Steny Hoyer, the execrable Democratic House whip, had himself quite a day yesterday. First, he didn't rule out means testing for Social Security and Medicare. Then, he expressed opposition to the proposed executive order to require government contractors to disclose their campaign contributions. With Democrats like Steny, who needs Republicans. Should this man, who constantly screws over the progressive agenda, ever become Democratic leader in the House, or Speaker, the Democratic party should just close up shop.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) offered cautious support Tuesday for the idea of adopting further means-testing of Medicare and Social Security to help shore up the finances of both programs. But the devil, he said, will be in the details.
"I don't want to get into means testing until we look at specific proposals," Hoyer said at his weekly Capitol briefing in response to a question from TPM. "Generally speaking, we do, as you know, have certain means testing in both Medicare and SS at this point in time. ... I think clearly we're going to have to make both of those programs sustainable over the long run, and I think to some degree it would be clearly appropriate to look at[.]
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
I guess Steny is referring to the requirement that some social security recipients pay tax on their benefits, and co-pays in the case of Medicare. But "means testing" beyond would start to get into taking "real money" out of the pockets of seniors. Besides, you don't offer up an unforced concession. But that's Steny.
As for the executive order, needed as an effort to counteract the effects of Citizen United, Steny had this to say:
“The issue on contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractors’ bid and capabilities,” Mr. Hoyer, a centrist from Maryland, said. “I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political implications in the context of awarding contracts.”
The idea has won praise from good-government types and the drawn the ire of the business lobby. Opponents say the proposal would be an attempt to discourage corporate donations to outside groups, since large firms often seek to avoid the controversy of political giving. Two House committees will hold a joint hearing Thursday on the issue.
“All people ought to be exempt, it’s not a requirement now, I don’t think it ought to be a requirement,” Mr. Hoyer said. “I’m not in agreement with the administration on that issue. “
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) said later Tuesday that he agreed with Mr. Hoyer. “Certainly I am in agreement with the Democratic whip on this.
http://blogs.wsj.com/...
Of course, Steny should know that there are federal competitive bidding laws in place to prevent political favoritism in the awarding of federal contracts. I'm sure he does, but was overcome by the urge to suck up the Chamber of Commerce, etc. 'Cause that's what Steny does best. (See AIPAC). Steny later did a little bit of backtracking, but not on the main issue:
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s office offered a quick clarification on Tuesday night to earlier comments the congressman made opposing an executive order to require government contractors to disclose their campaign contributions.
An aide to the Maryland Democrat told The Huffington Post that Hoyer still opposed the basic idea, which would apply not just to directors of those contractors but to their officers, affiliates and subsidiaries, as well. He did not, however, believe that the White House would use the threat of disclosure as a means of compelling contractors to withhold donations to Republican officials, campaign committees or like-minded causes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The proposed executive order is part of an effort to ovecome last year's stonewalling of the Disclosure Act by Senate Republicans. So, Steny is siding with Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor in their efforts to permit the secret corporate money to swamp the political system. One question remains: why is this man in a leadership position of an overwhelmingly progressive House caucus?