Hoyer Criticizes Kyl, Bush Tax Cuts

Philip Bunnell - Talk Radio News Service

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) soundly criticized remarks made by Minority Whip Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) regarding the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.

“Essentially what [Kyl] meant was that going deeply into debt to cut taxes was acceptable,”  Hoyer said in response to Kyl’s comments on Fox News Sunday.

Kyl publicly voiced his approval for extending the Bush tax cuts on the program, despite negative impacts the tax cuts have on the deficit. “Now, somebody at some point or time has to pay that bill,” the top Democrat said. “Thirty-five percent of our deficit that we confront is directly attributable to that philosophy.”

Hoyer acknowledged a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, which showed that a growing number of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy.

“I’m not happy about it,” said Hoyer. “Americans are angry… their economy is still not working the way it ought to work. Their anger should be focused on not returning to the Bush, Hastert, Boehner, McCain, policies, which plunged us deep into debt and resulted in the worst economy in the lifetime of almost every American.”

The House Leader took time to applaud the recent passage of the budget enforcement resolution, which passed before Congress took its July 4th recess.  As a former member of the House Appropriations Committee, Hoyer said that the act was significant, even though he would have preferred a full budget. 

“I believe the budget enforcement resolution was, in fact, a very meaningful action taken by the Congress,” Hoyer said. “This was not some superficial action without meaning.” 

The resolution sets discretionary spending $7 billion below what President Obama requested.

Congress Can't Trust BP To Protect Clean Up Crews, Says Democrat

Philip Bunnell - Talk Radio News Service

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) said Monday that BP, the oil giant responsible for the massive oil spill in the Gulf Coast, cannot be counted on to protect the health of workers assigned to clean up the spill.

“We know we can’t trust BP,” Capps said during a discussion at the Center For American Progress (CAP) in Washington, D.C.. Capps added that BP lacked the incentive to provide adequate healthcare to cleanup workers.

Ellen-Marie Whelan, the associate director of health policy at CAP, explained the importance of extensive data compilation so that government agencies can monitor the long term health effects of the spill, especially regarding the unknown effects of the chemical dispersant.  

“Some of the [health] effects can take years to emerge,” said Whelan.

Dr. Lesley Russell, a visiting fellow at CAP who focuses on health issues, outlined the many risks that can arise from the spill, including contaminated seafood, PTSD, and fertility issues.  Russell cautioned that cleanup workers near the crude oil, burning oil, and dispersants, are already complaining of feeling ill.

All three emphasized that it is important to learn from past disasters, such as 9/11, the Exxon Valdez spill, and a 2002 oil spill of the coast of Spain, when looking at the adverse health effects and how to protect emergency cleanup workers as well as residents.

Brookings Scholar Predicts Arizona Lawsuit Will Fail

Philip Bunnell - Talk Radio News Service

Darrel West, the Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, predicted Wednesday that the lawsuit filed recently by the Justice Department against Arizona will likely fail.

“The Justice Department claims that states can’t make immigration policy when in fact states have been passing immigration laws for decades,” West said during an afternoon Webchat. “I don’t think the courts will buy the idea that only the federal government can make immigration policy.”

Explained West, “In the 19th century, Southern states limited migration to their states based on race and property. California tried to exclude the Chinese in the late 19th century. And governors today sign all sorts of immigration laws.” 

The Department’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday, was a reaction to Arizona’s new hard-line immigration policy, which allows law enforcement officials to request proof of citizenship from those suspected to be in the country illegally. Critics have charged that the law will ultimately lead to racial profiling and threaten public safety by allowing the public’s trust in police to erode.

The lawsuit is based on the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which dictates that legislation passed at a state level cannot trump federal law.

Although West stated that he does not believe the lawsuit will be effective, he noted that the law was far from ideal.

“The new Arizona law creates more problems that it solves,” West said.