MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Russ Feingold



Last Updated: 8/27/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 56
Sign: Pisces

City: Middleton
State: WISCONSIN
Country: US
Signup Date: 7/19/2005

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 
“Senator Kennedy was a hero of mine both before and after I came to the United States Senate.  Senator Kennedy was one of the greatest Senators in American history and serving alongside him in the Senate is one of the great honors of my life. His unyielding dedication to equality, justice and improving the lives of his fellow citizens was unmatched and his loss is immeasurable. He championed civil rights and worked to expand the rights of voters and working Americans.  Children are healthier and young Americans have more educational opportunities because of Senator Kennedy’s decades of service. And we will achieve real health care reform thanks to the groundwork he laid. Senator Kennedy’s legacy will live on in the Americans who walk through doorways he opened through his lifetime of countless achievements. Like the millions upon millions of Americans whose lives he touched, I am deeply saddened by his passing and my thoughts are with his family during this difficult time.”
7:40 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, August 24, 2009 

Category: News and Politics


Appleton, WI – Today, in a meeting with the editorial board of the Appleton Post-Crescent, Senator Feingold called for a flexible timetable to bring our troops out of Afghanistan.  During his meeting, Feingold said:

“After eight years, I am not convinced that simply pouring more and more troops into Afghanistan is a well thought out strategy.  And I have raised this issue with the President, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, Mr. Holbrooke, the special representative to the area, and everybody else I can and have never been convinced that they have a good answer to the concern that I have, and that other people have.  And that is aren’t we sort of helping drive more extremists into Pakistan, by continuing to build up troops and resentment in Afghanistan.  And of course Pakistan is where the witch’s brew of every kind of nightmare comes together in a nuclear country and I think it’s not a very well thought strategy. 

“So something I have not said before which I want to say here in Appleton is that I think it is time we ought to start discussing a flexible timetable when people in America and Afghanistan and around the world can see where we intend and when we intend to bring our troops out.  This isn’t something that can’t be adjusted.  It isn’t something that can’t be thought out.  But I think what you do is increase the view that we are occupying the country, we don’t have a strategy, if you don’t say look, this is basically what we think we’ll do.  I know the argument will be, well they’ll know when we’re leaving.  Well you can say the same thing about Iraq right now.  And those who claim we’re succeeding in Iraq aren’t saying that now.  There’s a timetable out there and people claim it’s succeeding.  I think showing the people there and here that we have a sense about when it’s time to leave is going to be one of the best things we can do to succeed in Afghanistan.  People in that country have to take ownership of it, everybody says that.  So I want a conversation in this country to begin.  (Four) years ago I was the first senator in the United States - I announced it in Marquette, Wisconsin - to say we ought to have a timetable for Iraq.  I believe that activism was important in moving us forward and having elections where people said it’s time to finish it. 

“So we have to be dead serious about security.  We have to maintain the ability to go after al Qaeda within Afghanistan.  It doesn’t mean we give that up.  But simply continuing operations there - and apparently there are going to be requests for many more troops - I’m not sure it’s a wise idea.”

In a couple recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, Feingold raised his concerns with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen and the Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, both of whom could not guarantee that increasing the U.S. presence in Afghanistan would not push Taliban and other fighters into Pakistan making a dangerous situation even worse.  The exchange with Holbrooke is here and the exchange with Mullen is here. 


7:35 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, June 18, 2009 

Category: News and Politics


Every year I hold a constituent listening session, or townhall meeting, in every county in Wisconsin.  After 1,188 of those sessions, I have heard a lot from my constituents on pretty much every issue you can imagine.  But one issue in particular stands out, as it has consistently been one of the top issues raised throughout the 17 years.  That issue is of course health care. Again and again – and not just at listening sessions but in conversations, phone calls, letters, and e-mails – Wisconsinites have talked to me about their struggles to obtain and afford health insurance coverage. Their stories have stayed with me, and have been the foundation of my work to push for comprehensive health reform throughout my career in the United States Senate.

As a freshman Senator, I worked to increase access to long-term care and home and community-based services in the Wisconsin tradition during the 1994 attempt at health reform, because I knew how valuable these programs were to my constituents.  I continued to fight for real and fair access to affordable prescription drugs by speaking up for seniors during the debate on creating Medicare Part D.  I ended up not voting for Part D because I knew it would help pharmaceutical companies before it helped seniors.  And for years, I tried to get the Senate to address the issue that was foremost in the minds of my constituents.  Frustrated by the inaction, I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham to introduce legislation that sought to break the logjam blocking health care reform legislation. While Senator Graham and I had very different ideas about what reform should look like, we agreed that further delay was unacceptable.  I know that some of my colleagues are now arguing that health care is being ‘rushed’ through the Senate.  Well, that’s not my experience, and I think the Wisconsinites who have been talking about the need for reform for years would agree.

That is why I am so excited that the Senate is preparing to consider health reform legislation, and I look forward to reviewing the bills that the HELP and Finance Committees are expected to report shortly.  As this debate goes forward, I remain committed to reforming our health care system so that every single American is guaranteed good, affordable health care coverage. 

Today, I want to talk about one of the most important elements of any reform, and that is a strong public health insurance option.  Frankly, I am disappointed that this has become the topic of so much controversy, because it is such a fundamental part of making sure we provide the reform that my constituents, and all Americans, deserve.  Some have even suggested scrapping a public option in the interest of passing a bill with bipartisan support.  I want to pass health care reform and I hope very much we can do so with bipartisan support.  But I am not interested in passing health care reform in name oly.  I am not interested in a bill that allows us to somehow tell our constituents we have done something but doesn’t really address their concerns.  We need real reform, and real reform means a strong public option.

And Americans want a public health insurance option.  According to a recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, over three fourths of those polled said they would like the ability to choose between public and private health insurance plans.  Providing a public health insurance option that does not discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions and illnesses will significantly improve the ability of people to access health care.
There are millions of Americans who can tell you that the current so-called “competitive” market didn’t work so well for them, because they were denied coverage from the outset or given a benefit plan that covers everything but the diseases they actually have.  Health insurance should not be a privilege – but in today’s insurance market, that’s actually what it is. Those who are healthy enough to be approved for coverage, or wealthy enough to afford it, are too often the privileged ones who receive health care.  We must shift the competition back to where it should be – on the health insurers competing to provide better coverage at a more affordable rate.  A public health insurance option, if done right, will help shift the insurance market so that plans focused on what is best for the patient thrive, instead of plans simply focused on the bottom line. 

Just a few weeks ago, Geri Weitzel from Durand, Wisconsin shared her story with me.  Geri’s husband suffers from renal failure.  His medicine and care cost hundreds of dollars each month, and the family has thousands in medical debt. Geri is doing her best to make ends meet for her family, but sometimes has to choose between paying the monthly mortgage on their home or her husband’s medical care – without which he will die.  Geri told me that she came to Washington, D.C. to share her story because her husband is “choosing death over debt.”  She worries that they will lose their home, and they have already lost their savings – but above all, she worries that she will lose her husband.  With a strong public health insurance option, we can ensure that Geri and her husband can afford policies that cover their medical bills, and can focus instead on getting well.

A strong public health insurance option is one the public can depend on to be available, regardless of pre-existing conditions, place of residence, income, age, sex, health status, or job status.  It’s an insurance option that will be focused on helping the sick get the treatment they need instead of turning the biggest profit for shareholders.  It’s also an insurance option that will help the public invest in wellness, disease prevention, primary care, and chronic disease management. A public option will help ensure that, no matter what, people have access to a health insurance plan that meets their needs.

One of my priorities in the health care reform debate – and one of my priorities throughout my time in the Senate has been fiscal responsibility.  It’s not enough to pass a bill that expands coverage – we need to do so in a way that reins in runaway health care spending and ensures that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.  That’s another reason why we need a strong public health insurance option, because it will help keep costs down – for individuals, for employers, and for the government.  Citizen Action Wisconsin estimates that a strong public health insurance option operating in a health exchange could save Wisconsin employers – both private and government – over $1.1 billion each year.  For the average Wisconsin family, currently paying around $13,500 a year in health care premiums, this translates to a 33% savings, lowering their premiums to just over $9,000 a year.

This is real savings, and would have made a big difference to Danine Spencer of Rhinelander, Wisconsin.  Danine has had a tough four years, recovering from multiple conditions which doctors expected to leave her a quadriplegic for life. Danine credits the medical professionals at Froedert Hospital in Milwaukee with helping her reclaim her mobility, and in many ways, her life.  But while Danine has already made incredible progress, she still has a long way to go.  Fortunately, Danine qualified for disability and Medicaid benefits to cover her medical costs, but she wants to be independent.  She wrote me a letter in which she says she “wants to get off disability very, very badly.  I am horribly ashamed that I collect a government check every month.  But as it stands, I simply cannot afford private health insurance.”  Danine writes that she has “heard a ‘public option’ health insurance plan would sharply lower costs for people like me, she said.  Please put everything you have into making sure it is a part of the health care reform bill.” Danine has already overcome incredible challenges.  She wants to purchase health insurance but is denied that benefit by the existing system. A public health insurance option would help ensure that Danine is guaranteed affordable, high-quality health care.
Too often, Americans are at the mercy of insurance companies when it comes to paying premiums, out-of-pocket costs, and deductibles.  While I commend the growing efforts of select insurers to increase transparency, for the most part, consumers have little idea how much procedures cost, where premium dollars go, and whether you are truly getting the best value for your dollar.  A public health insurance option would serve as a benchmark competitor for premiums, administrative costs, and benefits packages.

A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy private market and effective private insurance plans.  We have several insurers that operate in my home state of Wisconsin that provide great health coverage to their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits of their plans. But a strong public health insurance option will provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to re-evaluate their own cost-sharing and benefit plans to ensure they are actually an attractive option for consumers.
There is another benefit of a public health insurance option which hits particularly close to home.  My hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state.  Recently, our GM assembly plant ceased production, and other related businesses throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these tough economic times.  Of course, these challenges are shared by many other communities across the state of Wisconsin.  A public health insurance option would be invaluable to families in Janesville and other parts of the state who have recently been laid off, because it is a guaranteed, affordable option that can travel with an individual from job to job.  A public health insurance option would also make a tremendous difference to our small business owners who face crippling health care costs while trying to keep their businesses open.

Health care reform cannot wait.  The President has said that he wants a health reform bill on his desk by this fall, and I will work hard with my colleagues to make sure we send him a good bill that guarantees every American high-quality, affordable health insurance, and that includes a strong public health insurance option. After so many years of delay and inaction, now is the time to act.
7:31 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, May 29, 2009 

Category: News and Politics
Feingold To Obama: Preventive Detention Is Unconstitutional

After Barack Obama wrapped up his big security and civil liberties speech last week, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) issued a strong statement of support for the President in which he drew a stark contrast between the new administration and the previous one.
But Feingold was either holding fire, or the words he'd just heard hadn't settled in immediately. Because by the end of the week, a reservation had emerged. In a gentle, but resolute, letter to Obama dated Friday, May 22, Feingold says a key aspect of Obama's outlined detention policy is likely unconstitutional.

My primary concern...relates to your reference to the possibility of indefinite detention without trial for certain detainees. While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional. While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely without charge or trial.

You have discussed this possibility only in the context of the current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, yet we must be aware of the precedent that such a system would establish. While the handling of these detainees by the Bush Administration was particularly egregious, from a legal as well as human rights perspective, these are unlikely to be the last suspected terrorists captured by the United States. Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security. Worse, those policies and legal precedents would be effectively enshrined as acceptable in our system of justice, having been established not by one, largely discredited administration, but by successive administrations of both parties with greatly contrasting positions on legal and constitutional issues....

I intend to hold a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June and ask that you make a top official or officials from the Department of Justice available to testify. I recognize that your plans are not yet fully formed, but it is important to begin this discussion immediately, before you reach a final decision. I will be sending formal invitations in the coming weeks and look forward to hearing the testimony of your administration.

Obama now seeks, as Feingold describes it, a statutory basis for indefinite preventive detention, but as Glenn Greenwald reminds us, his own counsel, Greg Craig, said "It's possible but hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law," just three months ago.

Feingold is a member of the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence committees, which gives him a unique perspective on issues at the nexis of civil liberties and national security. He was also an Obama supporter during the Democratic primary, which makes this emblematic of the growing rift between the President and civil libertarians. Let's see how Obama responds.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/feingold-to-obama-preventive-detention-is-unconstitutional.php 



Backlash grows against Obama's preventive detention proposal

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/25/obama/index.html



Feingold’s Opposition to Indefinite Detention

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/24/feingolds-opposition-to-indefinite-detention/

8:00 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 

Category: News and Politics
 

For the full interview, please visit Democracy Now!

5:52 PM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 

Category: News and Politics

Russ Feingold: Repeated Assertion of State Secrets “Reminiscent of Bush Administration”

Russ Feingold just had a conference call to announce his release of a report card grading Obama's first 100 days in office. (The report card gives Obama a "some good, some bad, some too early to tell" grade.)

While he applauded the efforts the Obama Administration has made to end torture and to restore a presumption of release under FOIA, there were two areas where Feingold had particular complaints: State Secrets and the disclosure of information to the intelligence committee.

Of State Secrets, he said the Administration's repeated assertion of State Secrets in litigation was reminiscent of the Bush Administration. He alluded to the cases before Vaughn Walker, and complained that the invocation of State Secrets would prevent Americans from finding out what really went on with the warrantless wiretap program.

His second major complaint, while less specific (for obvious reasons), was more revealing. He said there was not yet enough disclosure to members and staffers on the intelligence committees. While he said the Obama Administration is clearly more open than the Bush Administration, he suggested the intelligence community was still "stonewalling and roadblocking" information to the committees. He did note, however, that he can't assess whether the Obama Administration is using the Gang of Eight process properly as he's not part of the Gang of Eight. He did argue, though, that there are few things that shouldn't be briefed to the entire intelligence committees. It seems that's not currently happening.

In a related point, he said the Administration has an opportunity--one it hasn't taken yet--to fix overclassification problems. He suggested the Administration could--but hadn't--return to policies practice on classification under the Clinton Administration.

A Milwaukee reporter--who seemed to reflect a divided local response on the release of the torture memos--asked about what he thought of the release. Feingold said the Administration got "real [high?] marks for having the courage to release these memos." He specified, however, that the Administration still should release the 2006 and 2007 memos on torture that we haven't yet seen.

It sounds like those memos may be just as appalling as what we've seen so far.

He also made clear that the memos authorizing the warrantless wiretap program have not been released and remain in effect. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, then, that the NSA continues to follow the same domestic wiretapping practices it did under the Bush Administration.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/28/russ-feingold-repeated-assertion-of-state-secrets-reminiscent-of-bush-administration/


See the whole report card here: http://feingold.senate.gov/ruleoflaw/

8:34 PM 
2 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, April 23, 2009 

Category: News and Politics

Feingold Unloads On Peggy Noonan: "Never Heard Anything Quite As Disturbing"


Senator Russ Feingold, one of the harshest critics of the Bush administration's national security policies, says he cannot bring himself to support President Obama's apparent decision not to investigate or prosecute illegalities from those years.


"Part of what troubles me are the lawyers -- we should see their law school degrees -- who consciously wrote these memos justifying and explaining full well those outrageous arguments," the Wisconsin Democrat said on Tuesday in reference to the Bush-era torture memos released last week. "I cannot join the president, or his spokesman, or [chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel, who said we aren't going [to prosecute these people]. I can't. I just disagree with them."
Later, the Senator took a swipe at some of the rationalizations for avoiding prosecution that have been voiced by Washington lawmakers and pundits.
"If you want to see just how outrageous this is, I refer you to the remarks made by Peggy Noonan this Sunday," he said, referring to the longtime conservative columnist's appearance on ABC's This Week. "I frankly have never heard anything quite as disturbing as her remark that was something to the affect of: 'well sometimes you just have to move on.'"


"Some things in life need to be mysterious," Noonan said on Sunday about the release of the torture memos. "Sometimes you need to just keep walking. ... It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that."


Feingold's remarks, delivered before the Religious Action Center convention, represent some of the most forceful pushback against the line coming out of the White House to date. Emanuel and senior adviser David Axelrod have suggested that prosecution of Bush officials is likely off the table due to the political sensitivities that would accompany such retroactive action. On Tuesday morning, however, the New York Times reported that White House "aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques."


A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a long-time critic of torture, Feingold viewed investigations and, perhaps, prosecutions as a key tool to restoring America's moral standing.


"It is truly horrifying and unforgivable that anybody operating under the auspices of the United States of America had involvement in any of this," he said. "So I'm not even completely ready to [cede the argument] that people who devised these techniques should be off the hook. I understand the argument. I also remember when people said that they were just following orders. So that troubles me and I am thinking about it."


UPDATE: Feingold responds to Obama's statement that he is open to prosecutions of some Bush officials:



"I am pleased that the president made clear that he has not ruled out investigations or prosecutions of those who authorized torture, or provided the legal justification for it. Horrible abuses were committed in the name of the American people, and we cannot look the other way, or just 'move on.' The final decision will be up to the attorney general and the president, but I urge the Justice Department to take this matter very seriously."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/feingold-unloads-on-peggy_n_189473.html

 

Feingold: Amend the FISA Amendments Act


Just out from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), one of the leading civil libertarian voices in Congress opposing the 2007 FISA Amendments Act that lowered the standards for National Security Agency surveillance on U.S. citizens and residents:


“Since 2001, I have spent a lot of time in the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and on the floor of the Senate bringing attention to both the possible and actual effects of legislation that has dangerously expanded the power of the executive branch to spy on innocent Americans. Despite these efforts, Congress insisted on enacting several measures including the USA PATRIOT Act, the Protect America Act, and the FISA Amendments Act, embarking on a tragic retreat from the principles that had governed the sensitive area of government surveillance for the previous three decades. Congress must get to work fixing these laws that have eroded the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. In addition, the administration should declassify certain aspects of how these authorities have been used so that the American people can better understand their scope and impact.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/39050/feingold-amend-the-fisa-amendments-act


 

Feingold vows fight for 'fiscal discipline'


MANITOWOC — It's important Congress and President Obama demonstrate "fiscal discipline" as they spend "a tremendous amount of money" through stimulus and budget bills, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Middleton, said Friday.
The state's junior senator vowed he would fight for legislation to monitor federal appropriations more closely.


Feingold annually holds listening sessions in all 72 Wisconsin counties, and citizens were able to express their concerns at the Manitowoc Public Library.
"The conservatives outnumbered the liberals … questioning government actions to deal with the financial crisis and the economy," Feingold said of the turnout. "On the other hand, polls show Obama very popular in this state."


Lakeshore-area residents also voiced opinions about possible gun control measures, energy issues and health-care costs.


After his library appearance, Feingold spoke with the Herald Times Reporter's editorial board and offered various perspectives.


  • Cutting wasteful spending — Feingold has proposed a line-item veto bill with U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Their legislation would enable the president to single out egregious earmarks and send them back to Congress for votes on whether to rescind or cancel funding.

    Feingold was one of only three Democrats to oppose an appropriations bill with 8,500 earmarks from politicians wanting funding for pet projects without close examination of their merits.


  • Stopping automatic Congressional pay raises — "In the future, if we deserve pay raises, we'll vote on it," Feingold said of a bill he supports and that will eliminate automatic pay hikes. "I'm confident the president would sign it."



  • Monitoring job creation — "Not everything (in stimulus bills) will be spent perfectly," Feingold, said. He advocates funding "existing programs with good track records … in Wisconsin, weatherization programs and road building."



  • Truth in budgeting — Feingold chided President George W. Bush for deceptive supplemental spending bills to finance war efforts, and running up a massive deficit.

    Feingold says a constitutional amendment isn't necessary to balance the budget, but the political will to do so is required. "It has always been a huge issue to me," he said.


  • Health-care reform — "Bringing people together will not be easy … but the economy needs it, as well as people who aren't covered (by health insurance)," Feingold said.



  • Investigating Bush-era domestic wiretaps and torture of foreign detainees — Feingold said he supports a "Truth Commission." "The American people need to know what was done … that had an impact on our legal system and global reputation," he said.

    Feingold wants to see officials whose "phony legal opinions" were used to justify "warrantless wiretapping … of innocent people" held accountable.


  • Great Lakes water quality — Feingold said the Great Lakes compact he helped push through Congress, including Wisconsin and seven other states, preventing water diversion was "a great thing …

    "What desperately needs to happen in this Congress is getting anti-ballast legislation" to deal with invasive species coming off ships coming into the Great Lakes, Feingold said.


  • Terrorism linked to al-Qaida — "My objective is to stop al-Qaida and it is the president's, too," Feingold said, urging a focus on counteracting terrorists planning attacks against Afghanistan from hideouts in Pakistan.

    Feingold said the U.S. is perceived as an occupying power in Afghanistan. "We should indicate a timeframe to show them we won't be there forever," he said.
    He said proposed legislation limiting Afghan women's rights — they would need permission from their husbands to leave their homes — is "monstrous, an outrage. We can't prop up regimes that have no regard for women's rights," Feingold said.


  • Working with Republicans — Feingold said he looks for ways to work with "somebody on the other side of the aisle, of a different philosophy."

    He's proud of campaign finance reform, co-authored with McCain, making contribution sources more transparent. Feingold supports public financing of congressional races.


  • Rush Limbaugh and the Internet — Feingold said the conservative radio talk show host "tends to be polarizing" but has the First Amendment right to engage in diatribes.

    Feingold said he believes elected officials should be expected to be more civil.
    He said the Internet is "fundamentally democratic, exciting, (provides) an accessibility of knowledge, especially for the young, I could never have dreamed of" when he took office 16 years ago."


    • http://www.htrnews.com/article/20090418/MAN0101/904180401/1984/MAN04
     
    8:17 PM 
    4 Comments
    (Add Comment) |
    Translate
    Friday, April 03, 2009 

    Category: News and Politics


     
    President Obama's strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan, unveiled last week, finally focuses the government's attention and resources where they are most needed. After years of our country being bogged down in Iraq, the president recognizes that the key to our national security is defeating al Qaeda, and that to do so we must address both Pakistan and Afghanistan. But while the president clearly understands that the greatest threat to our nation resides in Pakistan, his new strategy has the potential to escalate, rather than diminish this threat.

    In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. made the right choice to invade Afghanistan because it was from there that our nation was attacked. Our brave troops successfully toppled the Taliban, but the Bush administration soon turned its attention elsewhere. Distracted by Iraq, that administration allowed efforts in Afghanistan to languish while al Qaeda and Taliban leaders found safe haven in the western part of Pakistan. As a result, al Qaeda has reconstituted and strengthened itself while the Taliban, operating relatively freely in Pakistan, launches cross border attacks into Afghanistan, including lethal attacks on Americans.

    The Obama administration's plan and rhetoric recognize the vital need to confront this threat. However, the decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan -- and possibly an additional 10,000 troops next year -- before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well prove ineffective, or worse, counterproductive. So long as the Taliban can flee into Pakistan and operate from there with relative ease, any gains against them in Afghanistan may well be temporary at best. Meanwhile, our troops would be threatened by forces who are largely beyond their reach, in Pakistan, while our increased military presence in Afghanistan could stoke resentment among the Afghan people.

    In addition, and perhaps even more troubling, increased military engagement against the Taliban in Afghanistan could push it further into Pakistan while worsening the militant extremism that has spread to more and more parts of Pakistan. New Taliban safe havens could emerge from which attacks in Afghanistan or Pakistan, like recent bombings in the Khyber Pass and Lahore, could be planned. More Pakistanis could fall under the control of those who would violate basic human rights, particularly the rights of women and girls. Already weak government institutions could deteriorate further, undermining the legitimacy of the Pakistani state. And a country with nuclear weapons could be dangerously destabilized.

    President Obama has stated clearly that we cannot prevail in Afghanistan without addressing Pakistan -- but that recognition alone is not enough. Before deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should be ratcheting up the pressure on Pakistani leaders to curb militant extremism. The Pakistani government must not sit idly by as the Taliban and other militants operate freely, in some cases with the support of individuals in the government. Increasing U.S. assistance to Pakistan is an important step, as is the insistence that it be conditioned on a commitment to confronting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but we must be explicit about the serious consequences if this commitment is not met. We can't walk away from Pakistan altogether or abandon those fighting alongside us against this threat. At the same time, we must not turn a blind eye to those in the government who tolerate and support militant extremism and whose actions threaten Americans and Pakistanis alike.

    We also need to push Pakistan to make democratic reforms because, until it does so, it is unlikely to be a true partner in fighting extremism -- no matter how much assistance we provide. An effective, responsive and representative government will help Pakistan achieve the political and economic stability that are sorely needed there. Moreover, if Pakistan is going to undertake a sustained effort against militant extremism, it will likely need a civilian government that derives popular legitimacy through a respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Stability and elections are no guarantee of an aggressive counterterrorism policy, of course, but they may be a necessary requirement.
    Finally, we must work with both Pakistan and India to reconcile the historic tensions between their countries. As we saw in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, those tensions continue to fester. India's security concerns must be addressed -- and they can be, once Pakistan finally turns its attention to the al Qaeda, Taliban and militant threats within its own borders.

    None of these needed initiatives will come easily, but they may be even more difficult if we first escalate militarily in Afghanistan. If, as the president said, another terrorist attack against the U.S. would likely come from Pakistan, then that is where we must start.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-russ-feingold/first-do-what-we-must-in_b_182867.html
    ..
    5:58 PM 
    1 Comments
    (Add Comment) |
    Translate
    Saturday, March 21, 2009 

    Category: News and Politics
    2:48 AM 
    1 Comments
    (Add Comment) |
    Translate
    Thursday, March 19, 2009 

    Category: News and Politics
    Feingold Wants AIG Bonuses Canceled

     

    By By Jon Byman, Nick Iannelli, and Melissa McCrady

    WTMJ-TV and JSOnline.com

    KENOSHA - Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is planning to talk to people in Kenosha Monday. The chat was prescheduled, but it comes as Feingold is outraged about bonuses paid to American International Group executives. The company is paying the $165 million in new bonuses despite the company's taking billions in federal bailout dollars.

    "It doesn't make any sense," Feingold said.

    Leaders of the White House economic team and the senate's top Republican are infuriated, and pledge to prevent such payments in the future.

    "I want to make sure that every stone is unturned to find a way to prevent these bonuses from going to these people," Feingold told WTMJ's Jagler and Mueller.

    In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Feingold wrote, "I would like to know what legal options have been explored for canceling the bonuses or recouping the money from the recipients."

    "Some of the recipients of these bonuses may have been responsible for the practices that drove the company to the brink of collapse."

    Feingold also expressed concern that the federal government currently owns 80% of the company, and believes Americans will question whether the executives "deserve this level of taxpayer-subsidized compensation."

    AIG is handing these bonuses out after receiving a taxpayer bailout of more than $170 billion.

    Just this month, the company reported a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year -- the largest corporate loss in history.

    The company's chairman says it entered into the bonus agreements in early 2008 before getting into severe financial trouble.

    White House officials say the government determined it could not break those contracts after the fact.

    ========================

    The following is a copy of Senator Feingold's letter.....

    March 15, 2009

    The Honorable Timothy Geithner Secretary of the Treasury Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20220

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    I deeply troubled by reports that the American International Group (AIG) intends to pay about $165 million in bonuses to its executives. As you know, the federal government has provided AIG with $170 billion in taxpayer money and currently owns 80% of the company. I share your outrage that a company which has been bailed out by the taxpayers for its mistakes would turn around and pay its executives such a staggering sum of money.

    Reports suggest that AIG’s chairman claims AIG is legally obligated to pay some or all of these bonuses. I write to ask why any bonuses would be legally required, given the company’s abysmal performance. In addition, I would like to know what legal options have been explored for canceling the bonuses or recouping the money from the recipients, and in particular whether the Administration has considered holding AIG executives accountable in court for any breaches of their fiduciary duties to the shareholders.

    Reports also suggest that AIG’s chairman claimed that the bonuses are needed to ensure the company can “attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses.” Since some of the recipients of these bonuses may have been responsible for the practices that drove the company to the brink of collapse – jeopardizing the financial system – I am sure many Americans will question whether they are indeed “the best and the brightest” and whether they deserve this level of taxpayer-subsidized compensation.

    I look forward to your prompt response.

    Sincerely,

    Russell D. Feingold United States Senator


    ===========================

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29712662/



    Feingold applauds Obama administration's move to block AIG bonuses

    WASHINGTON - Sen. Russ Feingold applauded President Barack Obama's announcement Monday of efforts to legally block financially challenged insurer American International Group from handing out millions in executive bonuses.

     

    In remarks before outlining plans to aid small businesses, Obama said he has instructed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to "pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

    Obama said Americans were justifiably outraged over reports that AIG intends to pay $165 million to top employees. The company has received $180 billion from the government in bailout money.

    "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses," Obama said. "And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules."

    Feingold, who wrote to Geithner on Sunday urging his department to seek legal means to block the pay bonuses, was encouraged by the president's remarks.

    "President Obama is doing the right thing by pursuing all legal options to cancel these bonuses," Feingold said in a statement. "At a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs and trying to make ends meet, it is outrageous that a company that has been bailed out by the taxpayers for its mistakes would turn around and pay its executives such a staggering sum of money."

    Feingold, who voted against the legislation that was approved last fall to prop up struggling financial firms like AIG, also scoffed at the company‘s defense that the payments were necessary to retain top talent.

    "Since some of the recipients of these bonuses may have been responsible for the practices that drove the company to the brink of collapse - jeopardizing the financial system - I am sure many Americans will question whether they … deserve this level of taxpayer-subsidized compensation."


    http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20090316/OSH0101/90316087/1128/OSH01




    Feingold urges House to follow Senate's lead on pay raises

     

    WASHINGTON - Sen. Russ Feingold likened automatic pay raises for members of Congress Wednesday to the bonuses American International Group is giving its executives, creating a public uproar.

     

    During Senate floor remarks, Feingold urged the House of Representatives to back the Senate in ending "taxpayer-funded bonuses" for members of Congress.
    "These bonuses are paid every year, often without any public discussion or a recorded vote by those with the authority to approve or stop them," Feingold said. "The people giving themselves these bonuses have made sure that they get them regardless of their performance."

    The Wisconsin Democrat applauded the Senate's passage Tuesday of legislation to scrap the automatic pay raise system, something he has opposed for nearly 20 years. He told colleagues he has refused to accept annual pay increases during each six-year term, returning the money to the U.S. Treasury.

    Feingold was a co-sponsor of an amendment to the omnibus spending bill that called for ending the automatic annual cost-of-living adjustment. The latest increase of $4,700 came in January, pushing the salary for rank-and-file members to $174,000. House and Senate leaders get more.

    Debate over the pay raises has intensified as the nation's economy reels and, more recently, amid growing outrage over AIG's $165 million in bonus payments. Critics say it is unconscionable for a firm that took government bailout money to award extra compensation to its top employees.

    Feingold said he urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a letter Wednesday to pass the Senate bill.

    "Doing so would assure the American people that we are not only serious about going after the abusive bonuses paid to the executives of firms bailed out with taxpayer dollars, but we are also serious about ending a system that was devised to provide members of Congress with bonuses without any accountability," he said.

    So far, House leaders have resisted efforts to end the pay raises.


    http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090318/WDH0101/90318118/1981
    1:11 AM 
    6 Comments
    (Add Comment) |
    Translate