
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) promised that he'd be the next Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) if he had to be. And last night, he made good on his threat.
Coburn is blocking unanimous consent on extension of unemployment benefits, just as Bunning did a few weeks ago. Only this time, Coburn's not alone -- the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other members of the Republican caucus have joined with Coburn, promising to block billions in unemployment benefits just as the Senate is set to leave on a two-week recess.
Due to the timing of the blockade, benefits could expire on April 5, a situation that would not be remedied for a week while the Senate is out of town. Senators will return from their Easter break on April 12.
When Bunning blocked the benefits extension in early March, government programs funded by the money -- which includes everything from construction work, unemployment payments and doctor's fees -- were only shut down for a matter of hours. This time, with the expiration coming on April 5 while the Senate is in recess, the shutdown could last for days.
Coburn and the Republicans are making the same argument this time that Bunning made back on March 1: if Democrats want to extend the benefits, they need to find a way to pay for them. On the Senate floor, Coburn said he was blocking the benefits on behalf that old political standby, the average Joe.
"You see it is easy to spend other people's money," Coburn said on the Senate floor, according top the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Especially if you're sitting up here with a good pension, drawing a good salary."
Defending his blockade on the floor today, Coburn turned to the other political stand by, placing a giant photo of an adorable little girl from Oklahoma on an easel next to him as he went on and on about how he was blocking the benefits extension for her.
Democrats have said that the $9 billion benefits extension is emergency spending, and therefore should be funded with deficit spending. They have pledged to pass a new permanent jobless benefits bill that will fund the process through normal spending channels.
Though the situation for unemployed workers and the government programs funded by the blockade is the same this time as it was with Bunning, there's a bit more Capitol Hill intrigue this time around that makes the process a little different.
Last time, Bunning took action on his won, catching everyone by surprise when he stood and blocked unanimous consent on a bill most expected to sail through without compromise. This time, Coburn gave Democrats warning that he was preparing to do the same thing, which reportedly led to some deal making behind the scenes that fell apart at the last moment.
As Politico reports it, Senate Democrats came to an agreement with the Republicans to shorten the extension from 30 days to two weeks and fully pay for it. But Democrats in the House balked at the plan and said no. Democrats say that Republican plans to pay for the extension with stimulus funds is counter-productive -- that money is designed to create jobs, they say, so spending it on unemployment benefits could keep the government from creating more jobs that could get people off jobless rolls for good.
With the hours ticking down until the Senate leaves for its break, it seems less and less likely that another deal will be reached, meaning that the benefits will expire on April 5.
nova voter
March 26, 2010 11:03 AM
YEA!!!! now we're the party of Screw Uninsured Kids with Cancer AND Screw the Unemployed!!! we're on a roll, baby!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 26, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to nova voter
So it's now a tag team between Coburn and McConnell? The Dems should call them the "Revolving Boors"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
March 26, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to George C
I chase every job lead out there. In the meantime, my unemployment insurance is absolutely crucial. If this goes on too long, my family is screwed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 26, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to trblmkr
Its time to put the senators on unemployment, and let them pay for their COBRA. They have no business taking holiday breaks while we are still losing jobs at hundreds of thousands a WEEK! I worked in employment for many years, and they are twisting the numbers beyond belief. Tomorrow, they are saying if the job losses for the week are 100K, the recession is over. Since the job losses were 450K for the week before....?????
Hang in there. The bastards better not go home without passing unemployment for you and the thousands of others who are suffering from the worst economic depression since the Great Depression. There is one salient difference which makes this one worse: in 1933, we were the worlds largest lending country, and our currency was backed with gold. Today, we are the biggest debt ridden country in history, China stopped buying our debt a year ago, and we have nothing behind us but a printing press. All our Mfg is overseas, and we are not building anything to replace it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scapegoat
March 27, 2010 8:35 AM in reply to nova voter
Cockburn's unholy opposition to international family planning directly shipped American jobs to overpopulated Catholic and Catholic-controlled poverty pits. Perhaps he's hoping that cute little girl will sell her body to pedophile priests and GOPERS for food, just like in Catholic poverty pits?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Orlando
March 26, 2010 11:05 AM
I wonder if Republicans think that the unemployed don't get a vote. Idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 26, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to Orlando
Their families and friends all get to vote, too. Does anybody not know a family member, friend, fellow church member, or neighbor who has been laid off? It's good to see we are back to the days of "compassionate conservatism."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 26, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to Rick Jones
Yeah, but for Republicans "unemployed" means a person who's living off his trust fund alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
March 26, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to Orlando
"I wonder if Republicans think that the unemployed don't get a vote."
Don't give them any ideas...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
March 26, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to JEP07
but it would be an interesting rumor to start.
"Is it true, NOW the Republicans want to require full time employment as a prerequisite for voting?!?!"
Sure would stir up the unemployed rabble, yearning to throw bricks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
March 26, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to Orlando
Insterestingly enough, if Neal Boortz had his way, the unemployed and poor wouldn't get to vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 26, 2010 8:53 PM in reply to Orlando
Thanks to the supreme court's ruling in Jan, our votes no longer matter. Corporations can buy and sell all candidates of any party from the Oval office to city official. Nothing is being done to revoke it, either. We have lost our power of the ballot box, the vote is now officially a joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 26, 2010 11:14 AM
Why on earth leave for the break, then?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 26, 2010 11:15 AM
Sorry guys but Democrat hypocrisy has to be aired out as it comes along. All they have to do is follow their own rules and everything will be hunky-dory. Their choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
March 26, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to shooter242
Thanks for the encouragement. It was nice getting the reviews but I have to ask...what would have made the review "very helpful"? Did I leave out something? After rereading the review I did edit the intro a bit and realized I hit the "not recommended" instead of the "recommend" button, and changed it. Perhaps the review seemed contradictory as a result?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to shooter242
Good point, shooter. The Republicans never approved any deficit spending while they controlled the Senate, so they shouldn't let Democrats get away with the double standard.
And seeing how Bunning's obstruction was such a political winner for the GOP, they have every incentive to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 26, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to Stroszek
Hey, it was Democrats that made the big deal about how they were going to institute PAYGO. So here we are only two months later and they want to borrow billions more?
Obviously Democrats don't mean to pay for their spending, and if you're OK with that, you have no case against the Republicans. So what's it going to be? Should Congress pay for it's programs or not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to shooter242
I'm just saying, Republican hypocrisy has to be aired out as it comes along. Republicans obviously don't intend to pay for their spending and they opposed PAYGO, and Coburn was okay with that... so he has no case against the Democrats. Excellent reasoning, shooter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 26, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to Stroszek
This is interesting, in your recitation Coburn is not the hypocrite for opposing PAYGO and not paying, while it remains that Democrats passed PAYGO and are not paying. Leaving them still as hypocritical. Thanks for making my point.
But the question still begs, should Congress pay for it's programs or not? And if not, shouldn't PAYGO be repealed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 26, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to shooter242
Funny, they always seem to find the funding, whenever we have another critical need to kill brown people...
This has nothing to do with HONEST worry about cost.
This is about one thing, and one thing only: selling the lumpen on the Reaganistic idea that "Government" is useless... see? "Government" can't even help you out, when you're broke and can't find work! Which is 'cuz that damned Kenyan Muslim President has control of the tanked economy! So vote for us, 'cuz we're doing it all for Average Joe, and his [sniff] adorable, heartwarming little pre-shiksa!
Here's why this is real stupid: not one unemployed or underemployed person will vote R, if the Dems are smart enough* to remind unemployed or underemployed voters who was responsible for this fraud!
(* = Yeah, yeah, I know... :-( )
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann Arbor
March 26, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to shooter242
Fine, you're right. Of course, the amount of money involved here is pocket change; the Dems have followed the rule on big stuff. (Compare their paid-for HCR with the GOP's fiscal abdication on the Medicare drug benefit.)
More important, if you think obstructing unemployment benefits will be a political winner, you are taking a sucker's bet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
March 26, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to shooter242
we just saved over a trillion dollars in passing the health care bill. so the $10 billion is paid for.
now,
Thanks for the encouragement. It was nice getting the reviews but I have to ask...what would have made the review "very helpful"? Did I leave out something? After rereading the review I did edit the intro a bit and realized I hit the "not recommended" instead of the "recommend" button, and changed it. Perhaps the review seemed contradictory as a result?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to shooter242
Actually, you identified the fundamental question as whether we should pay for public programs with deficit spending. Coburn opposes PAYGO and deficit spends... so he evidently has no problem with deficit spending... unless the Democrats are doing it. Ergo, he is a hypocrite for demanding that Democrats not deficit spend.
That was a pretty clever spin job on your part, but again, the issue you cite as most fundamental is what's in question here... so your partisan hackery remains on full display.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to Stroszek
And I would add that opposition to deficit spending in general is Coburn's own stated justification.
But I agree with you. We should air out hypocrisy as it comes along. As it just so happens, Coburn and the Republicans are rank with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to Stroszek
I would also add that the Dems did just pass a 100 billion dollar deficit reduction bill... so there's your offset.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to Stroszek
Of course, then there's the whole issue of this not actually violating PAYGO rules... but whatever...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 26, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to shooter242
You are falling for political theatre. All of the name calling and so-called differences between the two parties are for show. The real deals happen in back rooms behind closed doors carefully monitored by special interests. Nothing will get passed corporations don't want. The so-called health care gives private insurance companies 32million new, mandated customers.
There is no difference between the two parties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hyla Brook
March 27, 2010 10:16 PM in reply to shooter242
At least when Democrats add to the deficit they are using the money to create jobs, not kill Muslims.
I'm getting sick of hearing what's going to happen to someone's grand-daughter 20 years hence - what about the children barely hanging on because their parents are unemployed?
Besides, if the Democrats stay in office, they'll bring down the deficit. Conservatives have selective memory and forgot that Clinton left Bush a budget surplus. Bush blew that surplus with tax cuts for the wealthy and an expensive off-budget war.
I like the Democrats way of doing things, tax cuts for the middle clas, more jobs, and rein in Wall Streets who'd sell their grandmother's gold teeth to get an extra buck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
March 26, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to Stroszek
2 Things, first, the pay go rule doesn't apply to unemployment benefits. Second, unemployment benefits are derived from taxes taken out of the pay checks of Americans. So, this isn't some kind of welfare. They took these unemployment insurance taxes out or pay checks each week without fail so, to hold the money these people earned hostage because the GOP is basically pissed because they got their asses kicked again in 2008 and again this week with the passage of healthcare, is just pure spite. The Democrats won big in 2008 and they have the right to govern. That fucked up party of klansmen on the right are not allowed to call the shots. This is what it means to be in the MINORITY! They'll pay for their stupidity. They think they're going to take back congress but, trust me, they're going to get their asses kicked again in November!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann Arbor
March 26, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to shooter242
And this is a sure winner for the GOP! Because in a recession people care a lot more about pay-as-you-go than about unemployment benefits!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
March 26, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to shooter242
Shooter is a card carrying commie. Ignore him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dadzo
March 26, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to shooter242
Given the determined and indiscriminate obstructionism of the Republicans there is no way a "new jobless benefits bill that might fund the process through normal channels" could be passed before the benefits expire. So, rather than standing Pyrrhicly on their PayGo principle and watching the jobless suffer while Congress vacationed and debated, the Dems will try to keep the benefits flowing (Go) and secure the funding (Pay) later. Seems compassionate, rational, and responsible -- three descriptors you won't hear anyone applying to Coburn and his cohorts anytime soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
March 26, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to shooter242
shooter,
"Coburn and the Republicans are making the same argument this time that Bunning made back on March 1: if Democrats want to extend the benefits, they need to find a way to pay for them."
The Republicans, en masse, recently voted against PayGo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
March 26, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to JohnW1141
shooter,
"Democrats have said that the $9 billion benefits extension is emergency spending, and therefore should be funded with deficit spending."
Of course its an emergency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
March 26, 2010 11:22 AM
Take the $10B from the Defense Budget. Problem solved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
March 26, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
How many of the vets returning from theater - return to find they've no job? using $10B from the defense budget may not be as inappropriate as some may think.
It's the military budget that takes men and women from their jobs their lives, trains them to be soldiers - when they stop being soldiers, the military budget should retrain/re-orient them to what their lives will become.
It's the 'you broke it you fix it' mentality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
March 26, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to mikedrevguy
and how is it the Republicans get away with acting like the Vet's best friend? Start talkng abut convertine defense money into VA support, and they get an allergic reaction.
How about a 10% increase in the weapons tax?
...dedicated to the VA?
Cause and effect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
March 26, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to JEP07
Nah, the Repubs are "selective socialists." The VA is socialism, dammit. Tax cuts for small businesses. That's the ticket!
But ask yourself: Just who is the very best friend of our defense budget and the contractors it supports? Republicans, right? And isn't the defense budget (which ostensibly provides for our "common defense") the largest socialist program in our budget - or even the whole f*cking world, for that matter?
Go figure!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BoogAlou
March 26, 2010 11:29 AM
The republicans are such hypocrites! Did they pay for the Bush tax cuts, Bush's war of choice in Iraq, the TARP bailout that was initiated under Bush, or hundreds of other things over the previous eight years? Absolutely not.
So where do they draw the line? Helping the unemployed. Do these guys intentionally set out to be aholes or does it just come naturally for them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richard L. Adlof
March 26, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to BoogAlou
They intentionally set out to be jack_holes and it comes naturally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richard L. Adlof
March 26, 2010 11:29 AM
@WalterMitty: Take the cash from the State Department, so Secretary of State Clinton will have to pay XE (Blackwater Renamed) by borrowing from hedge fund that her daughter runs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Damiana
March 26, 2010 11:30 AM
How 'bout if they take it from money slated to go to KBR & co. instead? After all, money put toward unemployment benefits goes right back into the economy immediately. Money given to KBR ends up ... where? Offshore bank accounts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
March 26, 2010 11:34 AM
No, we see how easy it is to screw people who are struggling when you're "sitting up here with a good pension, drawing a good salary," just for your own political benefit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 26, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to Redshift
Too bad bud. All Democrats have to do, is pay for their own programs according to rules they instituted two months ago. If you think Alcee Hastings was right when he said they just make the rules up as they go along, just say so.
Trying to blame Republicans for pointing out Democrat hypocrisy is just surrendering to blind partisanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
March 26, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to shooter242
"make the rules up as they go along,"
I think the layman's term for that is "legislation".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to JEP07
rofl
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 26, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to shooter242
Let's assume you're right, and while both Dems and Repubs are rank hypocrites when it suits their purposes, in this particular instance the Dems' unwillingness to pay for extended unemployment benefits after passing PAYGO is just a cheap hypocritical trick.
Still, does the bottom line not matter to you at all? Is this the place where the Repubs are going to draw the line they failed to draw ever during their 6 years in control of the Congress? Are they really going to say "Right, we may have engaged in wasteful budget busters before, but we're absolutely not going to extend unemployment benefits for people who've lost their jobs. Here we stand"?
Does that really make sense?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 26, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to shooter242
I'd be inclined to agree with you but it's one thing to decry hypocrisy and call a press conference. It's quite another to withhold benefits payments and other things that the unemployed and doctors need in the name of making a political point. Hell, they could simply go on every Faux News Sunday show and yell about it all evening.
Wouldn't that be a less callous way of making their point?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 26, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to Redshift
Time to throw all the fuckers out and let them try living on unemployment and pay for their own COBRA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
March 26, 2010 11:40 AM
Coburn...The senator of dickum!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
victor U
March 26, 2010 11:44 AM
Typical of the low lifes of the GOP. All of which were born with silver spoons in their mouths!
RE
www.anonymous-proxy.us.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
karen marie
March 26, 2010 11:46 AM
Are you kidding with this headline?
I thought the peeps at TPM were a bit more intelligent so as to understand how stupid it is to use violent language at a point when violence is in the air.
There is no need to use the phrase "pull the trigger" in any headline or story. I would have expected that the writers at TPM would be well aware of that.
You only provide cover for the hatemongers by using this kind of language.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MCHowdy
March 26, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to karen marie
Please tell me you're kidding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
karen marie
March 26, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to MCHowdy
You're kidding, right? It's okay for TPM to use this headline but it's dangerous for Palin to put crosshairs on "targeted" Democratic seats?
I'm no fan of Palin and I am frightened by what is to come from the rightwing lunatics. But it's a little difficult to decry this kind of language on the right when the left sees no problem with using it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 26, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to karen marie
It's a fair point. There's a slight difference in that the title is describing the actions of someone instead of exhorting supporters, the liberal base isn't whipped up into a frothing sea of anger and that liberals have much less of a history of violence. It doesn't significantly detract from your argument, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
karen marie
March 26, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to worthy9
You and I might understand the distinction. Unfortunately, it just muddies the water when trying to make the case that language matters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 26, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to karen marie
It's happening to Republicans, too. Just today Rep. Bankshill (R-Wall St) said this:
"I get threats all the time. Just a couple of days ago a person was walking a dog in front of my house and the dog took a dump on my lawn. It was a big dog. If it had hit me I could have been seriously injured."
He then broke into a cover of Kermit the Frog's song "It's not easy being White".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 26, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
The dog shit was that big? It would have knocked her out? Was it projectile dog shit? I've only heard of beetles that can shoot their shit that far. I'm guessing that dog was bread for projectile pooping with her being the intended target from day 1. Sneaky liberal dogs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
March 26, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
...how the heck did dog shit and Coburn land in the same thread?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 26, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to JEP07
C'mon Jep, it's not that far of a stretch from any imagination.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 26, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to JEP07
Makes sense to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
March 26, 2010 11:58 AM
Coburn has used this particular posterboard picture of a little girl before. If you're curious, my friend has a hobby of collecting pictures of props used by politicians and has a screenshot on his blog here:
http://captainplacard.com/post/330114803/captain-placards-favorite-senator-dr-tom
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
March 26, 2010 12:01 PM
The Senate again?
Notice how it takes the Senate 4 days to pass the recon bill the House sent it. Even with the Senate working overtime well into the evening each day and the dems giving back all their debate time.
It takes the House 7 hours to pass it again when the Senate was forced to make changes, and sent it back to the House.
How fucked up is that?
Here is how we fix it. Since the Senate is so fucked up, they have to stay in town and work through the break. The House can go. When and if the Senate decides to get off their asses and stop being dysfunctional, we can bring the House members back for a vote. Then they can all go. If there is any time left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 26, 2010 9:07 PM in reply to willia451
I agree. Why should they take vacation if it isn't permanent? I think the ones who go need to stay gone for good. Let them experience unemployment with no other opportunities for a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
centercut
March 26, 2010 12:05 PM
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? Doesn't he wish. Let's get an editor in here....
When you go all in like they did with health care, they now have truly nothing to lose. They'll block unanimous consent requests to rename post offices unless they are named after Ronald Reagan or Joe the Plumber.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
March 26, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to centercut
McMorris writing about McConnell; damn Scots stick together, ya know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
March 26, 2010 12:29 PM
Oh, so NOW Coburn cares about how these things are paid for. Funny, he didn't care a few weeks ago. Hmmmm......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hal
March 26, 2010 12:44 PM
Let me get this straight. Coburn voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program that gave $700 billion to banks and other financial institutions to save them from the financial meltdown they created and didn’t hesitate to charge the cost to the national debt. Yet he is now personally holding up legislation that would provide $9 billion in extended unemployment benefits to people thrown out of work as a result of that same financial mess because it would increase the national debt. What a hypocrite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
March 26, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to Hal
If the banks had fallen they would have crushed people like Coburn. If the government unemployment benefit program falls it only crushes little people. Coburn's values are entirely coherent.
Here's an unemployment benefit the Foxpublicans can get behind: One bullet for each unemployed person, to be paid for by their survivors. A death tax they can get behind! And it helps the arms industry! You're welcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PepperoniToni
March 26, 2010 12:52 PM
I won't pretend to understand parlimentary procedure, but what the hell is a unanimous consent request and how the hell do you get around it? It seems crazy to me that the rules would allow one senator to hold up the the senate from acting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 26, 2010 1:05 PM in reply to PepperoniToni
Google is your friend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
March 26, 2010 1:11 PM
I think we should find pet pork projects in Coburn's state, as well as McConnell's, and take the funds from them to do this. >:)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 26, 2010 1:56 PM
what a scumball.....another klansmen, think only of yourself.
DIRTY DOG
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
March 26, 2010 2:00 PM
It has to stop. We've had 3 unfilled job openings for over a month. At the beginning of the downturn, we had 10-12 applicants per day. Now, it's maybe 2 unqualified candidates per week.
It's time to scale down the unemployment benefits. People are starting to think that collecting unemployment is a job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hal
March 26, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to Silence
What's the work? What's the pay? Health insurance benefits?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
March 26, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Hal
Above union pay scale, full health benefits, high tech mfg.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to Silence
Sounds great. I know some people who would be interested. Could you provide a link?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 26, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Silence
Sweet. Please provide that link. I have a friend who I think would be well qualified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 26, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to Silence
Yeah, you don't know anything about unemployment benefit eligibility. We knew that already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 26, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to Silence
Ah, another of the "people would rather collect $400 a week than earn $1500 a week" meme. Could there be other explanations for the drop in applicants?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
March 26, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to George C
meme
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
March 26, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to George C
Nope. These are very good jobs. The positions require solid troubleshooting skills and a background in electronics. We're looking for "A" techs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 26, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to Silence
OK. Let's assume the people who possess those credentials for those jobs were earning good money prior the recession. Does it make sense to you that those people would rather earn peanuts than a salary comparable to what they earned before? You realize they can't afford a place of their own to live, or to do much of anything on unemployment. Does it make sense they'd rather live with their parents than work for you?
Isn't it possible that the available candidates are already working elsewhere, which is why you've seen a drop in applications? I just think your assumption that they'd rather earn a fraction of what they could earn with you -- explained by the folly of extended unemployment benefits -- makes no sense in the real world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
March 26, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to George C
I think people have stopped looking because they're being told that they're aren't any jobs out there. So, why bother?
Job seeking IS a full time job. It's all about being at the right place, at the right time. I have hired people off the street when no job opening had been established. The right skill set and personality can motivate an employer to create a new job.
I have notebooks full of ideas. Unfortunately, those ideas are often shelved because I can't find the right talent to make them a reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
March 26, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to George C
All the more reason to reduce unemployment benefits. The jobs are out there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 26, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Silence
Link?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
March 26, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to Dorn76
Where are you located?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
March 26, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to Silence
It's a shame you don't have the talent, maybe then you could make one of your ideas work.
If you have jobs you can't fill because talent is not available you need to raise your offered pay rate, or hire someone without experience who you can train.
But cutting off benefits for unemployed textile and auto workers is not going to magicaly create more experienced electronics technicians.
What it would do cause more mortgage and loan defaults, again cripling banks ability to make business loans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
March 26, 2010 5:13 PM in reply to mcrose68
There are 65 families earning a good living from my ideas. Who do you think designed and built the first product ever shipped to provide those paychecks?
I'll tell you who. It was same guy who engineered the idea, created a product from it, walked miles of trade show floors with a sandwich in his pocket, broke and alone, and sold it, negotiated every materials contract, did ALL of the accounting, trained every new employee, wrote the company operating software, and traveled the world supporting it.
I don't often call people names, but you, sir, are an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
March 26, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to Silence
Tell me you're kidding! Nobody could be that stupid, or could you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
March 26, 2010 2:00 PM
Why is there always money available for war efforts and big business bailouts. While things that are supposed to be a direct benefit of being a citizen of this nation there needs to be a measured approach. There is never money to solve real social problems such as poverty, alternative energy, health reform. The wall street bailout took a matter of days while health care dragged on for a year.
Republicans should just come out and say it directly that they don't care about actual human beings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 26, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Ironcomments
Republicans care only for fetuses. From there you're on your own. Because as we all know, children pick their parents. They simply ask God to divinely impregnate their soul into the embryo of their choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
apache
March 26, 2010 2:27 PM
Coburn, nor anybody else who believes that God directs his actions, can be expected to behave rationally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
March 26, 2010 2:32 PM
the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
I believe you meant 'Minority'.
Last time, Bunning took action on his won
and 'on his own'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
March 26, 2010 2:37 PM
Cut all abstinence only sex ed funds, that'll cover it. When Republicans renounce BORROW GO, we can talk about Paygo.
Off topic: on CNN they're using avatars to demonstrate how people will react to HCR, because all the kids love avatars! Look an unhappy doctor avatar because there was no tort reform....we are a stupid, stupid nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vincent F
March 26, 2010 2:54 PM
Don't the Republicans know that after 8 yrs of Bushonomics, some unemployed people are white?!?! And Christian, too!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gene Ha
March 26, 2010 3:46 PM
Can't Democrats just specifically pull most of the earmarks from the state of the obstructing Congressman?
"According to an earmark database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, there were 77 Oklahoma earmarks worth $80 million this fiscal year."
Read more: http://newsok.com/article/3446598#ixzz0jJTFPACZ
April 5-12 is 8 days. I'm assuming the $9Billion figure is for the full fiscal year. ($9B/356 days)x8days is about $200 million. Add in cagw.org's Alabama pork number of $280,071,372 and those two weeks are more than paid for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RWN
March 26, 2010 5:09 PM
This is like a mad divorce, the GOP are divorcing themselves from governance and political legitimacy. The thing is that Coburn and McConnell believe the calibration that the 10% on UE benefits and almost 20% in all either unemployed, underemployed, permanently unemployed, or displaced (times the family members) are not in their class of voters...kind of like how my former sister-in-law acted in her divorce and now her oldest son is divorcing her...
The thing is what the GOP is killing is their legitimacy to the independents and Republican leaning moderates. This is just stupidity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
March 26, 2010 5:37 PM
Yeah, Republicans know nothing about spending other people's money. Nothing at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D Mac
March 26, 2010 7:01 PM
Good job Tom, any unemployed republicans just became
Independents or,or or, OMG Democrats. you guys know
how to form a proverbial circular firing squad - did Rupert Murdock the president of the GOP put you up to this ??
did he give you some special water too ??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D Mac
March 26, 2010 7:22 PM
Good job Tom, any unemployed republicans just became
Independents or,or or, OMG Democrats. you guys know
how to form a proverbial circular firing squad - did Rupert Murdock the president of the GOP put you up to this ??
did he give you some special water too ??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnDoe
March 26, 2010 9:00 PM
Gut the abstinence only program
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Perm Dude
March 27, 2010 1:22 AM
... the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ...
Dude, I hope you're not predicting here. Mitch McConnell is the Minority Leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
soupson52
March 27, 2010 12:52 PM
Hey, TPM! I am surprised you have not corrected that really ugly thought:McConnell majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wake up
March 28, 2010 3:30 PM
An article in the NY Times says that many Tea Party activists are unemployed. Interesting to see how they react to this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alwayswatchin
March 29, 2010 1:12 PM
It has always been easy for those with power to enforce it on the less fortunate. They use the weak as their tool. It has gone on since this country was inhabited by other than the Native American Indian. They manipulated the way of life to accommodate their own material ways of power, and started the slow process of eventual extinction and relocation of some tribes with complete disregard for their true well being. The politic was that they were making it better for them when they were just moving them out of sight & mind by calling them wild savages. We are all just trying to take care of our families. Those like Coburn, as one example, are doing what they do and are "just protecting" us for now and future generations. Nothing has changed and we are running out of land to relocate all the poor, especially since they are eliminating the middle class. Look out Hawaii,you are the new frontier. Isn't that what England did to Australia? Be careful Senator Coburn, we poor also pay your salary and perques. People, like animals, tend to react as a cornered animal when left no alternatives. In fact, why don't we just eliminate the Congressional health care and pay unemployment to those who have less than they. We might also be able to use those lobbyist payrolls that are conveniently paid for support to Congress. I implore change. Work together, really. BS is BS and we may be less fortunate, but we are not stupid. We need and demand respect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 9:26 AM
The republicans are such hypocrites! Did they pay for the Bush tax cuts, Bush's war of choice in Iraq, the TARP bailout that was initiated under Bush, or hundreds of other things over the previous eight years? Absolutely not.
So where do they draw the line? Helping the unemployed. Do these guys intentionally set out to be aholes or does it just come naturally for them?
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?