DOWNLOADS: (212)

PLAYS: (1201)

Embed

If anyone missed this over the holiday, it's a very heartwarming story about actor Jack Klugman's real legacy and how he managed to roll obstructionist Sen. Orrin Hatch: Jack Klugman’s secret, lifesaving legacy:

The actor Jack Klugman died on Christmas Eve at age 90. Klugman was best known for his roles as the unkempt sportswriter in “The Odd Couple” and as the crusading medical examiner on “Quincy, M.E.” the wildly popular 1980s medical drama. Few people remember it today, but he also played an instrumental role in passing critical health-care legislation, the Orphan Drug Act, through Congress in the early 1980s, using “Quincy” and his own celebrity to roll Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), who was blocking the bill.

Klugman’s unlikely star turn in Washington stemmed from a 1980 hearing by the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment on the problem of developing treatments for rare diseases. The problem was that many terrible diseases didn’t afflict enough people to entice pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments. Hence they were ”orphan” diseases. They included Tourette’s syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, ALS and many more. The situation was especially tragic because scientists who discovered promising treatments often couldn’t interest drug makers, who didn’t see potential for profit.

The issue of orphan diseases was so obscure that only a single newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, sent a reporter to the hearing (and the Times only did so because a local boy suffering from Tourette’s testified). But the article caught the eye of a Hollywood writer and producer named Maurice Klugman, who himself suffered from a rare cancer and also happened to be Jack Klugman’s brother. Maurice Klugman wrote an episode of “Quincy” about Tourette’s and the orphan drug problem.

Go read the rest at the link above. RIP Jack Klugman.

DOWNLOADS: (117)

PLAYS: (471)

Embed

Sen. Orrin Hatch continued the whining we've seen from Republicans over the fact that President Obama didn't immediately cave on these so-called "fiscal cliff" negotiations in this week's Republican weekly address. It seems someone needs to explain to the Senator what the definition of "bait and switch" is.

Sen. Hatch: Obama fiscal proposal 'classic bait and switch':

The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee accused President Obama of pulling a "bait and switch" this week with the administration's proposed deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff."

"What [Obama] proposed this week was a classic bait and switch on the American people—a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in Saturday's weekly GOP address.

"Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign. These ideas are so radical that they have already been rejected on a bipartisan basis by Congress."

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was dispatched to Capitol Hill to share Obama's plan with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) The deal included $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, $50 billion in economic stimulus spending and $400 billion in spending cuts. Republicans have demanded more severe spending cuts - including entitlement reform - to begin a discussion on raising taxes. Read on...

As Think Progress noted, Hatch's claim that President Obama did not ask for any of the items they proposed is just not true:

Obama’s proposal — which includes $1.6 trillion in increased taxes on the rich over the next decade, $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other social programs, $50 billion in stimulus spending to begin next year, and an end to current debt ceiling rules — is not new or radical: it reflects the very same same policies Obama advanced for years and promoted extensively on the campaign trail.

For instance, Obama’s FY 2013 budget — released in February 2012 — raised “an additional $1.7 trillion in revenue” and proposed $360 billion in savings from entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. (Comparatively, Simpson-Bowles called for $2.7 trillion revenue over 10 years, more than what Obama requested). Obama advocated for additional stimulative spending throughout the campaign, calling for a path “forward” that will “continue investing in education and infrastructure.”

Republicans are feigning shock that Obama is proposing to implement the very same policies that Americans voted for in November, as they seek to define his second term agenda and bolster their own negotiating position. Meanwhile, they have yet to offer their own detailed proposal to avert the cliff.

And as they noted in their update to the post, much of what President Obama proposed this week appeared in his 20-page plan, released in October. If there's any party that hasn't negotiated in good faith for years now, it's the Republicans.

DOWNLOADS: (320)

PLAYS: (1462)

Embed

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is offended that President Barack Obama quoted scripture to make the case for a fairer tax policy.

Speaking to a group of mostly-conservative politicians at the annual National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, the president proved that conservatives do not have a monopoly on using religion to advocate for specific public policies.

“And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe at a time when folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income or young people with student loans or middle class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone," Obama explained. "And I think to myself, if I am willing to give something up as someone who has been extraordinarily blessed, give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy — I actually think that’s going to make economic sense."

“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,” the president added.

Only a few hours later, Hatch, who normally favors co-mingling government and religion, was on the floor of the Senate expressing outrage at the president for using the Bible to make a point.

"Just this morning at the National Prayer Breakfast, the president took what has always been a non-partisan opportunity for national unity and used to promote his political agenda," Hatch complained. "He suggested to the attendees that Jesus would have supported his latest tax-the-rich schemes. With due respect to the president, he ought to stick to public policy. I think most Americans would agree that the Gospels are concerned with weightier matters than effective tax rates."

"In 2008, the president declared that his nomination was the world historical moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," Hatch recalled.

"Someone needs to remind the president that there was only one person who walked on water, and he did not occupy the Oval Office."

Hatch, however, has made the case for religion in public policy when it suits his needs.

During a Republican presidential debate in 2000, the senator from Utah declared, "if I had my way, I'd have a silent prayer reflection constitutional amendment that would give kids a moment of silent prayer reflection at the beginning of every school day."

He has also leaned on the Bible to make the case against gay rights.

"It's a religious belief to me that homosexuality flies in the face of biblical teachings," Hatch, who is Mormon, told The Salt Lake Tribune in 1999.

(H/T: The Hill)

DOWNLOADS: (594)

PLAYS: (2616)

Embed

Ed Schultz went after Sen. Orrin Hatch in his Psycho Talk segment for his little screed this week saying that the poor need to "share some of the responsibility" for shrinking the debt. TPM has more on that.

Dems Go After Hatch For Saying Poor Need To Do More To Shrink The Debt:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is going after Sen. Orrin Hatch for saying that the poor need to "share some of the responsibility" for shrinking the debt.

"The top 10 percent are paying 70 percent of all income taxes. The top 50 percent pay something like 98 percent of all income taxes. Fifty-one percent don't pay anything," Hatch said.

"Democrats say they [the 51 percent] pay payroll taxes. Well, everybody does that because that's Social Security. They pay about one-third of what they're going to take out over the years in Social Security," Hatch said. "Obamacare -- a family of four earning over $80,000 a year -- gets subsidies. Think about that. That's what we call the poor?"

"Republican priorities are completely out of whack and Orrin Hatch's comments prove that point," DSCC's Shripal Shah told TPM.

"It's bad enough that Republicans are doing everything they can to protect tax breaks for millionaires and special interests, but the fact that the Republican idea of shared sacrifice means going after the those who are struggling the most is completely reprehensible," Shah said.

As I already pointed out here, Joshua Holland did a great job debunking last year why saying that the poor in this country don't pay their share in taxes even if they don't pay any federal income taxes is bunk. I wish Ed Schultz had made that point in this segment as well, but he didn't.

Maybe anyone that is on Twitter can make Ed and his staff aware of that fact on his feed at @WeGotEd.

DOWNLOADS: (226)

PLAYS: (1306)

Embed

Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch is terribly upset with the mean old Democrats for setting up those poor little oil company executives during their hearing this week.

Utah’s Orrin Hatch accuses Democrats of setting up oil company CEO’s for public grilling:

Sen. Orrin Hatch isn’t wasting words on what he thinks of harsh criticism that oil company CEOs are taking on Capitol Hill. He’s letting a portrait of a dog sitting on a pony tell part of the story.

At a hearing on gas prices, the Utah Republican said that Senate Democrats are conducting a dramatic hearing to “make some political hay at the expense of our witnesses today.”

Somebody's got to be looking out for the little guy. Hatch complained to the Morning Joe crew here that the hearings were "selective" and "because they're politically unpopular." Hatch and the Republicans complaining about the Democrats playing politics while they stand up for these oil company executives is about as humorous as his his counterparts in the House asking Democrats not to attack them for their proposed Medicare cuts earlier in the week as TPM reported here -- GOP Freshmen On Medicare Attacks: Let's Let Bygones Be Bygones.

Someone needs to remind Hatch about the Republicans attacks on Planned Parenthood and ACORN among others before he's allowed to complain about anyone being singled out for political attacks. The Democrats would be foolish not to go after them on either of these issues.

DOWNLOADS: (628)

PLAYS: (1753)

Embed

As Rachel notes, as always, IOKIYAR. Would Orrin Hatch’s amendment make Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk a criminal?:

So Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduces an amendment making it a crime to lie about your military service, and just days later, a Republican senate candidate is caught misrepresenting his service.

The question is: Does the bill apply to Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) in the same way it applied to the original target -- Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D)? Would Kirk have committed a crime?

The answer, according to Hatch’s office, is no.

“The amendment’s intent is clear – it would make lying about serving in active duty in the military for the purposes of career advancement a misdemeanor,” Hatch spokesman Antonia Ferrier said. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (184)

PLAYS: (1783)

Embed

As we have already pointed out there are a number of Attorneys General threatening to sue to challenge the individual mandate in the health care bill. Rachel points out the other problem the Republican Party has if they take this stance. They loved the mandate before they decided they were against the mandate. Republican hypocrisy never seems to run in short supply.

I'm no expert on this but I have heard a few people kick around the idea that if by some chance the courts did rule against the mandate that would be a good thing because it would force them to switch to a Medicare buy in or some other type of public option instead to increase the size of the pool which sure as hell would not break my heart. It really doesn't sound like these suits are going to prevail in court though.

As Rachel notes, Mitt Romney now has a big problem because back in the day he was arguing about how the mandate was a wonderful thing, as long as it was only enacted on a state level. Matthew Yglesias reported on how Lee Fang tried to get Mittens to weigh in on the individual mandate and didn't have much luck.

Mitt Romney Won’t Say if the Foundation of Romneycare is Unconstitutional:

Barack Obama’s health insurance reform plan involves an individual mandate. So does the plan that Mitt Romney signed as Governor of Massachusetts. At the time Romney signed the plan, he was a moderate Republican and CommonwealthCare was considered a sober-minded centrist plan. Now Romney is a conservative, and conservatives have decided that ObamaCare is a socialist plot, so he’s had to make up a lot of reasons that their extremely similar plans are actually totally different. Part of the conservative assault, though, is hard for Romney to wriggle away from—the right’s claim that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Obama’s got one, and Romney’s got one. So does Romney agree with the right that RomneyCare is unconstitutional, or will he defend Obama from this charge?

My colleague Lee Fang asks Romney and he refuses to say.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (137)

PLAYS: (261)

Embed

Media Matters caught this one -- National Review's Lowry falsely equates reconciliation and nuclear option in order to accuse Dionne of hypocrisy in yet another example of why E.J. Dionne on the panel of Meet the Press this weekend was the only thing that made it watchable.

MR. DIONNE: Rich's point about process, I went back and looked at all the columns I wrote criticizing the Bush tax cuts. I never made a process argument about reconciliation. I argued about the merits of the tax cut, and I think instead of talking about process we ought to talk about the merits of the health plan.

MR. LOWRY: But you really, you did, E.J., you did write a very stirring column about the nuclear option in defense of the Senate...

MR. DIONNE: That was...(unintelligible).

MR. LOWRY: ...as an anti, as an anti-majoritarian institution.

MR. DIONNE: That has nothing to do with--I believe...

MR. LOWRY: And look, just one last thing...

SEN. HATCH: I've got it right here.

MR. LOWRY: ...E.J., the point you're saying if Republicans are united, the Democrats can't govern, is what they're saying. It would have been relatively easy--and Senator Hatch would be an expert on this because he worked so closely with Ted Kennedy on health issues--to get 65 or 70 votes for a major healthcare bill in the Senate. Not this, but $100 billion, $200 billion more for Medicaid, for SCHIP, maybe some version of this Plan B we've seen reporting about that the White House--after Massachusetts came up with a plan where they'd cover just 15 million people at a quarter of the cost. You do something like that and you would have picked off five or 10 Republicans in the Senate, but they didn't want to do it.

MR. DIONNE: Senator Baucus spent months holding hand--Senator Baucus spent months holding hands with Senator Bauc--with Senator Grassley and Senator Enzi and got nowhere.

SEN. HATCH: I, I, I...

MR. GREGORY: OK, quick final point then I'm going to take a break. Senator:

SEN. HATCH: I was a member of the gang of seven. He was so restricted by the Democratic process that he couldn't really do anything for Republicans. So I had to leave just out of honor because I couldn't--I'd walk out of there and, and trash everything they were doing, so I left out of honor. The other Republicans gradually left, too. There has been no real effort to try and get together on all the things we can get together on. It's just been "take it or leave it," and that's been their attitude.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to, we're going to leave, we're going to leave it there.

DOWNLOADS: (741)

PLAYS: (5853)

Embed

On Meet the Press, E.J. Dionne and Orrin Hatch continue their argument that started on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post.

More on that from Steve Benen:

Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-Utah) Washington Post op-ed on Tuesday has generated quite a bit of criticism lately, and for good reason -- it was an embarrassing mess, filled with obvious and demonstrable falsehoods.

It was encouraging, then, to see the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. use his column today to call out the conservative Utahan for publishing dishonest arguments. [...]

Dionne also explained that Hatch deliberately misled readers about quotes from his Senate colleagues and misstated the record in terms of Senate use of reconciliation. The columnist concluded that he's "disappointed in Hatch." Read on...

Transcript via NBC below the fold.

Continue reading »

Rachel Maddow again doing yeoman's work with reporting on the hypocrisy of the Republicans and their lies on the use of reconciliation to get the health care bill passed. If you haven't checked it out yet, Rachel has a new blog and here is more on this segment from her entry today -- Online items cited on The Rachel Maddow show 3/3:

Orrin Hatch honored to be called a liar by Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow (April 4, 2007) An Open Letter to Senator Hatch [Updated]

Republican OMG Code Red!!

Republicans cast doubts on Senate parliamentarian

Read on...

Sen. Sherrod Brown weighed in on why he thinks the Republicans are pushing so hard not to get anything passed and if he has any idea what they will do to keep the bill from passing. He said they're ready to keep them up all night if they try to add too many amendments. If that's true I say what took them so long? They should have been doing that before the tea baggers were taking over the town halls. I'm not wild about this bill but at this point I don't see how it is good for Democrats to not pass it. They get the worst of both worlds if it fails. They live with what the voters think of it after they see how it actually affects their own lives if they do. If they're not happy about it then it will be based on some facts and not Republican fear mongering and spin.