Don Wade & Roma

Roskam: Wingnut DeMint "So Grounded And Wise"

Adam Doster — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:31:08 -0700

Back from his surprise trip to Honduras, in which he and a Republican delegation met with the nation's interim president President Roberto Micheletti (who assumed power through a military coup and has been subsequently condemned by the Obama administration and the European Union), Rep. Peter Roskam had some generous things to say about one of his travel partners, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina). Listen as he speaks admiringly of his congressional colleague on WLS’ Don Wade and Roma:

Internal mp3

ROSKAM: Senator DeMint is so grounded and wise and I came away just very, very impressed with him.

Is there a second Jim DeMint serving in Washington? Because if we're talking about the South Carolina arch-conservative, words like "grounded" and "wise" seem a tad inappropriate.

This is the same lawmaker who, instead of working across the aisle in the upper chamber to solve America's problems, said he'd rather "create pain" for his fellow legislators. This summer, he made his first priority torpedoing health care reform, pointing out that "if we're able to stop Obama on this ... it will break him." Two years ago, he wrote an essay for the National Review advocating that all "illegal immigrants should have to return home and get right with the law before being granted legal status." Now, he's turned his focus to purportedly creeping socialism,"writing" a book titled "Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America 's Slide Into Socialism" and telling a crowd of conservative activists that President Obama is "the world’s best salesman of socialism." (He's also repeatedly compared today's government to that of the Nazi's.) And here's the kicker: during his 2004 Senate campaign, DeMint told a local newspaper that openly gay people and unwed pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools. (He later issued a very weak retraction.)

I think it's fair to ask Rep. Roskam how many of these claims and ideas he endorses.

Roskam's Cap-And-Trade Crusade

Adam Doster — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:44:06 -0800

After failing to derail President Obama’s popular stimulus package, House Republicans are turning their attention to one of the White House’s next big endeavors: cap-and-trade. Specifically, the caucus is attempting to paint the scheme—which aims to reduce industrial carbon emissions—as too expensive for both consumers and businesses.

For an example of what this approach looks like, take a listen to these remarks from GOP Rep. Peter Roskam's on WLS’ Don Wade and Roma yesterday, in which he equates cap-and-trade with a massive tax increase:

Internal mp3

DON WADE: Is there anything that won’t rise in price if we have a cap-and-trade system installed?

ROSKAM: No. I’ve not thought of it that way before Don, but I think you’ve put it really well. Cap-and-trade is something that is going to have an impact on every American and every product that they use or every service that they use. We had a witness—ironically, it was a Democratic witness that was before the Ways and Means Committee last week, Dr. Hansen I believe—who says, “Let’s not call this cap-and-trade, call it what it is: tax-and-trade.” It is a broad tax that is going to run into a lot of opposition I think in the House of Representatives. But you’re right to characterize it that way. It is incredibly sweeping. And I think a lot of folks don’t understand how broad and how wide the implications are.

Roskam’s GOP colleague Rep. John Shimkus used a similar line in January when he said cap-and-trade is little more than a “shell game to hide the cost from the ultimate person who is going to pay.” And there is a kernel of truth to their critique. Initially, low-income households will face higher costs (PDF) for a variety of products and services that rely on carbon inputs. And if designed poorly, cap-and-trade could be quite regressive. But ending the discussion there is insufficient.

A progressive cap-and-trade system should auction (rather than give away) permits for greenhouse gases emissions above the agreed-upon caps. Then, a portion of the revenues should be redistributed to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for any energy price increases. In this scenario, the price of fossil fuels would reflect the heavy externalities currently unaccounted for in the marketplace, the government would generate revenue from polluting companies while lowering the nation’s carbon footprint, and average Americans wouldn’t get socked with the bill.

In the WLS interview, Roskam goes on to make the argument that cap-and-trade would have a “negative drag on our recovery” and is therefore poor macroeconomic policy. What he doesn’t say is that consumers won’t notice any price jumps until roughly 2012, well after the recession will have hopefully ended. Because of the time it takes to set up the regulatory structure necessary for such a venture, there’s even a convincing case that now is the perfect time to enact such policies. Brad Plumer offered his take in December:

As it turns out, a recession isn’t a bad time to get started on climate legislation. Even if Congress raced to pass a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it would take some time—likely a few years—just to set up a complex new regulatory regime. Moreover, as David Wheeler, a climate-policy expert at the Center for Global Development, points out, an economic slump actually offers a prime opportunity to start trading: If Congress sets the initial economy-wide cap at pre-recession levels, then pollution permits will be exceedingly cheap as long as the economy—and hence energy use—is still shrinking. (Indeed, the downturn in Europe has caused the price of carbon to hit rock-bottom levels.) This would give companies time to learn the system and plan for the future without being assailed right away by high prices.

Of course, while railing against the tyranny of taxes, Roskam makes no reference to that other dire situation faced by not only the country, but the entire globe: environmental destruction. Without addressing climate change in a substantive way now, we run the highly-probable risk of losing much more than a few tax dollars. And when it comes to that question, Roskam certainly doesn’t have any answers.

Size Doesn't Matter, Aaron

Adam Doster — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:26:13 -0800

When President Obama stopped by the Catepillar plant in Peoria last week, he urged freshman GOP Rep. Aaron Schock to buck his party’s leaders and support the stimulus bill. Like every other Republican in the House, Schock ultimately voted against the measure. And his main justification is completely divorced from reality. Listen to his explanation yesterday on WLS’ Don Wade and Roma:

Internal mp3

ROMA: Let me ask this question. How many pages are in that final stimulus package?

SCHOCK: It’s over 1,000 pages.

ROMA: Over 1,000 pages. Would you even dream of signing a contract which you knew was highly controversial with a mind-boggling price tag—$787 billion—without ever reading the contract?

SCHOCK: Absolutely not. This was the biggest spending bill in our nation’s history. And not only would I not sign it without reading it, but no honest American or no honest congressman would sign it either.”

The last phrase is patently absurd. According to his logic, all 246 Democrats in the House and 60 Senators who voted for the bill are not “honest Americans.” I can’t imagine he actually believes that. Then again, he has been prone to these kinds of careless generalizations in the past.

But let’s focus on his first point. Does the length of the bill reflect its value in any way? Stan Collender, critiquing a similar argument made by Foreign Times blogger Clive Crook, says not in the slightest:

But citing the number of pages as a reason to think legislation is bad is ridiculous. That’s on a par with football commentators talking about the number of minutes one team has had the ball compared to the other or the greater number of plays one team has run.

Exactly right. In fact, every member of Congress relies on aides and committees to summarize the package and critique the broad outline of most bills along with any particular issues specifically important to their constituents. In this instance, the question would be whether targeted and temporary spending can spur the economy, not where each individual dollar of the project is headed. And as Matt Yglesias points out, “unless you just want to create a huge slush fund, bills that authorize the expenditure of money for diverse purposes need to be very long.” Of course, the basics of the stimulus bill were drawn up and dissected weeks ahead of the vote. If Schock was paying attention at all to the negotiations, he would have known what was being included and what wasn’t.

More to the point, a short bill ensures nothing. Hank Paulson’s original TARP plan was three pages long. It was also one of the worst written bills of 2008.

Schock’s line of argument is slick, but it makes about as much sense as the Republican-favored stimulus proposal -- which is to say, none at all. Spending is stimulus and it’s what the economy needs.

Rep. Davis: Obama Must Put People To Work

Adam Doster — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:01:00 -0800

To succeed as President, Barack Obama is going to have to help revive the American economy. That's the issue that dominated the campaign, especially the last two months, and it's what voters are entrusting him to do. We've already blogged at length about the importance of a vibrant economic stimulus plan, a plan Obama seems to favor. But a government injection shouldn't stop there. As Rep. Danny Davis suggested on WLS' Don Wade and Roma this morning, the federal government can play a constructive role in creating sustainable jobs now. Listen:

Internal mp3

ROMA: What’s the first issue you want to see resolved, other than the economy, when Obama comes to Washington?

DAVIS: Well, it would be a clear-cut stategy -- and a very direct one -- for putting more people to work. One way shape, form, or fashion.

While Davis' point is general, it's one that's been echoed by progressives for months. During the Great Depression, FDR's Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided valuable and long-lasting public services, raised morale, and helped boost the economy. It wasn't a panacea (in fact, it's arguable the New Dealers weren't ambitious enough in the short-term), but programs like the WPA helped put America back on the road to economic recovery.

While Davis says it's important to put people to work in any way we can, I'd suggest we need to be more discerning; the best bang for the government's buck is clearly throwing more human capital into the burgeoning green economy. This includes employing people to repair public transit infrastructure, revitalize the electrical grid, and weatherize buildings and homes. With this sort of approach to job creation, the federal government could put money in people's pockets while also lessening the nation's dependence on fossil fuels. It's rational, moral, and cost-effective. What's not to like?

The "Dangerous Threesome" Argument

Adam Doster — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:06:13 -0800

Hoping to survive an oncoming Democratic wave, John McCain and his Republican cohorts popularized a new campaign meme this past week -- the "dangerous threesome":

Referring to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, House speaker, and Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, Mr. McCain told a rally in Cleveland, Ohio: "You know, my friends, this is a dangerous threesome. They believe that $1 trillion of rescue financing is not enough and have already proposed another $300bn spending spree they're calling a stimulus plan."

This idea that voting for Republican candidates will prevent the "threesome" from overreaching has trickled into some tight congressional races too, especially in districts where Obama is expected to fare well. GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, fearing a 14-point Obama landslide in the 6th District, warned of one-party rule on WLS' Don Wade & Roma In The Morning last Wednesday:

ROSKAM: My predecessor Henry Hyde had a great description for things. And he said, “There’s one thing worse than gridlock in Washington and the worse thing is the greased shoot of government.” And I think there’s a lot of wisdom there. If government does things fast, without other voices, without other people raising issues and raising questions, it tends not to work out too well.

Now, there's some truth to that quote. Good policy incorporates a range of opinions and research from different perspectives. What's overlooked, however, is the actual policies an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress would push. No matter how much Roskam cries about the dangers of big government, Americans are hungry for the main planks of the Democratic agenda. In fact, they have been for a long time, only to be foiled by timid lawmakers and structural legislative deficiencies (i.e. the filibuster).

Most Americans want to solve global warming and move away from our dependence on oil. They want a responsible but immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They also want progressive taxation and government-funded stem cell research and reformed labor laws and universal health care.

Maybe Americans prefer a divided government because it provides necessary "checks and balances" on the leaders in the majority. Some political scientists aren't at all convinced, and I'm not either. Regardless, complaints at this stage of the game about the danger of giving the opposition too much power just reek of desperation, particularly coming from a party whose godfathers not so long ago relished the idea of one-party rule.

WLS' Don Wade Imagines Obama Murdering His Grandmother

Josh Kalven — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:03:39 -0700

After more than 20 years on the air, WLS' Don Wade & Roma Morning Show is a Chicago media institution, regularly featuring appearances from high-profile journalists and commentators, not to mention politicians from both sides of the aisle. As the Tribune's Eric Zorn recently explained, "The idea used to be the conservative, Don, sparring with the liberal, Roma. But Roma has veered to the right in recent years and the show has lost its bi-partisan charm." Indeed, while they bill themselves as the "most positive, optimistic radio show in the universe," Don's hard-line conservative views and contempt for the Democratic presidential nominee have been anything but "positive" or "optimistic" in recent months.

That lack of charm was evident Friday morning when Don -- fed up with the media's purported coddling of Barack Obama -- imagined how the press would react if shown a video of the candidate murdering his elderly, ailing grandmother in Hawaii. Here's how he set the scene:

The video clearly shows grandmother greeting Barack Obama, coming through the door. Barack Obama comes over, sits down beside the grandmother, and places a pillow over her face -- and holds the pillow over her face -- holds the pillow over her face until she struggles no more.

On Friday night, CBS 2's Mike Flannery -- himself an occasional guest on the show -- reported on the uproar over Don's comments. Watch it:

Having listened to excerpts from the program repeatedly this election year, it's not that suprising to see that Don's disdain for Obama and the mainstream media has reached this point. And having browsed the Don Wade & Roma blog today -- maintained by WLS producer Brandy Burkhardt -- I can't say I'm too shocked by the show's overall rightward drift either. Case in point: on Friday morning, Burkhardt posted the forged Waldorf-Astoria receipt I discussed yesterday, which purports to show that Michelle Obama ordered $447 in room service while her husband held a meeting at the hotel. Of course, the source of this rumor -- the New York Post -- retracted their report on October 21, three days before Burkhardt posted the bogus receipt under the headline: "A Man Of The People...As Long As We Pay For It."

Meanwhile, the Tribune's Phil Rosenthal reported in early August that the program's ranking in terms of morning drive-time listeners climbed from 7th to 3rd this spring.

Kirk: "We Don't Know" If Seals Is A 9/11 Truther

Adam Doster — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:08:37 -0700

GOP Rep. Mark Kirk is all in a tizzy about the newest TV ad coming from Democrat challenger Dan Seals' camp. The video features Caleb Davis -- an Iraq vet from Peoria -- making the case that the incumbent Republican sent troops to war irresponsibly and didn't care for them when they returned from battle. Watch it here:

Rather than take on the message of the ad -- which he can't be too thrilled about -- Kirk has opted to go after the messenger, highlighting a Peoria Journal Star report that Davis wore a black T-shirt proclaiming "Investigate 9/11@911truth.org" to an event at a Peoria library. For those who don't know, the "9/11 truthers" theorize that the American government was complicit in the terrorist attack. However, Davis denies any involvement in the movement. From his statement in response to the controversy, sent to us by the Seals campaign:

"I am not a member of this organization, nor have I ever been. I attended an event because I was sent by my government to fight in a war that was based on lies, including the lie that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Let me set the record straight, I believe that America was attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11.

Kirk first sent a letter demanding Seals take down the ad. "I am disappointed," he wrote Monday, "that you would center your campaign on a spokesman who believes the U.S. government murdered nearly 3,000 of its own citizens." And appearing today on WLS' Don Wade & Roma In The Morning, he went so far as to entertain the possibility that Seals himself holds such views. Listen here:

Internal mp3

DON WADE: Does Dan Seals endorse that view that this was a conspiracy by the United States government to blow up the Twin Towers and --

ROMA: Murder 3,000 of its own citizens?

KIRK: We don’t know. I think all we can say is he's very tolerant of those views because he puts a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as the center of his campaign spokesman and then when we told him everything about this guy, he’s now standing behind him.

"We don't know" if Seals believes that the U.S. government is responsible for 9/11? That's ludicrous, as Kirk very well knows. It's also reminiscent of Republican Senate candidate Steve Sauerberg, who recently said that he has "no idea" if Sen. Dick Durbin is patriotic.

Rep. Kirk: "I Don't Know" If Palin Is Qualified To Be Prez

Adam Doster — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:05:04 -0700

As we noted in the Early Bird, Rep. Mark Kirk is now expressing skepticism about John McCain's running mate. When asked if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had the qualifications to become president, the North Shore Republican told the Tribune editorial board yesterday: "Quite frankly, I don't know." When pressed further, he told the assembled reporters "I would have picked someone different."

But one month ago, Kirk was signing a different tune.

Talking to the Tribune on September 1, he described himself as "encouraged" by the pick. In an September 2 interview on WLS' Don Wade And Roma In The Morning, Kirk praised the governor for her ethics crusading nature. Listen below:

Internal mp3

It seems to be a very much an ego-free zone for her … [T]he governor also took on the old corrupt Republican bulls in Alaska. Fired a bunch of them, some of them are now going to jail, including possibly Sen. Stevens. She seems pretty fearless on taking out the old guard. [...]

There's a lot of guts on both sides for McCain and Palin. So they've got their share of enemies. But sometimes you're marked in public life by who you've taken out. And certainly in the Oval Office and generally in an administration you want a fearless team.

One day before, on September 1, WIND's Big John Howell and Cisco Cotto asked Kirk about Palin's experience directly. Here's what the 10th District incumbent had to say:

Internal mp3

HOWELL: How can you convince me -- a guy who is not a far-right social conservative Republican -- to really consider her one heart beat away from the Presidency?

KIRK: She’s obviously an unknown figure, but she has had a rocket sled of a career already in Alaska. I think as governor, obviously she does have more executive experience -- ironically -- than the three other guys on the ticket. Her big asset, though, will be on the campaign. We have seen Sen. Obama now standing forth as a recognized national figure, but his greatest achievement has been his own campaign, and being able to command and defeat the electorate and push Hillary Clinton to the side. We now will look at Sarah Palin. She did very well in her first time out when she was nominated by Sen. McCain. It was a risky strategy.

Palin is no doubt drawing big crowds on the trail and volunteers to local McCain offices, but it's tough to say whether, on balance, she's been "a big asset" on the campaign. Her constant fumbling in recent interviews and broader reluctance to speak to reporters has turned off a lot of voters:

One of Palin's problems has been perceptions of her experience. In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll conducted during the first half of September, 61 percent said they did not think Palin — governor for less than two years and former small-town mayor — has the right experience to be president. That view has changed little in more recent surveys.

Polls also show Palin's image, while positive overall, has begun to erode. While an NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey in early September showed more people viewing her favorably than unfavorably by 20 percentage points, that gap faded to 6 points by last week. Similarly, her net positive rating in a Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll shrunk from 27 points in early September to 11 points a week ago.

Halperin A "Staunch Backer" Of GOP's Bailout Demands

Adam Doster — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:23:20 -0700

There's contrarian and then there's just silly. Speaking to WLS's Don Wade and Roma early this morning, Time editor-at-large Mark Halperin lauded House Republicans for protecting American taxpayers during the negotiations surrounding the mammoth -- and now defeated -- Wall Street bailout bill. Listen:

Internal mp3

HALPERIN: The House Republicans are kind of like the beleaguered, red-headed step children of our political system right now. They are the minority in the lower house. But if it weren’t for them, I think we would have had a deal passed that would have had less oversight, more money, more dictatorial powers. And so we're in a better place than we were, but it still ain't a great place.

DON WADE: Are we marking down Mark Halperin: friend of House Republicans?

HALPERIN: A staunch backer in this case. I really think they did the public a lot of good because the House Democrats weren’t crazy about what the White House proposed. But if House Republicans had stepped forward and said "We're in line, Mr. President. We're going to vote for this," the thing would have passed probably largely the way the administration would have proposed it.

Where to start ...

First off, it's a bit ironic that hours before the House Republicans balked on the bailout and then blamed it on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for delivering what they deemed a "partisan speech" prior to the vote (you be the judge), Halperin tells Don Wade and Roma that it was Republicans who had the best interest of the taxpayers and nation at heart. House Finance Committe Chairman Barney Frank said it best: "[B]ecause somebody hurt their feelings they decide to punish the country."

What's even more ludicrous is Halperin's contention that it was House Republicans who made the bill more palatable to taxpayers by providing oversight and a "better chance of the taxpayer to recover money." According to The Hill, the major Republican proposal called for "the removal of regulatory and tax barriers to help facilitate the use of private capital to produce liquidity; temporary tax relief provision to help companies free up capital; and temporary suspension of dividend payments by financial institutions." This was the "let the markets crash" theory of governance. Nowhere in this approach is there a discussion of either topic considered.

Perhaps Halperin should read the work of his own colleagues. On Thursday, Time's Justin Fox wrote that Rep. Eric Cantor's plan to insure, rather than purchase, the bad mortgages "wouldn't be a markedly better deal for taxpayers than [Treasury Secretary Hank] Paulson's," but would be "significantly more complicated to administer." He also called the competing House Republican Study Committee proposal "a joke":

It calls for a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax to "encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets." But the toxic mortgage securities clogging up bank balance sheets are worth less now than when they were acquired. Meaning that no capital gains tax would be owed on them anyway. If you repealed the tax, banks would have even less incentive to sell them because they wouldn't be able use the losses to offset capital gains elsewhere. Seriously, where do these people come up with this stuff?

To be clear, the bailout bill was cetainly flawed and it's arguable whether or not progressives should have supported it at all. But if anyone added oversight to the bill, it was House Democrats. Republicans did nothing at all to protect taxpayers. Extending them credit is beyond silly.

A Tip Of The Hat To The "Illinois Nine"

Adam Doster — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:08:08 -0700

Some conservatives are laying blame for the mortgage crisis in all the wrong places.

Earlier this week, the National Review joined others on the right in in castigating the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to loan in communities of color at the same level as other neighborhoods.

Others, like Chicago radio personality Don Wade, thinks it's the fault of Congress for their lack of oversight. While interviewing Rep. Jan Schakowsky on WLS' Don Wade & Roma In The Morning today, he asked: "But what about the very regulators who were supposed to be manning the gates – the people like [Rep.] Barney Frank [D-MA] and [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] and all of those people?" Of course, many overlook that the securitization and selling of the debt got us where we are today, not the mortgage defaults themselves. This practice was made possible by Congress' dismantling of the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which had the effect of handcuffing government regulators whose job it was to prevent such risky financial maneuvers.

Schakowsky reminded the WLS hosts that not everyone in Washington supported that move. Listen below:

Internal mp3

ROMA: You guys were all overseeing all of this. You were supposed to be being sure everyone was on the mark as well. So I think the blame is going to spread both sides of the aisle. I think it’s going to spread all the way up the tree to the top. And I think the average citizen who takes out a mortgage in good faith is the one left holding the bag. I feel like I'm on a snipe-hunt.

SCHAKOWSKY: You know … in 1999, there were 57 of us who voted not to do the deregulation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that actually set the stage for all of this -- the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And you know, and this is the result of that. The Congress has been working all year to try and help homeowners and communities, not just people who got themselves into bad loans, and we did pass some legislation. But the regulation system is completely out of whack.

So how did regulation of the financial industries work before the 1999 bill? Robert Kuttner explains:

The Glass-Steagall wall was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank. With Glass-Steagall, commercial banks were tightly supervised and given access to federal deposit insurance, to keep savings secure and prevent runs on banks. Investment banks, meanwhile, were not government-guaranteed and were free to do more speculative transactions for consenting adult customers. But Roosevelt's newly created SEC subjected securities markets to much tighter structures against self-dealing and insider conflicts of interest.

As Schakowsky noted, the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, a bill written by one of John McCain's chief economic advisers, eradicated the protections provided by Glass-Steagall.

But 57 House members and eight Senators voted against the measure, a prescient move given the devastation it ultimately wrought. Nine of those "nay" votes in the House came from Illinois' Democratic delegation (including Schakowsky, Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson Jr., Luis Gutierrez, and Jerry Costello).

To those nine who opposed deregulation, we give a retroactive tip of the hat.