Meet Lee Bright, The South Carolina Senate Candidate Who Thinks Lindsey Graham Is Too Liberal

BY JOSH ISRAEL/Think Progress
Believing it to be “God’s will,” South Carolina State Sen. Lee Bright (R) announced Tuesday that he will a 2014 primary challenge to U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R). Over four years in the State Senate, Bright has taken a number of out-of-the-mainstream positions on a wide array of issues, aligned himself with the anti-government William Wallace Caucus, and served as state campaign chair for the presidential campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Bright also is on the board of a right-wing seminary that believes women should be subservient to men, both in the church and in the home.

While Graham has amassed a stunningly right-wing record over his two termsin the Senate, Bright says that Graham “has gone off the reservation in terms of the conservative ideals I believe in,” and must be challenged.

Bright is on the board of visitors for the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. The seminary embraces an arch-conservative view of gender roles called the “Danvers Statement.” Those “core beliefs” include a view that “wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership.”

Bright’s other “conservative ideals” include:

1. Letting high schools teach students to shoot guns. Explaining that “the more guns we have the safer we are,” Bright authored a bill last month to create high school courses on how to use a fire arm and the history of the Second Amendment. “The more training we can get on the history of our nation, the founding of our nation, the better,” he argued, also claiming that the Newtown tragedy could have been stopped if someone else present had been armed. He also proposed a bill to exempt all South Carolina-made guns from any federal safety regulations and likened gun control to a ban on “swimming pools and hot dogs.”

2. Anyone enforcing federal health care law should get a year in jail. Bright’s S. 102 would attempt to simply declare the federal Obamacare law null in South Carolina — a blatantlyunconstitutional move — and make it a crime for any federal official who knowingly “attempts to enforce any aspect of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” a crime, subject to “up to one year in prison.”

3. Banning public funding for abortion for victims of rape and incest. Bright has repeatedly sought to ban public funding for abortions in cases of rape and incest. After he agreed to a compromise that allowed the procedures to be covered by the premiums paid by state employees, Bright observed that, “It took 46 years to end the slave trade … in Europe and England,” and banning all abortions would similarly “be a long process.”

4. Opposing funding for rape crisis centers. Bright was one of just two Senators to vote against overriding Gov. Nikki Haley’s (R) controversial veto of nearly half a million dollars for rape crisis centers. Haley called the proposal a distraction and a “special add-on” benefiting only a small percentage of the population.

5. Pushing for South Carolina to adopt its own currency.Claiming that the state needs “some kind of backup” in case the population should “lose faith in the dollar,” Bright filed a billcalling for a study on the creation of a South Carolina state currency based on “gold or silver, or both.”

6. Supporting secession. Bright sponsored a resolution to affirm South Carolina’s sovereignty, asserting state’s rights. “If at first you don’t secede, try again,” he joked.

7. Opposing “Sharia law.” Bright co-sponsored an Islamophobic bill to ban the use of Islamic law in South Carolina courts, though there was no evidence that any had ever done so.

Though he touts himself as a “fiscal and social conservative” and criticized President Obama for not mentioning the national debt in this second inaugural, Bright’s On Time Trucking has reportedly faced tax liens and foreclosure.

Lindsey Graham on Hurricane Katrina: My family needs AR-15s to fight ‘roaming gangs’

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says that if his family were victims of disasters like Hurricane Katrina then they would need to have military-style AR-15 assault rifles to protect themselves against “armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods.”

During a hearing Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, the South Carolina Republican pressed Attorney General Eric Holder about his support for a proposed assault weapons ban.

“Can you imagine a circumstance where an AR-15 would be a better defense tool than, say, a double-barrel shotgun?” Graham asked. “Let me give you an example, that you have an lawless environment, where you have an natural disaster or some catastrophic event — and those things unfortunately do happen, and law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods. Can you imagine a situation where your home happens to be in the crosshairs of this group that a better self-defense weapon may be a semiautomatic AR-15 vs. a double-barrel shotgun?”

Holder pointed out that the senator was “dealing with a hypothetical in a world that doesn’t exist.”

“I’m afraid that world does exist,” Graham insisted. “It existed in New Orleans, to some extent up in Long Island [after Hurricane Sandy], it could exist tomorrow if there’s a cyber attack against country and the power grid goes down and the dams are released and chemical plants are — discharges.”

“I don’t think that New Orleans would have been better served having people with AR-15 in a post-Katrina environment,” Holder replied.

“What I’m saying is if my family was in the crosshairs of gangs that were roaming around neighborhoods in New Orleans or or any other location, the deterrent effect of an AR-15 to protect my family, I think, is greater than a double-barrel shotgun.”

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, there were reports of armed vigilantes with assault weapons shooting African-Americans.

“Facing an influx of refugees, the residents of Algiers Point could have pulled together food, water and medical supplies for the flood victims,” ProPublica’s A.C. Thompson wrote in 2008. “Instead, a group of white residents, convinced that crime would arrive with the human exodus, sought to seal off the area, blocking the roads in and out of the neighborhood by dragging lumber and downed trees into the streets. They stockpiled handguns, assault rifles, shotguns and at least one Uzi and began patrolling the streets in pickup trucks and SUVs. The newly formed militia, a loose band of about 15 to 30 residents, most of them men, all of them white, was looking for thieves, outlaws or, as one member put it, anyone who simply ‘didn’t belong.’”

Thompson found that at least 11 African-American men ended up being shot near the Algiers Point neighborhood by a militia of men who were apparently all white.

Watch this video from C-SPAN, broadcast March 6, 2013.

(h/t: Think Progress)

Lindsey Graham: GOP-Forced Budget Cuts Will Mean Fewer Cops, So People Need To Arm Themselves

By Josh Israel/Think Progress

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been among the Senate’s most vocal backers ofdraconian budget cuts and has opposed increasing funds to put more police officers on the streets, said Wednesday that he will oppose gun violence prevention legislation because budget cuts will mean inadequate police forces to protect the public.

Graham told Baltimore Chief of Police James Johnson and former naval Captain Mark Kelly (husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords) that he planned to oppose the gun violence measures because people will need high-capacity magazines to compensate for the police response times these austerity measures will force:

GRAHAM: The point is, we have different perspectives on this. The reason I will oppose the legislation, Chief Johnston, is because i respect what your do as a lot — what you do as a law-enforcement officer. Has your budget been cut?

JOHNSON: Yes.

GRAHAM: Do you think it be cut in the future?

JOHNSON: I am optimistic that it is not.

GRAHAM: Well I hope your right, but I can tell people throughout this land,because of the fiscal state of affairs we have, there will be less [SIC] police officers, not more, over the next decade. Response time are gonna be less, not more. So, Captain Kelly, I really do want to get guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I honest to god believe that if we arbitrarily “say nobody in this country can own a 10-round magazine in the future, the people who own them are the kind of people we’re trying to combat to begin with.” There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here.

Watch the video:

President Obama has proposed expanding the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which helps local governments hire police officers, but Republicans have opposed the effort.

Republican Senator On Romney: ‘It’s Really American To Avoid Paying Taxes’

By Zack Beauchamp/Think Progress

Though every candidate in the past 30 years has released multiple years of tax returns, Mitt Romney is refusing to do so, reducing surrogates to telling the press to simply “get over it.”

But Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) attempt to defuse the controversy surrounding Romney’s taxes may be a new low for the campaign:

Mitt Romney shouldn’t be criticized for using off-shore tax havens because “it’s really American to avoid paying taxes, legally,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday. [...]

Graham argued that Congress is responsible for tax avoidance because it has crafted such convoluted rules and said he was fine with Romney’s taking advantage of the loopholes.

“As long as it was legal, I’m OK with it,” Graham said. “I don’t blame anybody for using the tax code to their advantage. I blame us for having it so complicated and confused. Pick a rate and make people pay it.”

A recent report by the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) found that tax dodging shifts $100 billion onto taxpaying Americans.

Leaked Cable: McCain Promised Qaddafi To Help Secure Military Equipment From U.S.

By Ali Gharib/Think Progress

For all the braying by the Senate’s top three hawks about how the U.S. wasn’t doing enough to oust Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Qaddafi from power, one might be surprised to learn that exactly two years ago, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were in Tripoli meeting with the erratic leader and giving him assurances that relations between the nations were on the mend.

According to a leaked August 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks recounting the Senators’ junket, the neoconservative Connecticut Senator captured the dynamic of aligning with a brutal dictator:

Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting thatcommon enemies sometimes make better friends.

Qaddafi’s history as a top enemy of the U.S. stretched back decades, but his change of heart came quickly after the U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretense of Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass destruction. Hawks seized on Libya’s détente with the West as a sign that Bush’s tough actions in Iraq were having a ripple effect, though patently not, as Iraq War boosters had predicted, with regard to democratic reforms. “We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qaddafi,” said Lieberman, according to the leaked cable.

The three Senate hawks discussed in detail the Qaddafi regime’s security needs with Libyas National Security Adviser, Qaddafi’s son Muatassim. According to the cable:

5.(C) Senator McCain assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its [a Libyan security program]. He stated that he understood Libya’s requests regarding the rehabilitation of its eight C130s [a transport plane] and pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress. He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome.

At another point, McCain and Graham reiterated pledges to push to fulfill the Qaddafi regime requests at the Pentagon and on the Hill:

Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the U.S. interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship and pledged to try to resolve the C130 issue with Congress and Defense Secretary Gates.

But 18 months later, Qaddafi reacted to mass protests by mobilizing his military, bringing down international condemnation and, in just a few short weeks, a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force. The U.S. and it’s allies in NATO and elsewhere rained down bombs to hold Qaddafi’s forces at bay as rebels organized a coherent opposition council. As the rebels went on the offensive, Western and allied bombers lent them air support with surveillance and tactical bombings.

When suddenly — as if Qaddafi’s repression had emerged from out of the blue — McCain and his clique returned to their perches as the staunchest advocates of U.S. military action in Liyba, taking to the airwaves to lament the U.S.’s mere three-week delay to build international consensus and calling for arming the Libyan rebels.

Just as the political winds around Qaddafi seemed to determine the senators’ stand — for him when it was convenient as a win for the Bush administration, and against him when the uprising began and in the month it took to rally the Security Council — McCain and Graham took a curious political shot at Obama just as Qaddafi’s regime crumbled. In a statement, they thanked everyone but the U.S. Starting with the Libyans themselves, they went on to

also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.

One wonders if August 2009 was too soon to press Qaddafi on the well-being of his people: there’s no hint of democratic reforms, or indeed the Libyan people, in the WikiLeaks cable.

GOP Senators Get Cold Feet Over Standoff: ‘Maybe The Debt Ceiling Was The Wrong Place To Pick A Fight’

By Marie Diamond/Think Progress




As Republican attempts to hold the country hostage over raising the debt ceiling look increasingly likely toend in disaster, some GOP senators appear to be getting cold feet. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) have both indicated they are rethinking the wisdom of tying a debt ceiling increase to a drastic deficit reduction package now that the country is on the brink of economic disaster:

“Maybe the debt ceiling was the wrong place to pick a fight, as it related to trying to get our country’s house in order,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Thursday. “Maybe that was the wrong place to do it.”

Speaking from the Senate floor, Corker said Republicans demanded linking the two issues because the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in more than 800 days. “I credit both sides for that,” he said. But now, the inability of the White House and Congress to agree to a spending deal — and ensure a timely debt ceiling increase — is “helping our great nation go into decline.”

Meanwhile Graham, an influential member of the Republican caucus, “conceded Wednesday that he and his fellow Republicans are now eating their own words as they try to convince the country they are working to stave off a federal default”:

“Our problem is we made a big deal about this for three months. How many Republicans have been on TV saying, ‘I’m not going to raise the debt limit.’ You know, Mitch [McConnell] says, ‘I’m not going to raise the debt limit unless we talk about Medicare.’ And I’ve said I’m not going to raise the debt limit until we do something about spending and entitlements.’ So we’ve got nobody to blame but ourselves,” Graham told reporters after a GOP caucus lunch.

“We shouldn’t have said that if we didn’t mean it.”

Talks between the White House and congressional Republicans have deadlocked with GOP leaders refusing to make any concessions to achieve a deal. As the country faces the very real possibility of defaulting, Americans are coming to terms with the major disruptions that outcome would have on the economy and their everyday lives. The government would not have nearly enough money to fund all essential programs and services like Social Security, Medicare, the military, border patrol agents, food inspectors, and student loans, so impossible choices will have to be made about what to cut. Nearly half of government activities could stop practically overnight.

Lindsey Graham considering overturning the 14th amendment to end ‘birthright citizenship.’

By Andrea Nill Politico reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who many previously thought would co-sponsor comprehensive immigration reform this year, is considering radically changing the 14th amendment. Graham may introduce a constitutional amendment that would overturn the portion of the Constitution which states “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In other words, Graham wants to end the practice of granting citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Politico reports:

“I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said during an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.” [...]

“I’m a practical guy, but when you go forward, I don’t want 20 million more 20 years from now,” he said. “I want to be fair. I want to be humane. We need immigration policy, but it should be on our terms, not someone else’s. I don’t know how to fix it all. But I do know what makes people mad, that 12 million people came here and there seems to be no system to deal with stopping 20 million 20 years from now.”

Graham wouldn’t be the first lawmaker to introduce legislation that would dramatically alter the 14th amendment. However, similar efforts have been led by Congress’ right-wing demagogues. Graham is now also following in the footsteps of the rabidly right-wing Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce — the sponsor of SB-1070 who plans to “target the mother” by going after the “anchor baby racket.” A few months ago, Graham introduced a framework for immigration reform with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that included a path to legalization for undocumented workers. In March, Graham walked away from the table, calling immigration reform “dead” after health care reform passed. Since then, Graham has joined his fellow Republicans in defending Arizona, blocking immigration reform, and calling for an enforcement-only approach.

Right-wing group fears Sen. Graham’s ’stealth gayness’

By Stephen C. Webster According to the right-wing political action committee Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) needs to "make his homosexual lifestyle public knowledge in the interest of political integrity and national security."

Or, in the words of one blogger, Graham's "stealth gayness" might pose a danger to us all.

And it's not the first, second or even third time rumors about Graham's sexuality have surfaced. For the unmarried conservative senator who Jon Stewart once joked "looks like an old lesbian," the question has become increasingly thorny for him.

"I'm a tolerant person," ALIPAC leader William Gheen told a crowd in Greenville, South Carolina over the weekend. "I don't care about your private life, Lindsey, but as our U.S. Senator I need to figure out why you're trying to sell out your own countrymen and I need to be sure being gay isn't it."

The crowd of conservatives erupted into cheers

"I'm-a take some heat about that one on Monday," the speaker said, after suggesting that Congressman Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts, was "more honest" than Graham.

Approached by blogger Mike Stark in October, 2009 after the senator had read off anonymous insults about Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing, Graham was not in the mood to comment on the rumors.

When GQ magazine asked a similar question in 2006, Graham reportedly dismissed the question and claimed he's just a "loner." A 2007 exploration of the topic by South Carolina's Charleston City Paper also came away inconclusive but noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has always seemed to be "Graham's Senate BFF."

Snark politics blog Wonkette wasn't so nice.

"Finally, some Wonkette agreement with the Greenville Tea Party of South Carolina: Why won’t unmarried ex-Sailor Lindsey Graham, whose super-gay voice and constant gayness with Joe Lieberman and Walnuts McCain make him seem gay, just tell us the truth about his sexual orientation?" they jeered. "Straight, or gay — which is it, Lindsey? (CAVEAT: it will only count as 'truth' if he says 'gay.')

"Ha ha ha no no no… we are just being dumb and mean. This speaker at the Greenville Tea Party event, though, is very seriously concerned that Lindsey Graham’s Stealth Gayness is causing him to (pretend to) work with Democrats on energy and immigration bills. IT’S NOT THAT HE’S HOMOPHOBIC THAT’S NOT WHAT HE’S… THAT’S JUST NOT IT, OKAY? He’s merely declaring that… if Lindsey Graham were gay… he wouldn’t vote for him? Eh? There, that should do it."

"[Graham] is the lone Republican who's trying to work with Democrats on immigration reform this year; Gheen appears to have decided that makes him fair game for, well, just about anything," reported Mike Madden, writing for Salon. "The insinuation that he's only supporting immigration reform because he's trying to keep something hidden is pretty slimy, though, even by the standards of ALIPAC."

Graham's office had not commented on ALIPAC's allegations at time of publication.

This video was published to YouTube by user 33ltHappens on April 18, 2010. A video of the complete speech is also available.

This video was shot by blogger Mike Stark, published to YouTube on Oct. 15, 2009.

This video is from Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
White Men Can't Judge - Sotomayor: Judgment Days
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Sen. Lindsey Graham and Glenn Beck Agree: Health Reform Is Like A Japanese Bombing Attack

By Lee Fang Throughout the health reform debate, GOP lawmakers have tried desperately to smear health reform with increasingly bizarre and extreme remarks. In an interview on Monday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) added to the hyperbole, comparing the House Democrats’ efforts to pass healthcare reform legislation to a Japanese kamikaze mission. “Nancy Pelosi, I think, has got them all liquored up on sake and you know, they’re making a suicide run here,” Graham said.

Picking up on Graham’s theme, Glenn Beck today similarly smeared health reform as the attack on Pearl Harbor. On his radio show, Beck intoned that reform “is like Pearl Harbor” because “people will wake up” to the “battle”:

BECK: The second thing is to prepare yourself. This is a battle. Health care is a battle. It’s a battle — it’s not the war. It’s a battle. Believe me, if you are a group that has values and principles, and you are peaceful, your power is about to go through the roof, not through the floor. Because people are — this event is like Pearl Harbor. It will wake people up and they’ll go, “wait, wait, wait. What did they just do?”

Listen here:

Blasting Graham’s remarks, Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) — a Japanese American who was interned in a prison camp during World War II because of his heritage — said he was “disheartened” that the South Carolina senator “chose racially tinged rhetoric to express his opposition to health care reform.” He added, “there is a way to engage in healthy debate without alienating Asian Americans, who are an important part of this democracy and healthcare reform.”

Disregarding Honda’s plea for a substantive and nonracial health reform debate, Graham explained that his “comments really reflect the fanaticism of the Democratic leadership. I don’t know whether it’s sake or moonshine but no sober person would do this.” “For the senator to add ‘moonshiners’ to an already unsavory sake and suicide statement does a disservice to the underlying issue,” Honda replied in a statement. “I question who has, in fact — to use the senator’s words — lost their political mind.”

Update ThinkProgress caught up with Honda today on Capitol Hill to follow up regarding Graham and Beck’s comments. Honda noted that in times of economic calamity, there’s usually an “ignorant politician” who will “scapegoat a group of people,” especially Asian Americans, for political gain. Referring to his time in an internment camp, Honda said, "the difference between ’42 and 2010 is that I can say something back.” Watch it:

Graham Falsely Claims GOP Has Only Used Reconciliation With ‘Bipartisan Support’

By Matt Corley

With President Obama endorsing the use of the budget reconciliation process in the Senate to finish health care reform, Republicans have flown into overdrive to discredit the simple majority procedural tool. Use of reconciliation would be “ripping a piece of the fabric of America off,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) on Saturday.

On CBS News’ Face The Nation today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared that use of reconciliation “would be catastrophic.” Sensitive to charges of hypocrisy over the fact that Republicans have pushed legislation through the reconciliation process more often than Democrats have, Graham claimed that every time the GOP used reconciliation the bills “received bipartisan support”:

GRAHAM: Well, reconciliation will be used to clean up the Senate bill to make House members happy. House members are going to vote for the Senate bill and they hate it. And the Senate and the president saying, OK, we’re going to change what you don’t like.

And when it comes to the Republicans, you all don’t matter anymore. You just need a simple majority. So reconciliation will empower a bill that was very partisan. We’ve had reconciliation votes, but all of them had received bipartisan support. The least was 12 when we did reconciliation with tax cuts.

Watch it:

Graham’s claim that “the least” amount of Democratic votes a GOP reconciliation bill received “was 12″ is flat out false. As The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has detailed, during the Bush presidency, the Republican-controlled Senate passed three reconciliation bills with three or less Democratic votes. The 2003 Bush tax cuts were supported by only two Democrats and needed Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote to pass:

	Vote Count	Bipartisan support?
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007*	79-12-9	Yes, although all 12 voting against it were Republicans
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005*	54-44-2	3 Democrats (Nelson (D-NE), Nelson (D-FL), Pryor (D-AR)) voted for it
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005*	52-47	2 Democrats (Landrieu (D-LA) and Nelson (D-NE))
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003*	50-50	2 Democrats (Nelson (D-NE) and Miller (D-GA)) voted for it
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001*	58-33-2-7	Yes
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000*	60-34-5	Yes
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999*	50-49	Yes, 3 Democrats (Breaux (D-LA), Landrieu (D-LA), Torricelli (D-NJ)) voted for it
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997	92-8	Yes
Balanced Budget Act of 1997*	85-15	Yes
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act*	74-24-2	Yes
Balanced Budget Act of 1995*	52-47	Yes
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993	49-49-2	No
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990*	54-46	Yes
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989*	87-7-6	Yes

In 2005, Graham voted for two of the reconciliation bills that passed with three or fewer Democratic votes, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Transcript:

BAYH: But I do think that — a couple of things. And Lindsey will probably have a difference of opinion on this one. The bill that’s going to come before the Senate is not the large omnibus health care bill. It is instead a corrections bill that gets out the Cornhusker Kickback nobody liked, the special arrangement for Florida that many states objected. It treats middle class families a little bit better on the tax side of things. So it is a — it’s not one-sixth of the American economy. It’s a much smaller piece of legislation.

And secondly, my guess is that, you know, a lot of your viewers and Americans are looking at this, thinking, I don’t understand all of this procedural stuff. Let’s focus on the substance. And if you think that it’s actually going to be better for the American people, vote for it. And if you think it’s going to be harmful, don’t vote for it.

And for me, it was a close call in my mind on this bill. This is not the way I would have written it. But for me it eventually came down, we need to try something. It may not be perfect, but we need to try something. If it doesn’t work exactly the way we would hope, let’s come back and correct it.

But to just sit here year after year letting things fester, that’s not the right way to go.

GRAHAM: Well, reconciliation will be used to clean up the Senate bill to make House members happy. House members are going to vote for the Senate bill and they hate it. And the Senate and the president saying, OK, we’re going to change what you don’t like.

And when it comes to the Republicans, you all don’t matter anymore. You just need a simple majority. So reconciliation will empower a bill that was very partisan. We’ve had reconciliation votes, but all of them had received bipartisan support. The least was 12 when we did reconciliation with tax cuts.

So it is taking a partisan product and making it law. And I was in the Gang of 14. Remember the nuclear option with judges when we almost changed the rules? I was one of seven Democrats — seven Republicans, seven Democrats who said, don’t do that. Don’t pull the nuclear trigger. I’m glad I was in that gang. I got the heck beat out of me. We didn’t change the rules. This will be the same effect as if you had changed the rules for judges. It would be catastrophic.