Coburn, who has argued that there is no need to pass a bill without offsetting the costs with other cuts, pointed to the funding passed after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, which was offset. "It's the lamest excuse in the world when we have at least $200 billion of waste, fraud and duplication to say 'oh my gosh we can't do that we have to borrow the money' against the very kids you're saying you want to help."

He added that "it's morally wrong, it's repugnant to me and it's the lamest excuse career politicians can use, and that's why our country is in trouble. That kind of thinking."

Continue Reading...

“I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved here, [Sen. James] Inhofe saying Sandy aid was corrupt but Oklahoma won’t be,” King told Politico. “But I don’t want to hold the people of Oklahoma responsible for what elected officials are saying, for the husband and wife without a home, for the people who lost all their worldly possessions.”

Inhofe, a Republican, said Tuesday that tornado aid is "totally different" from Hurricane Sandy aid. His colleague, Tom Coburn, also a Republican, called for aid to the state to be offset with cuts elsewhere.

Continue Reading...

"That's always been his position [to offset disaster aid]," Coburn spokesman John Hart told the Huffington Post. "He supported offsets to the bill funding the OKC bombing recovery effort."

Both Coburn and his colleague James Inhofe, also a Republican from Oklahoma, have repeatedly voted against federal disaster relief for various parts of the country, including, most recently, the aid package for Hurricane Sandy victims. Both have also opposed increasing FEMA's funding.

But, as the Huffington Post points out, Coburn and Inhofe have also previously supported disaster aid for their own state:

Continue Reading...

The measure was introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., as an amendment to the Senate's Water Resources Development Act, which authorizes projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coburn had initially introduced a second gun-related amendment, which would have required federal agencies to register guns it owns, purchases or loses, though he withdrew it after sharp criticism from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, of California. Boxer had sponsored the water bill.

“I would hope that this gun amendment would not get the 60 votes required, because I believe it is dangerous,” Boxer said before the vote, according to TPM. “Why would we want to have on a water infrastructure bill an amendment that allows people to come in with guns and go right to the heart of those critical water infrastructure projects, those dams, those reservoirs, those locks?”

Continue Reading...

From earlier:

The Senate is scheduled to vote on the Water Resources Development Act on Wednesday, which authoritzes water projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., also wants to add two pro-gun amendments to the equation.

One of the amendments would allow people to carry guns at water resources development projects regulated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, including outdoor recreational areas where guns are currently forbidden. The other amendment would require federal agencies to register guns and ammunition it owns, purchases or loses within a given year.

Continue Reading...

The committee is considering Democratic-sponsored bills that would ban assault weapons, strengthen federal laws against illegal gun trafficking, provide money for school safety improvements and expand the requirement for background checks for gun purchasers.

Such delays are common for the committee, which often grants them to give senators more time to work on legislation. As the panel began discussing the measures Thursday, top Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said he had questions about the constitutionality and cost of some of the measures and said senators needed more time to trying working out differences.

Continue Reading...

That term - Sports Tax - is not hyperbolic. In a week that saw Louisiana fork over $5 million to the NFL for the privilege of helping that league make big Super Bowl money, Sports Tax is the most accurate catch-all label for the four sets of levies the public is being made to shell out.

The first Sports Tax comes from the higher taxes we all pay in order to fund direct handouts. Just as NFL owners convinced Louisiana politicians to give them that $5 million taxpayer subsidy, similar collusions between team owners and lawmakers have been forcing taxpayers everywhere to do much the same. In all, Bloomberg Businessweek reports that "taxpayers have committed $18.6 billion since 1992 to subsidies for the NFL’s 32 teams, counting the expense of building stadiums, forgone real estate taxes, land and infrastructure improvements, and interest costs on public bonds." That's almost $1 billion every year - and that's just for football, meaning the figure isn't even counting similar handouts for other leagues.

Continue Reading...

Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who are both "F"-rated by the NRA, and Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who are both "A"-rated by the NRA, have been quietly working on a compromise.

CNN reports:

CNN is told the legislation they are working on would effectively require background checks on private gun purchases made with non-licensed gun dealers, according to sources in both parties. That would include closing the so-called gun show loophole.

However, the sources emphasize they are trying to work through this sticky issue so that Republicans, especially Coburn, are comfortable that it would address privacy concerns of gun owners, and would have clear exemptions for situations where a background check should not be needed. The most common example of that scenario is a grandfather or uncle giving guns they already own to a grandson or nephew.

Continue Reading...

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said on Fox News Sunday that Republicans should give in on higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, and use the leverage to push for entitlement reform. "I actually am beginning to believe that is the best route for us to take," he said.

“A lot of people are putting forth a theory – and I actually think it has merit – where you go and you give the president the 2 percent increase that he's talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent – and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements,” Corker said. “And all of a sudden, once you give him a top rate on the 2 percent it's actually a much lesser tax increase than what he's been talking about."

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., continued to argue that Republicans should accept Obama's offer to keep in place tax cuts on income below $250,000 a year, but raise taxes on the wealthy. On CNN's State of the Union, Cole said: “So just let’s make sure for the 98 percent, they know they’re not. We can continue to fight on the other two percent and the higher rates."

Continue Reading...

Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, is pushing to reform the filibuster, but is facing opposition from Republicans. “I think the backlash will be severe,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said of Reid's plan. “If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.”

From Politico:

Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering: banning filibusters used to prevent debate from even starting and House-Senate conference committees from ever meeting. He also may make filibusters become actual filibusters — to force senators to carry out the nonstop, talkathon sessions.

“It will shut down the Senate,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Politico. “It’s such an abuse of power.”

Continue Reading...

And then you read this line:

"Eliminating the federal share of unemployment benefits for millionaires would save $20 million in the next decade, the congressional researchers said in their report."

$20 million in a decade! That's 2 whole million dollars a year. Or about .0002 percent of a $1.1 trillion deficit.

Don't get me wrong -- I am sure there are people who have lost their jobs but still have enough net worth to live comfortably who don't need or necessarily deserve unemployment benefits. And every dollar counts when cutting spending. But the idea, as Coburn puts it, that this particular atrocity is an example of "providing welfare to the wealthy ... [that] undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt,” is just silly --  an awesome example of misplaced priorities.

Continue Reading...

The bill, a major part of President Obama's legislative agenda, would have used $1 billion over five years to help military veterans find jobs, potentially helping 20,000 people. Yesterday, Republicans in Congress blocked the bill, which did not get the filibuster-proof magic number of 60 votes. It went down 58-40, with five Republicans voting in favor of it.

Republicans argued that the bill is not paid for, but Democrats said it would be paid for in part by Medicare providers who are slapped with delinquency fees for their taxes.

Coburn, appearing on "Morning Joe," argued that there are "six veterans jobs programs now, and nobody knows if they're working."

Continue Reading...

“On Monday mornings when I get up, I get up about 4:30 to catch a flight to come back up here. And I’ve noticed that I have an attitude problem, I don’t want to come anymore,” Coburn said in a statement on the Senate floor. “And the reason I don’t want to come anymore is because we’re not doing anything to address the real problems that are in front of our country.”

He continued that it's "cowardice" that Congress can't get anything done, and the Senate is like someone “with their head in the sand,” and makes the “immediate political situation trump everything.”

“We’re ignoring the real problems so we can create political contrasts, for an election all the while the country is sinking, sinking and sinking," Coburn said.

Coburn is, of course, a Republican, and very culpable in the party's unprecedented use of filibuster threats to block basically everything.

Continue Reading...

In his latest attempt to appear to be a decent guy, the Tulsa World reports, he defended the president from a constituent who asked if Obama "wants to destroy America." To do so, Coburn indulged in creepy racial stereotyping to explain the president's politics. Obama's "intent is not to destroy," Coburn assured his audience. "His intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," he said. The president backs welfare programs, the Oklahoma senator explained, because "as an African-American male," he received "tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs." He didn't exactly call Obama a "welfare queen," I guess, but it's not too far off.

Continue Reading...

But Coburn provides his own side of the story in an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, and it is a masterpiece. Coburn is deeply, deeply upset that nothing ever seems to get accomplished in the Senate! "Why has the U.S. Senate become the least deliberative 'greatest deliberative body' in the world?" he asks.

Continue Reading...

Coburn's original objection was that the bill was too pricey -- though it was paid for by closing tax loopholes, which means that his real objection was that rich people were going to have to pay for non-rich people to have their illnesses treated. Here he is last night complaining that the government doesn't have "an extra $11 billion" for sick first responders (Coburn made up the cost of the bill because he didn't like the way the CBO scored it):

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

First up, immigration reform. Democrats are again working on the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for young people who came to America illegally as children, stayed out of trouble with the law, and spent at least two years in college or the military.

Reid is going to attach the DREAM Act to defense appropriation bill, which is a common, slightly dirty trick that represents one of the few ways to get anything voted on in our stupid Senate.

This bill would only help young, American-educated model citizens. Only about 825,000 people would probably become citizens. The act was proposed -- in 2001! -- by Republican Orrin Hatch. Even those lovable, Democrat-hating cranks at Reason like the bill. In 2007, Hatch and Bob Bennett voted to add the act to the defense authorization bill.

Continue Reading...

Although it was pretty funny that Coburn explained his opposition to Gingrich by reminding everyone of the guy's messy personal life:

Gingrich "is a super-smart man, but he doesn't know anything about commitment to marriage," he said of the thrice-married former House speaker. "He's the last person I'd vote for for president of the United States. His life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president."

Coburn became disillusioned with Gingrich almost immediately upon Coburn's arrival in Washington in 1995. He repeatedly trashes Gingrich in his book "Breach of Trust" (subtitled "How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders" -- besides, I guess, Senator Coburn). But his complaints have usually been about how Gingrich gave in too easily to Clinton on the budget, or betrayed some part of the Contract With America, or other policy matters, not necessarily the character stuff.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...