veterans day is tomorrow. which sort of makes this veterans week. and on this veterans day, veterans week, spare a particular thought for republican senator jim demint of south carolina. not because he’s a veteran. i don’t think that he is. but because rather jim demint apparently has a frigging problem. today on capitol hill there was a vote on a hiring bill for our nation’s veterans. right now our national unemployment rate’s about 9% for iraq and afghanistan veterans. it is 12.1%. which is both miserable and sort of astonishing because iraq and afghanistan veterans are a ferociously competent group of americans. they have spent the last decade doing incredibly difficult, complex, exhausting, tireless, underappreciated work. i’m not being romantic about this. i mean it in practical terms. this is an impressive, professional class of americans with a lot to offer. they really did do more before 9:00 a.m. than most of us did all day. and they did it all decade long, and they are still doing it. for us as a country our iraq and afghanistan vets are a huge asset. if you are hiring people at your company, you should be looking for them for hiring. that said, they have trouble in the job 345rk9 in part because while the people they’re competing against for jobs have been working here veterans have been working and great experience but they have been doing it out of sight and out of mind in, say, landlocked central asia. so they are this very impressive group. they are underperforming in the job market. and we know why. and oh, by the way, we do kind of owe them as a country. and so today the world’s least controversial bill came before the senate, the vow to hire heroes act of 2011. a tax credit for businesses to hire new veterans. congress is debating all sorts of different tax credits to hire people. this one is to hire veterans. and it does not even add to the deficit. they moved money around from other veterans programs to pay for this one. this is in the running for least cop troshl thing in washington. it is good for the economy. it is good for our souls quite frankly. it is practically helpful to people who need practical help in a way that also helps all the rest of us too because it is a jobs program. the vote on this thing today was 94-1. the bill passed 94-1. the 1 was senator jim demint. why is senator jim demint against this? is it some cockamamie jim demint tea party fetishistic states’ rights idea about gold bullion or something? no, not in this case. it wasn’t anything like this. jim demint’s reasoning for voting against this was that veterans don’t deserve it.

>> i cannot support this tax credit because i do not believe the government should privilege one american over another when it comes to work.

>> yeah, those greedy veterans, wanting all this special treatment. greedy veterans expecting everything to be handed to them. yeah, happy veterans day, senator demint. i would salute you, but the way i want you is not something that’s allowed on television. it almost makes me want to sit on my hands. the veterans bill, aside from the blistering astonishment that is jim demint, is an example of things sort of secretly actually getting done in d.c. right now. here’s another example. yesterday the fcc announced that the nation’s biggest cable companies will start offering high-speed internet service to low-income families for the reduced price of $9.95 a month. any family that has a kid who qualifies for the free school lunch program will be eligible to get broadband internet service that they otherwise probably would not be able to afford. this is a real concrete step. it is connecting the poorest americans to the 21st century economic backbone of our country. so this week alone, veterans jobs bill, check. minus jim demint. broadband internet for low-income families, check. here’s one more. putting people back to work building roads and bridges. check. maybe? yeah. one of the other secret things that took a giant step forward toward getting done this week was a long-term infrastructure bill to fund highway projects across the country. yesterday the senate environment and public works committee advanced the highway bill by a unanimous vote of 18-0. every single democrat and every single republican voted for this infrastructure bill. i feel like i’m jinxing it by even reporting on it. listen in the hearing room. this is a quick clip. listen to what it sounded like right after they took the vote in that committee yesterday. here’s what happened right afterwards until they turned the mikes off.

>> the bill as amended is reported favorably to the united states senate. my thanks to everyone. we stand adjourned.

>> okay.

>> oh, my.

>> we did it.

>> okay, we did it. oh, my. i think what we just heard democratic senator barbara boxer saying there before the mike was cut out was “oh, my god, we did it.” oh, my god, is this really happening? joining us is chris hayes, host of msnbc’s excellent new weekend show called “up with chris hayes.” chris, it’s great to see you.

>> it’s great to see you, rachel.

>> do i have the soft bigotry of low expectations? am i applauding things that —

>> you need to come in and rain on the parade. no, i thought the senate– i thought there was a sort of vestigial senatorial functionality that we saw in those two bills you mentioned. the fact that mcconnell put out a good press release on it. this is the kind of thing that as you said is non-controversial, it’s almost sxrunt pramt routine and pramtic. it’s the kind of thing that the senate and the house should be able to come together and do. and we have been in such a horribly dysfunctional knot since the 2010 mid-terms they ha haven’t been able to do it. i think there’s something about that and the bill getting out of the senate. the other part of the story, the highway bill, is the house has its own version of the highway bill which does not reconcile very well with the senate version of the highway bill and spends a lot less money and the house is really where the kind of stopping gap is right now. there are things you can get in the senate with the democratic majority and with the sort of vestigial kind of collegiality. it’s the house i think that’s the really worrisome roadblock right now.

>> that said, when we had just an infrastructure bill put forward by senator amy cloeb shar, who is not known for her partisan legislating at all, put forward with joe manchin, who is maybe one of the most conservative democrats, definitely one of the most conservative democrats in the senate last week, ben nelson and joe lieberman voted against it and republicans were able to successfully filibuster it. but now we’re able to see some more roads and bridges stuff move forward in another way. so why do we get to move forward on the highway bill and we don’t get to move forward on the one that’s attached to president obama’s jobs bill?

>> well, i think implied in your question is the fact that it is clearly the case that — it’s a little like groundhog day reporting on it, right? because every day the republicans come in and every day they want to block what the president is doing. in fact, the veterans bill had to be so non-controversial that it could pass 94-1. and that’s the threshold? you know? things can either pass 94-1, you’re naming a post office, you’re giving tax save togz veterans, or they can get blocked. it’s those two options. there’s nothing in the middle. there’s nothing in this current political terrain that can pass by a five vote margin or vix-vote margin or two-vote margin in the senate. because the habitual use of the filibuster and the political commitment on the part of the minority caucus to politically destroy the president in the run-up to the election is so strong it means going after everything the president has his name attached to.

>> even in that environment do you have a veterans day wish for senator demint?

>> veterans day wish for senator demint. i will say is this to senator demint. it was — he displayed a genuine fidelity to his cockamamie principles.

>> what principles? if he’d come one some crazy tenth amendment like gold standard, like we shouldn’t legally elect senators thing, fine. but veterans don’t deserve it? really, jim? really?

>> but here’s the thing. look, the argument that that part of the republican caucus is making and that is clearly taking over the republican caucus is that everything is distorti distortion. and so when you come to view every single thing the government does as distortion, as some sort of pure and natural state of the market, then it’s very easy to view a tax credit to hire veterans as a distortion, as something unnatural, as opposed to the thing that is unnatural, being the 12% unemployment rate of veterans themselves. and that exactly is the kind of through the looking glass perspective that i think we see broadly from the base of the republican party and the most ideological members, is that the crisis we are in right now, the crisis of joblessness, the crisis of unemployment and foreclosures and personal bankruptcies is the natural state and the interventions to change them and fix them is unnatural.

>> is unnatural and — is unnatural and should not even be evaluated on its merits because —

>> because it is ideologically offensive.

>> well, i will just say, jim, if anybody runs into jim demint at a veterans day parade, please tell him hi for me. chris hayes, host of “up with chris hayes,” which you really are doing great work. i knew you would, but you are doing great work. the show is so good.

>> it means so much to me.

>> thanks, chris, appreciate it. spinal tap still ahead. and rick perry’s amazing brain freeze. and what’s important about it. and what to do with that pesky 30-foot crack in your nuclear reactor, ohio. that’s all

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

on

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

on

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

on

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.