The Hill polled our current 99 Senators about who is the easiest and hardest person to work with on the other side of the aisle.
Strangely, Lamar Alexander ranked high on both lists.
When the votes were counted, five Democratic Senators named Alexander among the most bipartisan, putting him in a tie for #12.
But he scored much higher on the bad side – being ranked the #5 most partisan.
Bob Corker, despite his grandstanding in the auto industry bailout, got six votes for being bipartisan, tying for #8 with Arlen Specter (R-PA), among others.
Showing posts with label Bob Corker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Corker. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Sen. Alexander Backstabs Hutchison
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 today. He calls the bill a bailout for the trial lawyer industry.
That’s cute. In reality, it guarantees women access to the courts if they’re unfairly getting paid less than male co-workers.
Both Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker are hiding behind Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s amendment to the bill, which would’ve set a 180-day time limit for women to file a lawsuit after they discover pay inequality.
“I fully support Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,” says Alexander.
One problem -- today Hutchison voted FOR the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, even without her amendment.
Oops. Sorry, Sen. Alexander. No political cover for you.
When her amendment failed, Hutchison voted with the Democrats rather than allow the law stand as is.
That’s called putting your country above your party.
Alexander and Corker couldn’t be bothered to do that. They’d rather let a bad law stand. It took them less than 24 hours to go from “fully supporting” Hutchison to accusing her of voting to bail out trial lawyers. Ouch.
Here’s my position – It’s a bad idea to knowingly block legitimate lawsuits out of fear of frivolous ones. Also, if the Lilly Ledbetter Act does turn out to spur frivolous lawsuits (which is pure partisan speculation at this point), you can always add a time limit later. The worst possible solution would be to just leave the bad law on the books.
Kudos to Hutchison for understanding that.
That’s cute. In reality, it guarantees women access to the courts if they’re unfairly getting paid less than male co-workers.
Both Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker are hiding behind Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s amendment to the bill, which would’ve set a 180-day time limit for women to file a lawsuit after they discover pay inequality.
“I fully support Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,” says Alexander.
One problem -- today Hutchison voted FOR the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, even without her amendment.
Oops. Sorry, Sen. Alexander. No political cover for you.
When her amendment failed, Hutchison voted with the Democrats rather than allow the law stand as is.
That’s called putting your country above your party.
Alexander and Corker couldn’t be bothered to do that. They’d rather let a bad law stand. It took them less than 24 hours to go from “fully supporting” Hutchison to accusing her of voting to bail out trial lawyers. Ouch.
Here’s my position – It’s a bad idea to knowingly block legitimate lawsuits out of fear of frivolous ones. Also, if the Lilly Ledbetter Act does turn out to spur frivolous lawsuits (which is pure partisan speculation at this point), you can always add a time limit later. The worst possible solution would be to just leave the bad law on the books.
Kudos to Hutchison for understanding that.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Giving Women Access to the Courts
Sen Bob Corker (R-TN) announced today he’s voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
The Act would guarantee women the right to sue if they’re not getting paid as much as their male co-workers. What, you thought they are already had that right? Not so much.
According to the current Supreme Court, women who aren’t getting paid as much as their male coworkers have a strict 180-day time limit to file a lawsuit -- no exceptions -- and if they don’t discover the pay inequality until after 180 days, they’re screwed. It’s too late, and they have no right to file a lawsuit at all.
How stupid is that?
So stupid that even Republicans want to change the law. They want the 180-day clock to start ticking from the time the woman discovers the pay discrimination. And they’ve appointed openly female Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to lead the charge.
The Republican version is okay. The Democratic version is better. It gets rid of the clock all together. That’s the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
Bob Corker is against it. He speculates that it would clog up our court system with frivolous lawsuits. For some reason, he thinks that’s bigger and scary than denying women access to the courts when they’ve been discriminated against.
Corker would rather the law stay like it is -- even though he knows it’s wrong. Even though he knows it’s screwing over women. Even though he knows it’s blocking real-life, legitimate claims of discrimination. That’s worth it to him because maybe there might be some frivolous cases too.
How stupid is that?
The Act would guarantee women the right to sue if they’re not getting paid as much as their male co-workers. What, you thought they are already had that right? Not so much.
According to the current Supreme Court, women who aren’t getting paid as much as their male coworkers have a strict 180-day time limit to file a lawsuit -- no exceptions -- and if they don’t discover the pay inequality until after 180 days, they’re screwed. It’s too late, and they have no right to file a lawsuit at all.
How stupid is that?
So stupid that even Republicans want to change the law. They want the 180-day clock to start ticking from the time the woman discovers the pay discrimination. And they’ve appointed openly female Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to lead the charge.
The Republican version is okay. The Democratic version is better. It gets rid of the clock all together. That’s the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
Bob Corker is against it. He speculates that it would clog up our court system with frivolous lawsuits. For some reason, he thinks that’s bigger and scary than denying women access to the courts when they’ve been discriminated against.
Corker would rather the law stay like it is -- even though he knows it’s wrong. Even though he knows it’s screwing over women. Even though he knows it’s blocking real-life, legitimate claims of discrimination. That’s worth it to him because maybe there might be some frivolous cases too.
How stupid is that?
Friday, January 16, 2009
To Spend or Not to Spend
It’s always interesting when Sen. Lamar Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker vote on opposite sides.
Last night, Sen. Corker voted to block the incoming Obama Administration from getting the second half of the $750 financial industry bailout passed in October of last year.
But Sen. Alexander agreed with the Democrats that the money should be released and spent as planned.
Quoth Alexander:
“I voted today the same way I did in October because both the current president and the incoming president have said this is an essential insurance policy against financial catastrophe. This is not spending; this is lending money with interest that taxpayers should get back. I would not have voted this way if President-elect Obama had not assured us that he will use this money as it was intended: to keep credit flowing by strengthening financial institutions and housing markets, and not for new industry-by-industry bailouts.”
Corker, on the other hand, says:
“This was a painful vote for me. […] I voted against releasing any additional TARP funds because I am concerned that we are treating the symptoms and not addressing the root problem.
“I voted for the TARP legislation in October because I felt we needed a systemic approach to restarting the engines of our financial system. The initial infusion of capitol from the TARP program was allocated in an ad-hoc way and there remains significant stress in our credit markets. We need to restore confidence to our financial system through a prescriptive and clear path forward.”
Corker’s argument is that Obama shouldn’t get the money because the Bush Administration is incompetent. Well, duh. You knew the Bush Administration was incompetent when you voted “yes” to the bailout last October (or at least you should have known), but now it’s time to give the Obama economic team (who you claim to “greatly respect”) a chance to do the job right.
If we refuse to let the Obama Administration do anything the Bush Administration was bad at, well, we might as well shut down the entire Executive Branch right now.
I applaud Alexander for his bi-partisan vote.
I worry that Corker is turning into a kneejerk obstructionist/partisan hack (especially after becoming a GOP darling for his leading role in blocking a GM bailout) -- which may be good for his career in Washington but bad for America. It’s too soon to know for sure, but it is definitely something to keep an eye on.
Last night, Sen. Corker voted to block the incoming Obama Administration from getting the second half of the $750 financial industry bailout passed in October of last year.
But Sen. Alexander agreed with the Democrats that the money should be released and spent as planned.
Quoth Alexander:
“I voted today the same way I did in October because both the current president and the incoming president have said this is an essential insurance policy against financial catastrophe. This is not spending; this is lending money with interest that taxpayers should get back. I would not have voted this way if President-elect Obama had not assured us that he will use this money as it was intended: to keep credit flowing by strengthening financial institutions and housing markets, and not for new industry-by-industry bailouts.”
Corker, on the other hand, says:
“This was a painful vote for me. […] I voted against releasing any additional TARP funds because I am concerned that we are treating the symptoms and not addressing the root problem.
“I voted for the TARP legislation in October because I felt we needed a systemic approach to restarting the engines of our financial system. The initial infusion of capitol from the TARP program was allocated in an ad-hoc way and there remains significant stress in our credit markets. We need to restore confidence to our financial system through a prescriptive and clear path forward.”
Corker’s argument is that Obama shouldn’t get the money because the Bush Administration is incompetent. Well, duh. You knew the Bush Administration was incompetent when you voted “yes” to the bailout last October (or at least you should have known), but now it’s time to give the Obama economic team (who you claim to “greatly respect”) a chance to do the job right.
If we refuse to let the Obama Administration do anything the Bush Administration was bad at, well, we might as well shut down the entire Executive Branch right now.
I applaud Alexander for his bi-partisan vote.
I worry that Corker is turning into a kneejerk obstructionist/partisan hack (especially after becoming a GOP darling for his leading role in blocking a GM bailout) -- which may be good for his career in Washington but bad for America. It’s too soon to know for sure, but it is definitely something to keep an eye on.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Lamar Alexander vs. Tennessee’s GOP Congressmen
Tennessee’s five Democratic congressman voted to expand S-CHIP to 11 million uninsured children in the United States this week.
All four of Tennessee’s Republican congressmen voted against it – including Zach Wamp, who thinks he’s ready to be our governor.
What does Sen. Lamar Alexander think about his GOP colleagues who try to block the S-CHIP bill?
“I disagree with it. I think the children’s health insurance bill is good for Tennessee — 127,000 Tennessee children need it,” [said Sen. Lamar] Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.
That’s 127,000 Tennessee children that our Republican congressman are fighting to keep uninsured. So who’s side is Sen. Bob Corker on?
In a joint release, Alexander and Corker said SCHIP reauthorization would boost Tennessee’s efforts to provide coverage for the state’s neediest children and help compensate Tennessee hospitals that treat a large number of patients who are unable to pay their bills.
Looks like Corker is siding with the kids. Good for you, Senator.
Both Corker and Alexander voted for S-CHIP and against President Bush’s veto three months ago, so I’m sure we can count on their continued support next week when the bill goes back up for a vote in the Senate. This time, President Obama will sign it into law.
Go, Obama!
(Okay, okay, that stuff in italics up there is from October and refers to Bush's veto - but you're telling me it doesn't apply now? What changed?)
All four of Tennessee’s Republican congressmen voted against it – including Zach Wamp, who thinks he’s ready to be our governor.
What does Sen. Lamar Alexander think about his GOP colleagues who try to block the S-CHIP bill?
“I disagree with it. I think the children’s health insurance bill is good for Tennessee — 127,000 Tennessee children need it,” [said Sen. Lamar] Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.
That’s 127,000 Tennessee children that our Republican congressman are fighting to keep uninsured. So who’s side is Sen. Bob Corker on?
In a joint release, Alexander and Corker said SCHIP reauthorization would boost Tennessee’s efforts to provide coverage for the state’s neediest children and help compensate Tennessee hospitals that treat a large number of patients who are unable to pay their bills.
Looks like Corker is siding with the kids. Good for you, Senator.
Both Corker and Alexander voted for S-CHIP and against President Bush’s veto three months ago, so I’m sure we can count on their continued support next week when the bill goes back up for a vote in the Senate. This time, President Obama will sign it into law.
Go, Obama!
(Okay, okay, that stuff in italics up there is from October and refers to Bush's veto - but you're telling me it doesn't apply now? What changed?)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Stood Up by Corker
It’s always interesting when Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam shows up in Nashville, and it’s interesting when Sen. Bob Corker fails to. Expect to see a lot more of Haslam; the guy’s desperate to run for statewide office.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Corker Tells a Lie
Fox Business reports:
The UAW concessions include allowing the domestic automakers to postpone their required health-care contributions from 2010 to 2012 and to eliminate the controversial jobs bank.
Sen. Bob Corker says:
The fact that they [the unions] were willing to make no concessions — zero — and let these companies fall into peril as they are now, to me, as I wake up today, it’s pretty surreal actually.
One of them is lying, and for once it’s not Fox.
Merry Christmas from Sen. Bob Corker
After Senate Republicans killed the auto industry bailout, GM was forced to immediately announce the shutdown of 20 manufacturing plants for the month of January, temporarily laying off all those workers in time for Christmas.
No word yet how that will affect Spring Hill workers here in Tennessee. But I have a pretty good guess how it will affect the economy.
A quick reminder to the GOP: jobs = good, layoffs = bad.
Update: Fortunately, those temporarily laid-off workers will receive a partial salary in January. Unless Sen. Corker gets his way. Under Corker’s plan for the auto industry, they would get nothing. The federal government would step in and kill their partial salaries during temporary plant closures. Is that want you want your Senator fighting for?
No word yet how that will affect Spring Hill workers here in Tennessee. But I have a pretty good guess how it will affect the economy.
A quick reminder to the GOP: jobs = good, layoffs = bad.
Update: Fortunately, those temporarily laid-off workers will receive a partial salary in January. Unless Sen. Corker gets his way. Under Corker’s plan for the auto industry, they would get nothing. The federal government would step in and kill their partial salaries during temporary plant closures. Is that want you want your Senator fighting for?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
More on Corker
Sen. Corker took a quick swipe at President Bush on the Senate floor today:
I know the White House is actually at a point where they're looking for the next flight out of town on January 20th
Corker was also kind enough to agree with me (and disagree with Ronald Reagan) in his op-ed piece in the Detroit News:
There's an old joke that if someone says "We're from the federal government, and we're here to help," you should run for the hills. But in this case, I believe there is a constructive role for the federal government to play.
Careful, Senator. That’s close to blasphemy.
I know the White House is actually at a point where they're looking for the next flight out of town on January 20th
Corker was also kind enough to agree with me (and disagree with Ronald Reagan) in his op-ed piece in the Detroit News:
There's an old joke that if someone says "We're from the federal government, and we're here to help," you should run for the hills. But in this case, I believe there is a constructive role for the federal government to play.
Careful, Senator. That’s close to blasphemy.
Bad Idea
The biggest Union-associated costs bogging down GM right now are pensions and healthcare costs. Therefore, Sen. Bob Corker wants to slash union wages and unemployment benefits? Swing and a miss, Senator.
PS: That plan is especially bad when we’re desperate to stimulate the economy.
PS: That plan is especially bad when we’re desperate to stimulate the economy.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Corker & The Big Three
I’ve got to say Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) is right on the money when he sums up the situation for Chrysler and Ford.
He says Chrysler just wants a little spending money to stay afloat until it can sell itself off to the highest bidder:
"The fact is basically what your plan is about is that you want to hang around long enough so that you can date somebody and hopefully get married soon before you run out of money," Corker said.
Furthermore:
He told Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally, whose company is not in immediate danger of collapse, that he was just there because Chrysler and GM were asking for help.
As for GM, Sen. Corker has some good ideas and bad.
He gave GM a laundry list of solutions to it’s problems, including offering its debtors 30 cents on the dollar, which is more than they’re getting in the debt reselling market right now. Plus, Corker wants the UAW to cut GM some slack on retiree healthcare payments and unemployment payments above and beyond what the government gives laid off workers.
Well, GM should try to buy back its own debt for pennies on the dollar if it can, and that’s not a bad use for a government bailout check, if it gets one.
Here’s where Corker goes wrong. In this economy, the last thing you want to do is take money out of the hands of consumers, even (or especially) unemployed ones. For one, they’re buying necessities, not frivolities. And for two, we want to encourage all the spending we can.
The second-to-last thing you want to do is take healthcare away from retirees. Either the government is going to end up paying for it, or they’re going to have to go without. Neither is a good thing. And the ones that go without are likely to get sick and cost the government a whole long more money in the long run away.
So that’s two more good things to do with a government bailout check.
I’ve been on the fence on the whole auto industry rescue thing, but Sen. Corker now has me leaning towards a bailout for GM at least. The other two… not so much. Ford says they’re not going to declare bankruptcy either way, so if they’re not even at risk of bankruptcy why the hell do they need bailout? Chrysler’s a goner anyway. Would a bailout help them find a buyer or only give them longer to put it off?
He says Chrysler just wants a little spending money to stay afloat until it can sell itself off to the highest bidder:
"The fact is basically what your plan is about is that you want to hang around long enough so that you can date somebody and hopefully get married soon before you run out of money," Corker said.
Furthermore:
He told Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally, whose company is not in immediate danger of collapse, that he was just there because Chrysler and GM were asking for help.
As for GM, Sen. Corker has some good ideas and bad.
He gave GM a laundry list of solutions to it’s problems, including offering its debtors 30 cents on the dollar, which is more than they’re getting in the debt reselling market right now. Plus, Corker wants the UAW to cut GM some slack on retiree healthcare payments and unemployment payments above and beyond what the government gives laid off workers.
Well, GM should try to buy back its own debt for pennies on the dollar if it can, and that’s not a bad use for a government bailout check, if it gets one.
Here’s where Corker goes wrong. In this economy, the last thing you want to do is take money out of the hands of consumers, even (or especially) unemployed ones. For one, they’re buying necessities, not frivolities. And for two, we want to encourage all the spending we can.
The second-to-last thing you want to do is take healthcare away from retirees. Either the government is going to end up paying for it, or they’re going to have to go without. Neither is a good thing. And the ones that go without are likely to get sick and cost the government a whole long more money in the long run away.
So that’s two more good things to do with a government bailout check.
I’ve been on the fence on the whole auto industry rescue thing, but Sen. Corker now has me leaning towards a bailout for GM at least. The other two… not so much. Ford says they’re not going to declare bankruptcy either way, so if they’re not even at risk of bankruptcy why the hell do they need bailout? Chrysler’s a goner anyway. Would a bailout help them find a buyer or only give them longer to put it off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
