Collins Drifts?

It's too early to tell whether recent actions portend a durable shift in what we can expect from Sen. Susan Collins. But for the first time in our memories, Maine's senior senator is taking concrete, non-trivial steps to oppose the lunatic GOP beltway consensus.

Yesterday:

After about 30 minutes of heated discussion, Collins broke the logjam by slipping into the middle of the group, putting her arm around Murkowski and whisking her off the floor for relief and private conversation.

About 15 minutes later, Murkowski returned to the floor and told the clerk she would change her vote.

"Lisa's just a friend of mine," Collins told reporters. "I thought we'd have just a nice little chat about what we had to eat last night for dinner."

More seriously, Collins noted, "I was concerned that she was being pummeled by both sides, and thought she might need a little break."

Collins, a rare GOP moderate, said that while she has concerns about Jones, she believes "the way to express those concerns is to vote no on (the actual) nomination rather than voting no" on a procedural matter.

"I think that there are too many filibusters in the Senate," Collins said. "We need to move forward on bills and on nominations and let the Senate work its will."

There was also this:

Six Republican Senators voted for the [transportation and housing] bill in committee, but conservatives--and McConnell--continue to oppose the bill because its spending levels are higher than those on the House version of the bill. Susan Collins continues to advocate strenuously on its behalf, challenging Tea Party claims about its spending levels, and insisting that Republicans should pass the bill to allow the two chambers to proceed into conference negotiations over the bill.

It will be interesting to see if this trend persists--and if so, whether Collins pays a price either at home with Maine Republicans or within the beltway GOP.

Quote of the Month

Sen. Susan Collins on Republican resistance to the nomination of Byron Todd Jones to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF):

I believe the way to express those concerns is to vote no on his nominations rather than voting no on cloture. I think that there are too many filibusters in the Senate, and that we need to move forward on bills and on nominations and let the Senate work its will.

Quote of the Day

McClatchy:

Trying to determine how individual committee members feel about Syria policy can be frustrating. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mark Warner, D-Va., refused to state a clear opinion, citing classification.

Collins Hearts Surveillance

Sen. Collins comes out in favor of the NSA's recently-revealed domestic phone data collection program, a program she concedes was completely unknown to her just days ago, despite the fact that she was ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee until January--and has been a member of the Intelligence Committee since then:

She said the information was tightly held within the NSA, and only a few security analysts had access to the data.

Collins said she doesn't see such programs as inconsistent with people's rights.

"We should not assume a trade-off between liberty and security," she said. "Security ensures our freedom."

Flippin and Floppin

Portland Press Herald, March 11, 2013

Maine Sen. Susan Collins had a different rationale for her vote [to filibuster the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]...

"My vote solely reflects my determination that this seat does not need to be filled by anyone," said Collins, a Republican. If Halligan were to be nominated for a different vacancy, "I would likely vote to confirm her."

New York Times, May 23, 2013

The Senate voted 97 to 0 to confirm Mr. Obama's nominee for a long-vacant seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

If the seat doesn't need to be filled...why vote to fill it?

(The roll call hasn't made it onto the Senate's website yet. But one thing we know about the senior senator is that she doesn't like to miss votes.)

Quote of the Day

Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI):

"I think that in these states you have to worry about a primary," he said. "That's just a reality. You saw [Sen.] Bob Bennett in Utah lose a primary. [Sen.] Richard Lugar [in Indiana] lose a primary. [Congressman] Mike Castle in Delaware lost a [Senate] primary. That's what you worry about as a Republican. They're going to come at you from the far right. I’m sure that’s what Susan Collins is worried about [on gay marriage].

Revisiting History

Sen. Susan Collins, in her commencement address to USM students yesterday:

Let me give you an example from my own life. In 1994, I won an eight-way primary but lost a grueling general election to be Maine's Governor. I was unemployed, uninsured, flat broke, and uncertain how I was going to pay my mortgage.

Portland Press Herald, July 28, 2003:

After Collins lost the 1994 gubernatorial race to Angus King, [Bushmaster Firearms owner Richard] Dyke played a big role in finding her next job. Dyke donated $265,000 to his alma mater, Husson College, to establish a center for small business, which hired Collins.

"I told Susan, 'They are looking for an executive director, and that might be a good fit for you until you decide to run again,'" Dyke said.

The arrangement was no secret, says Collins press secretary Megan Sowards. "It is called the 'Richard E. Dyke Center for Family Business,' and she was the inaugural director," Sowards said.

Quote of the Day

Paul Krugman:

So they just convincingly voted for Mark Sanford, a man who cheated on his wife, tried to cover his actions with an absurd story about hiking the Appalachian Trail, and trespassed on his ex-wife's property, over an exemplary Democratic candidate. And you know what? Given their preferences, this was the right thing to do.

Look, we have an intensely polarized political system, and in Congress, at least, party affiliation is basically all that matters. When Massachusetts voters chose Scott Brown because he seemed like a nice guy, they were being idiots; his character (which I suspect they misjudged, but never mind) didn't matter, while the loss of that 60th seat in the Senate almost killed health reform.

Of Two Minds

New York Times, January 20, 2013:

"I'm going to support the limitation on the size of the clips," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.

Portland Press Herald, April 17, 2013:

King voted to ban large-capacity ammunition magazines while Collins opposed the measure.

Quote of the Day

Dennis Bailey:

She was “furious” that the article portrayed her as an “insensitive demon” (her words). So she did the political equivalent of drunk dialing an old flame after a nasty break up: she called Politico reporter Mike Allen on his cell phone and let him have it. Both barrels.

Courting the 10%

In what looks like a hastily-mounted effort to head off controversy over strange, tone-deaf remarks that came across as a complaint about how the Newtown families forced her to miss the first course at a White House dinner, Sen. Susan Collins backed the bipartisan compromise to expand background checks on gun purchases on Saturday.

Welcome news, and kudos to Collins for doing the sensible thing--even if the decision seemed an attempt to change the subject.

But one piece of her explanation deserves special attention:

Collins described the Manchin-Toomey effort as "a responsible break through from two people who have far better NRA rankings than I have." Both Sens. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia and Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, hold "A" ratings from the National Rifle Association. Collins added she knows her yes vote and support is "not a popular thing in my state." (Emphasis mine.)

This is a rather remarkable statement given that support for universal background checks in Maine, far from being unpopular, clocks in at about 90%.

Is Collins simply uninformed? Or is she just conflating the views of Mainers generally with the very narrow slice of the population that makes up the Republican primary electorate?

It's impossible to know. But in either case it's clear that Collins's policy vision is being cramped by a fixation with how proposals play with a very small minority of the population.

Of course, that's a risk Mainers accepted when they elected Collins as senator.

But for anyone uncomfortable withe the idea of the John Birch Society and their fringe brethren having a veto on national public policy, it's an unfortunate reality.

Quote of the Day

Sen. Susan Collins:

"The Newtown families were VERY late for their meeting with me. I felt a moral obligation to talk with them. I kept the president of the United States waiting. I mean, how rude is that of me? But I explained to him later that the reason I was 45 minutes late for his dinner was the Newtown families were late--very late--getting to my office, and I just could not leave without talking to them. And he was very gracious about it. He said, ‘Right call. I understand.’"

What Does This Paragraph Mean?

From a Collins press release:

One issue Senator Collins has raised it [sic] that the Administration's complex legal brief filed earlier this year calls for the invalidation of California's ban on same-sex marriages. It would have implications for several other states, but the brief curiously does not challenge the prohibition on same-sex marriages in some 30 states that do not recognize domestic partnerships.

Set aside the obvious distinction between supporting same-sex marriage and believing that banning such marriages is unconstitutional.

The real question is: What exactly is Collins driving at here? Is the subtext supposed to be that President Obama is "soft" on gay marriage, too?

Treading Lightly

New York Times:

Senate Republicans are seeking on Friday to erect potential new obstacles to financial rule-writing at agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation...

The Republican author of one financial amendment--Senator Susan Collins of Maine--argues that new financial rules should tread lightly on the fragile economy...

But consumer advocates predict a fallout for regulators, who are putting the finishing touches on dozens of new rules to rein in the derivatives market and proprietary trading...

"The costs of the financial crisis and benefits of avoiding the next one are crystal clear," said Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, a nonprofit government watchdog group. "Having financial regulators jump through more hoops will only further delay the process of making Wall Street accountable to the American public."

I can't believe we're still having this conversation.

Quote of the Day

Judicial workload expert Sen. Susan Collins, defending her filibuster of well-qualified judicial nominee Caitlin Halligan, who'd been tapped by President Obama to fill one of the four vacant seats on the 11-seat U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:

"My vote solely reflects my determination that this seat does not need to be filled by anyone."

Priorities

Sen. Susan Collins on WGAN, Feb. 13, 2013:

An example would be [President Obama's] call for universal pre-Kindergarten for everybody. Great idea...but how is he going to pay for it?

New York Times, February 14, 2013:

In a report released last week, the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research organization, estimated that providing preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds would cost about $98.4 billion in federal spending over 10 years.

Bangor Daily News, Jan. 8, 2012:

The war in Iraq is officially over. The costs will go on...

Direct federal spending on the war through 2012 will reach $823 billion, surpassing the $738 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars the U.S. spent on the Vietnam War, the Congressional Research Service estimated in a March 29 report. Only World War II had a higher direct cost, $4.1 trillion, in current dollars.

Not counted in that is the interest of more than $200 billion the federal government has already had to pay on the resulting debt, said Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Bilmes also estimates the price over the next 40 years of health care and disability compensation for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts will be almost $1 trillion.

Portland Press Herald, Jan. 4, 2008

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine sharpened the distinction with her opponent in this year's election, Rep. Tom Allen, noting on Thursday that she remains opposed to any deadlines for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Susan Collins and Torture

Wall Street Journal, Feb. 6, 2013:

Ms. Collins considers the use of harsh interrogation methods unacceptable.

New York Times, Jan. 13, 2005:

At the urging of the White House, Congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers...

The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote, as part of the intelligence reform legislation. They would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using.

But in intense closed-door negotiations, Congressional officials said, four senior members from the House and Senate deleted the restrictions from the final bill...

Both Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican negotiator, and Representative Jane Harman of California, a Democratic negotiator, said the lawmakers had ultimately decided that the question of whether to extend the restrictions to intelligence officers was too complex to be included in the legislation.

New York Times, September 28, 2006

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on [the Military Commissions Act] that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies.

Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

US Senate, September 28, 2006

S. 3930 (Military Commissions Act of 2006)

Collins (R-ME): Yea

More Somersaults

Lately there have been rumors that Sen. Collins could face a primary challenge in 2014 should she seek reelection. And a new poll strongly suggests that Maine's new senior senator is vulnerable on her right flank.

So Collins's recent about-face on the assault weapons ban is understandable (if reprehensible, cowardly and hypocritical). As is her latest bit of, um, recalibration.

March 14, 2012:

Even the top sponsor of a bill that would cut off lawmakers' pay if they can't--or won't--pass a budget blueprint admits many of his colleagues think it's just a political talking point instead of a serious idea...

Collins is among those opposed to the "no budget, no pay" measure. She points out that there are many rich people in the Senate who might not care whether they get paid or not. A lot of them are liberal Democrats.

"Given how many wealthy members there are--of which I am not one, regrettably--I wonder whether it would really have the kind of impact that its sponsors believe it would," Collins said Tuesday.

January 27, 2013:

"I don't know that it's really fair to members that do not have significant means and have no control over whether a budget is brought to the floor or not," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who noted she fits into that category. "Having said that, if this works it will have been shown to be a good technique."

There's a word for this. And it isn't "centrism."

Somersaults on Guns

What a difference a month makes: December 19, 2012

"Obviously that system is only going to be as effective as the completeness of the data," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who supports banning high-capacity magazine clips and renewing the assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Today:

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban.

Holding The Line

It appears that Maine's new senior senator has joined the GOP Senate leadership as one of several deputy whips.

Threading the Needle

Both Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News have stories up today suggesting that Sen. Collins now says she favors extending middle class tax cuts immediately and sorting out questions about tax breaks for the rich later.

But did she actually say this?

Kevin Miller and Matthew Stone are relatively new to the Collins beat. So they may not be aware of the senator's long history of using ambiguous statements to send different messages to different constituencies--and to win press coverage that conveys almost the opposite of what she's up to.

Collins did this on Iraq, hinting that she backed a substantial troop withdrawal when she actually supported no such thing.

She did it on "don't ask don't tell"--telling reporters that she would vote for repeal even as she signed a letter vowing to block it.

She's done it often. And she's quite good at it.

So is the junior senator up to the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and the middle class?

I think it's clear that she is.

Consider: While her statement says in passing that extending the middle class tax rates immediately "has merit" the junior senator also warns that "we must, however, work to protect small business owners"--which we know from prior discussion Collins thinks includes people making $1 million per year and up.

The statement then proceeds to tout Collins's own proposal to protects these high-income individuals without ever explicitly stating that she would vote for a middle income rate extension that didn't include her "small business" carve out.

Finally, as Miller notes in his piece:

Collins voted earlier this year against a Democratic bill to only extend the middle class tax cuts.

The clear upshot of all this is that Collins, while making friendly noises about a middle class rate extension (it "has merit"), has fallen far short of actually embracing it.

Meanwhile, she has succeeded in generating headlines that suggest she's in sync with the views of most Mainers while at the same time leaving herself enough wiggle room to tell a different story to her wealthy benefactors and the lunatic fringe of the Maine GOP.

It's a needle she's threaded before. And one she's sure to try to thread again.

Hopefully next time, Maine reporters will be wise to the game.

Here's the full statement:

"Representative Cole's proposal to proceed with an extension of tax relief for working families making $250,000 or less has merit because everyone agrees lower and middle-income families should not be subjected to higher taxes.

"I believe that very wealthy individuals—millionaires and billionaires—should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes to help us reduce the soaring deficit. In April, I was the only Republican to vote to proceed to consideration of a bill, the so-called "Buffett Rule," which would have imposed a new minimum tax on the very wealthy.

"We must, however, work to protect small business owners—our nation's job creators--from the impact of higher taxes that are scheduled to go into effect at the beginning of the year.

"Last December, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and I offered a bipartisan job creation plan that included a two-percent surtax on millionaires. But our proposal also included a "carve-out" provision to protect small business owners who pay taxes through the individual income tax system. We recognize that while multimillionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more to help us deal with our unsustainable deficit, small businesses cannot. Small business owner-operators are on the front lines of our economy. The income that shows up on their personal income tax returns is critical to their ability to create jobs, finance investment, and grow their businesses."

Quote of the Day

Sen. Susan Collins:

"I continue to be troubled by the fact that the UN ambassador decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of the contentious presidential election campaign by agreeing to go on the Sunday shows to present the administration’s position."

Another Side of Collins

Michael Grunwald's THE NEW NEW DEAL--a behind-the-scenes look at the 2009 stimulus bill--doesn't add much of substance to the public record of Sen. Collins's often deleterious role in the debate, her frequently contradictory claims about her goals for the bill or the vacuousness at the heart of her approach to the legislation.

But it does provide us with two notable anecdotes that reveal a side of Collins I don't believe the public has seen before. I certainly haven't.

First:

The Recovery Act was a complex bill, and the negotiations to get it through the Senate were complex, too...But as they started cutting a deal in [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid's office that Friday, February 6, the bottom line was pretty simple. The Democrats wanted a stimulus, and they couldn't get one without Specter, Collins and Snowe.

Lieberman was in the room to support Collins--she joked that she needed a Jewish lawyer...

Second:

[President Obama's Chief of Staff] Rahm [Emanuel] did try to steer $10 billion back into school construction, but the moderates said no. [Office of Management and Budget Director Peter] Orszag proposed limiting the money to existing schools. Still no. Could states at least use their general education aid to fix schools? That was at least something to talk about...During one technical dispute over how some language would affect Maine's school construction agency, Orszag begged Collins to give ground.

"Please," he said. "Do this for me."

Collins just laughed.

"That's funny," she said. "You still want people to like you."

I'm puzzled by Collins's decision to arrive at negotiations with Lieberman in tow. Is that standard practice?

That said, I'm not suggesting either anecdote reveals anything unseemly. And while Collins's choice of words in reply to Orszag seems more jaded than one might have expected, his comment seems to merit the kind of brush-off she gave him.

Still, the dry, sardonic and politically incorrect sense of humor in evidence here suggests that the portrait of Collins that emerges from public appearances, fawning Maine press coverage and national television interviews is probably incomplete.

Systemic Failure and the Maine Press

Four states will be voting on marriage equality-related referendums next Tuesday.

Of the eight senators who represent those states, six have told voters where they stand on the issue and how they'll vote on election day.

In Maryland, Sens. Mikulski (D) and Cardin (D) support the state's same-sex marriage law, as do Sens. Cantwell (D) and Murray (D) in Washington state. (Like Sen. Snowe, Murray voted for DOMA in 1996. Unlike Snowe, she has repudiated that vote.)

In Minnesota, meanwhile, Sens. Klobuchar (D) and Franken (D) have been vocal opponents of a referendum to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the state's constitution. Franken and his wife Franni have appeared in a poignant ad on the subject.

That leaves Sens. Collins and Snowe. Neither senator has taken a public position on Maine's referendum, which they'll be voting on in three days. Their silence hasn't garnered a single mention from the state's major media outlets--not a single article or blog post on the subject.

All we've got to go on, courtesy of the Washington Blade, is this:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she's "considering" her position on the initiative in an email provided Thursday morning to the Washington Blade...

"Next month, the voters in Maine will be asked to decide if they will allow the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Like voters in my state, I am considering this issue very carefully."

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who's set to retire Congress at the end of this year, expressed a similarly neutral position in a separate statement later Thursday.

"It is left to individual states through the legislature or referenda to make their own determinations on this personal issue--and the people of Maine will now make this final determination come Election Day," Snowe said.

As I noted last week, Collins's response--that she's still "considering" the issue--is both cowardly and insincere. Indeed, it takes a special kind of cowardice to ask for a pass on the most contested social issue of the decade mere days before you'll be voting on it.

But looking at the cowardice of Collins and Snowe in isolation would be a mistake. It's important to ask why Snowe and Collins think they can get away with it. And the answer there is clear: It's only a viable political strategy because of the deference of the Maine press.

In a healthier media ecosystem, this kind of dynamic would never exist. Reporters, hungry for good stories, would be more interested in challenging Snowe and Collins than coddling them. Editors would be more worried about churning out salient copy than about tiptoeing around powerful pols. And outlets would be tripping over each other to be the first to report out such a high profile scoop.

Take Minnesota, whose media scene I'm at least loosely familiar with: If Franken and Klobuchar tried to dodge such a major issue, they would be pressed for answers by print, radio and TV reporters; ducked question would yield unflattering headlines; and ridicule on the opinion pages and in the alternative weeklies would follow soon after.

But in Maine, since Collins and Snowe would prefer not to discuss the topic, the question never gets asked. Even as reporters work with both senators to advance the narratives they're interested in pushing.

This isn't a blind spot. It's a systemic failure. And when you've been watching it for as long as I have, it's hard to accept that it's an accident.

Collins Drops Gay Marriage Hint?

Is Sen. Susan Collins laying the groundwork to come out in support of gay marriage? Seems like a real possibility.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she's "considering" her position on the initiative in an email provided Thursday morning to the Washington Blade as she recalled her previous opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.

"Historically, laws regulating family and domestic affairs have been almost exclusively regulated by the states which is why I have voted against federal constitutional amendments defining marriage," Collins said. "Next month, the voters in Maine will be asked to decide if they will allow the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Like voters in my state, I am considering this issue very carefully."

Three points are in order.

--First, supporting marriage equality after years of opposition, once the idea gains widespread acceptance and popular support--if that's what Collins is up to--doesn't exactly make you a gay rights crusader. It makes you a follower.

And three weeks before an election, it stinks of finger-in-the-wind politics.

So while I'd expect Collins to receive lots of accolades and fawning press coverage in the wake of such an announcement, it's worth keeping in mind that the heavy lifting on this issue was done by others. Over years and years. Collins could have been one of those people--her center-right seal of approval would probably have given the cause a real jolt back in 2006 or 2008 or even 2010. But the junior senator decided to keep her head down.

--Second, how lame is it that in 2012 (!) Collins is still resorting to an answer that amounts, basically, to "I'll get back to you."

I understand that marriage equality is a tough issue for a lot of people. But it's been part of the national discussion for almost 20 years. So what principles is she weighing? What conflicting values is she wrestling with? What reservations does she have?

Or are we supposed to believe that three weeks before voting on the biggest hot-button issue of the decade, the junior senator is just now starting to work through her feelings on the topic? The insincerity is breathtaking.

--Third, it won't surprise anyone who's been paying attention that this issue was raised by a publication based outside of Maine. Inside the state, no mainstream outlet would have the temerity to press Collins on such a sensitive social issue until the junior senator had telegraphed her interest in discussing it. It's that simple.

Of course, once the senator makes her position known--especially if the new position is likely to be viewed favorably by Maine's center-left media consumers--the same outlets that had previously ignored the subject will then trumpet the announcement as a watershed development and major news event.

It's reactive and deferential. But that's just the way the Maine press works.

Revolving Door Watch

Whaddaya know? Sen. Collins' former legislative director--he worked for the junior senator as recently as earlier this year--is becoming a lobbyist.

Collins Rallies for McMahon

From the Hartford Courant:

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski...were the featured speakers at a "Women for Linda" rally McMahon held Saturday afternoon at a Norwalk hotel...

Both Collins and Murkowski said McMahon would bring a woman's common sense touch to the dysfunction of Washington. Murkowski noted that the Senate was in session into the wee hours of the morning on Saturday, "and let me tell you, if the women were running the Senate, we wouldn't be voting at midnight."

Collins said she and the 16 other women Senators gather for dinner every six weeks or so. One day, a male colleague asked what those dinners were all about. Collins said she smiled sweetly and responded that the women were planning a coup. "And I can't think of a better person to help us execute that coup than Linda McMahon," she said as the crowd cheered.

Quote of the Day

Sen. Susan Collins:

Referring to Medicare and Social Security, [Collins] said she feared that [Romney's] comments at the fund-raiser would paint him as being against "earned programs that people pay into" and have "widespread support."

"He has just not brought sufficient clarity to what his vision for America is," Ms. Collins said.

In A Box

The Phoenix's Lance Tapley--one of Maine's best reporters--has this superb short piece about solitary confinement for apes and humans.

Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins is a key cosponsor of legislation that, among other provisions, would outlaw psychologically damaging solitary confinement for more than 500 chimpanzees caged for research in federally supported laboratories. In July the bill bipartisanly passed the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on its way to a floor vote.

[...]

Some prisoner-rights advocates think it's ironic when laws give rights to animals that aren't extended to humans. Prison Legal News editor Paul Wright noted that, for example, "there are existing laws saying how much living space primates should have in captivity. By contrast, no such laws apply to humans in captivity."

[...]

S. 810, the Great Ape Protection Act, "corrects the pain and psychological damage that apes often experience as a result of needless experiments and solitary confinement," Senator Collins said in a recent statement. Repeated requests to her office for her views on human solitary confinement did not get a response.

It's been a while since a Maine journalist asked members of the congressional delegation a question they--or at least two of them--would rather not answer.

Talking Down Jefferson

Forty-one paragraphs into Colin Woodard's 2154-word profile of Sen. Collins' fiance Tom Daffron, the Chief Operating Officer at Jefferson Consulting Group has this to say about his company:

"We do very little lobbying at Jefferson as a general rule, and I don't do any and haven't for at least five years," he adds. "I've never lobbied Susan and would not because I think it would be inappropriate."

That all seems to be true as far as it goes--Jefferson did only $40,000 in lobbying in 2011, down from almost $1 million in 2007--but it obscures a larger point.

Jefferson's two other practice areas are government consulting (helping "federal agencies across the government" develop procurement programs, etc.) and federal business development, which the company describes thus:

Drawing on decades of experience and deep relationships with key decision makers across civilian and defense agencies, Jefferson matches client capabilities with government needs to create effective and innovative solutions for the government and sustainable revenue for our clients.

(Jefferson's client list includes the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration and the Internal Revenue Service among others.)

In short, Daffron runs a company that helps people figure out how to sell things to the federal government and helps the government figure out what to buy and how.

Did I mention that his future wife is the ranking member and past (future?) chairwoman of the committee charged with oversight of "the management, efficiency, effectiveness and economy of all agencies and departments of the Federal government"?

It may not have anything to do with lobbying, but that's one doozy of a conflict.

I'm not optimistic that we'll hear from Collins or Daffron about how they intend to manage that conflict. Nor do I think we're likely to learn what steps, if any, they'll take to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Which is not to say that such a conflict is insurmountable--or that it's unique.

But it would be a mistake to simply pretend that it doesn't exist.

Burying the Lede

Via Bruce Bourgoine, here are paragraphs 13 and 14 of Mal Leary's July 3 story on the Affordable Care Act in the Bangor Daily News:

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, said there may be a way around [a future Democratic] filibuster [of an Affordable Care Act repeal] through a parliamentary maneuver she was told about just before the recess for the Fourth of July holiday. She said there is an argument that it will only take a simple majority for repeal, but she said that is not certain.

"Stay tuned," she said.

Stay tuned, indeed.

I haven't looked into Collins' claim, but I'm pretty sure the parliamentary maneuver she's talking about is the one stipulating that the filibuster is a sacred check on authoritarian overreach when invoked by Republicans and an undemocratic abomination when used by Democrats.

I'm kidding. Barely.

More seriously, the article underscores the fact that Maine press only breaks important news about Sen. Collins when it does so inadvertently.

Collins, Brown and Planned Parenthood

It's hard to know where to begin with Campbell Brown's bizarre, drive-by attack on Planned Parenthood in today's New York Times--in which Sen. Collins plays a starring role.

The key questions it fails to tackle are obvious and numerous:

--What evidence is there to suggest that Planned Parenthood has a "shrinking number of defenders"?

--Why shouldn't the organization endorse the candidate that has a better record on the issues it cares about?

--Why does Planned Parenthood owe deference to incumbent pols who happen to be pro-choice?

--Why do Planned Parenthood endorsements automatically imply that the organization views opponents of candidates it endorses as "enemies of the cause"?

--What does it say about the strength of Brown's case that she cites only two races, three cycles apart, out of the hundreds (thousands?) of races Planned Parenthood has reviewed for endorsement over the last four years?

But set aside the giant conceptual hole at the center of Brown's critique and the moderate-glorifying, power-coddling mindset on which it depends. Just as important are the facts Brown and Collins get wrong, and the disturbing implications of the junior senator's words.

For starters, Brown writes:

Senator Collins once had close ties to the group. Planned Parenthood endorsed her in 2002 because of her strong record of votes supporting abortion rights. Yet in her 2008 campaign, Planned Parenthood turned on her. The issue was her vote to confirm Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

While it would have been perfectly sensible for Planned Parenthood to break with Collins over the nomination of Samuel Alito--a man who, prior to nomination, had declared his fervent support for the view that abortion isn't protected by the Constitution--the truth is more complicated. As I wrote during the 2008 race (by which time Alito had been on the court for more than two years):

Tellingly, she's never voiced misgivings about her Alito vote, or about his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart--a verdict which brings us a step closer to a Roe reversal.

(Collins also sided with pro-life forces on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a backdoor attempt to undermine Roe. And she refused to join supporters of reproductive freedom in speaking out against a new Bush administration rule that gives health care providers wide latitude to deny services to women on a case by case basis.)

These were three significant, prominent issues involving family planning; Collins sided with the pro-life camp all three times. To distill Planned Parenthood's objections to Collins down to the Alito vote is simply not accurate.

That said, Collins is certainly free to view Planned Parenthood's decision in her race as "infuriating" and to be "disappointed in the organization and how it cut ties to her." But--and this brings us to the piece's second major flaw--that's not what she said at the time:

Collins' spokesman Kevin Kelley said that the Collins campaign was not surprised by the endorsement [by Planned Parenthood of her opponent]...Collins did not seek an endorsement from the organization. (My emphasis.)

When you've been in the Senate as long as Collins has, I suppose you expect groups whose endorsements you don't seek to give you the nod anyway, and reserve the right to be infuriated when they don't comply. But I hope she'll forgive the rest of us for not acceding to that view.

Still, that's just a little old fashioned revisionism. It's the article's third misrepresentation--the junior senator's claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an "arm of the Democratic National Committee"--that's hardest to forgive.

Why? Because it's obviously false. And you don't need to leave the state of Maine to prove it: Planned Parenthood helped raise more than $10,000 for Sen. Snowe during the current election cycle.

I thought it was an awful move, and said so at the time. But clearly, if the group was as partisan as Collins suggests, it wouldn't have solicited big dollar donations from its supporters for a Republican, let alone done so preemptively before any Democrat joined the race.

Collins knows this, or ought to. Her false smear is an attempt to bully one of the few interest groups in America that hasn't been swayed by her moderate reputation--one of the only institutions with power in DC that has opted to judge her on the basis of her actions in office rather than her squishy rhetoric.

The junior senator's reaction to this kind of scrutiny, as we see from the piece, is to lash out. Her words:

“Why should I try to make their case in the Republican caucus?"

How about because Planned Parenthood does critical family planning work that otherwise would not be done? Or because it performs a wide range of vital health services for Maine women and men? Or because you've been telling Mainers for years that you believe in its mission?

Or is that not enough?

Quote of the Day

Sen. Collins on Planned Parenthood in today's paper:

"Why should I try to make their case in the Republican caucus? I can't answer my colleagues when they say to me that Planned Parenthood is just a political party, because it is true."

(Planned Parenthood raised more than ten thousand dollars for Sen. Snowe during the current campaign cycle. More on this later or tomorrow.)

Then and Then and Now

September 22, 2011

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and 20 of her colleagues introduced the Regulatory Time-Out Act, S. 1538. This bill would establish a one-year moratorium on regulations from the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies...

This moratorium would halt the implementation of rules to reduce mercury, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals from coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, and cement manufacturing. The American Lung Association noted that allowing these sources to continue unchecked will inflict real harm on Americans, particularly children, seniors, and the sick.

March 6, 2012

This week the Senate could vote on a deadly amendment to the transportation bill that will abolish clean air standards for the 2nd largest source of industrial toxic air pollution in America...

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has introduced an amendment...[that would] nullify existing protections against mercury and toxic air pollution from incinerators and industrial boilers.

Now:

“When it comes to the air we breathe, however, I reject the false choice of pitting the environment against the economy because we understand that for much of the state of Maine, the environment is the economy,” [Sen. Collins] said.

Bizarre, incoherent and utterly contradictory.

Looks like progress!

Two Selves

Sen. Collins has lectured the country about civility and cast herself as an unaligned pragmatist, uniquely situated to heal our national political culture.

Earlier this month, she played the role of partisan loyalist, telling the Maine Republican convention:

I stand with each and every one of you as a committed supporter of our outstanding Republican candidates at every level of government, and I will do what it takes to make sure our winning streak continues

And:

Obamacare has more negative side effects than those medications you see advertised on TV.

(She also managed to pass on two misleading claims about the Affordable Care Act, the second of which was clearly phrased to deceive her audience.)

It hasn't been since the junior senator's GOP weekly address in 2010 and before that her speech at the 2008 Maine GOP convention--during which Collins took some shots at Sens. Obama and Clinton (near the top)--that she's indulged in such red meat rhetoric.

And while there's no obvious way to reconcile Collins' fiery partisan speechifying with the non-ideological image she's cultivated in the (obliging) press, in a way, that's the point: Making sense of Collins' impact requires looking beyond her "Maine media" posture and her "GOP audience" posture to evaluate her actions on the merits.

Admittedly, it can be difficult, time consuming and often boring work. But it's a lot better way to figure out what she's up to than listening to her talk.

NRDC: Collins Amendment "Deadly"

A long, detailed piece from National Resources Defense Council on Sen. Collins' amendment to exempt incinerators and industrial boilers from clean air standards.

Some lowlights:

The amendment...allows indefinite compliance delays by prohibiting EPA from requiring compliance with new standards any "earlier than 5 years" after issuance, and then eliminating the Clean Air Act's firm compliance deadlines and allowing compliance to be delayed by 8 or 10 or 15 years more. This feature alone belies any claim that the Collins amendment simply delays things a few years.

For just the amendment's minimum 3.5 year delay beyond current law, this will result in up to 28,350 more premature deaths, over 17,000 heart attacks, and more than 180,000 cases of asthma attacks

[...]

Congress cannot believe that Americans deserve to go unprotected against neurotoxins and carcinogens by allowing the country's 2nd largest industrial source of mercury pollution and other toxins to be subject to periodic tune-ups and maintenance practices, with no pollution control equipment.

That approach would relegate clean air policy to not just the period pre-dating the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments but pre-1970, before that landmark law was adopted. And incinerators and industrial boilers would secure amnesty from health standards that over 100 other industrial sources, including power plants, must meet. (Emphasis added.)

Moderate No More

In a move that substantially undercuts her "social moderate" credentials, Sen. Collins voted earlier today to sustain an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would give employers the option of refusing to cover any health benefit that violates their professed religious beliefs.

I wrote about the amendment two weeks ago.

Asked for comment, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England's Megan Hannan wrote, via e-mail:

[Collins'] speech said her issue was needing more time, so voting to table it (which was the actual vote) would have given her the time she said she needed...

She should have voted "aye" to table it, she had the "out" to do so, and still she voted for it.

As much as they tried to say it was not, this is very clearly another assault against women and women’s health, and Senator Collins came down on the wrong side.

Collins May Back Blunt Bill

Yesterday, Sen. Collins refused to rule out supporting an amendment sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would allow bosses to inject themselves into the full range of worker health care choices.

For example, the amendment would allow employers to exclude maternity care for unmarried women if they believe premarital sex is immoral.

And given the sweeping nature of the amendment's "moral convictions" standard, it's hard to see what would prevent your boss from waking up one morning and deciding to drop coverage for end-of-life care, or vaccinations or anything else he'd developed a moral aversion to.

Indeed, it seems likely that companies would be able to whittle coverage down to a few basic services simply on the grounds that someone in charge finds the expense of a more comprehensive plan morally offensive.

One might think that a (nominally) pro-choice, pro-family planning senator would look at this sort of proposal and dismiss it out of hand.

But one would be wrong.

Carve Out

Given all the political developments in Maine in recent days, it's easy to lose track of an important wrinkle in last week's birth control debate, especially since the compromise solution offered by President Obama on Friday seems to have taken much of the air out of critics arguments.

But let's not forget: Nominally pro-choice and pro-family planning Sens. Snowe and Collins are now on record supporting the idea that the religious prerogatives of employers--all employers--extend into the sex lives of their employees. They agree, specifically, that all business owners should have the power to carve birth control coverage out of the health plans of their workers.

If passed, the bill would allow any institution or corporation to cut off birth control coverage simply by citing religious grounds...That means that if the middle-aged white guy who runs your company is religiously opposed to birth control, he can have it stripped out of your insurance plan—even if his Viagra is still covered.

Snowe and Collins supporters will likely point out that both pols are now saying nice things about the President's workaround plan.

But neither senator has withdrawn her support for the language--backed by the leading lights of the pro-life movement--that would inject bosses into the family planning choices of their employees and strip contraception coverage from millions of women.

Birth Control Control

Mike Tipping on Sens. Collins, Snowe and the administration's birth control compromise.

Euphemism Watch

As we congratulate Sen. Collins on her engagement, it'd be a mistake not to draw attention to a telling aspect of the announcement's coverage in the media.

Namely: prominent Maine outlets--uniformly, as far as I know--followed the junior senator's script, referring to fiance Tom Daffron as a "political consultant" and "longtime Senate senior staff member" and a few other things but never as a corporate lobbyist or K Street bigwig. (Yes, his lobbying and consulting shop is located on K Street.)

By contrast, ABC News called a spade a spade.

It's not the most glaring omission made by the Maine press in recent history. But since the Daffron-Collins relationship isn't likely to come in for much scrutiny in the coming months and years, it's an omission worth examining.

First, it's easy to figure out why MPBN chose to call Daffron a "public policy and political consultant" and why Bangor Daily News went with "Senate senior staff member and a consultant." Both outlets ran pieces that seem to lean heavily on a press release. And in the case of BDN, the reporter assigned wasn't someone on the political beat who's likely to be familiar with Daffron's history.

But Portland Press Herald is a different story. Because Washington-based reporter Jonathan Riskind is clearly aware that Daffron is most accurately described as chief operating office of a K Street lobbying and consulting firm with blue-chip clientele. And he knows--or ought to--that Daffron has done lobbying work for corporate clients including defense contractors going all the way back to 2000.

So what does Riskind do with this information? Here's how he introduces Daffron:

Collins, 59, got engaged Sunday to Thomas Daffron, a public policy and political consultant in Washington who was chief of staff to William Cohen when Cohen represented Maine in Congress. (Emphasis added.)

In short, willfully misleading. And in a way clearly designed to minimize the awkwardness of the fact that Collins--ranking member on the Governmental Affairs committee and a member of the Armed Services committee--is marrying a senior official at a firm that's lobbied for Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and other big defense contractors while also winning consulting contracts with the Department of Defense and other government agencies.

Then, as if to insulate himself from the charge that he's been abjectly deferential to Collins and her interest in obscuring the truth, Riskind tucks this pair of sentences in at the bottom of the article:

He is now chief operating officer for Jefferson Consulting Group. The firm does lobbying, but Daffron is not a registered lobbyist.

Got that? Having established at the top of the piece that Daffron--who's been working in lobbying for the last twelve years--is a "political consultant" Riskind owns up to the fact that his subject is "now" Jefferson's COO. And then, as if anticipating a question that hasn't been asked, our intrepid reporter makes sure readers know that Daffron is not himself a lobbyist.

Even though Daffron was lobbying--for Jefferson Consulting Group--just a few years ago.

Look, rewriting Daffron's biography to suit the political interests of his fiancee isn't going to bring down the republic. But make no mistake: This is shilling disguised as reporting. It's an errand run on behalf of powerful people under the guise of good faith "journalism."

When it comes to balancing the interests of his readers and his sources, it's abundantly clear which side Riskind comes down on.

Not pretty, but it is what it is.

Mazel Tov!

Sen. Collins to marry.

Mountains, Molehills, Etc.

It's great to see Sen. Collins advocating an evidence-driven approach to evaluating and mitigating health risks to Americans:

[Collins] has repeatedly questioned the use, in particular, of the backscatter X-ray machines, which emit low levels of ionizing radiation...

"As a frequent flyer, I just cannot believe that it is good for people who are traveling every week, or for TSA employees who are operating these machines, to be exposed to ionizing radiation," she told me recently. "I'm not asking for weaker security, but it's almost inevitable that some people are getting stronger doses. Just think about how many machines there are, how many screeners there are. Just think what would happen if the machines weren't properly calibrated."

The TSA has long claimed that the radiation absorbed by a passenger in a backscatter X-ray is equivalent to what he would receive in two minutes of high-altitude flying. In other words, inconsequential. Various TSA officials have also said the dose is roughly the same as the radiation absorbed from eating half a potassium-rich banana, though lately, perhaps fearing the wrath of the banana lobby, officials have dropped this particular comparison.

Collins, citing a recent ProPublica story discussing the small, but not entirely negligible, risk that the scans could cause some fliers to develop cancer, asked TSA Administrator John Pistole to conduct a comprehensive study of the potential hazards.

Still, how does Collins square her concern about the (potentially) small risk posed by the back-scatter machines with her total indifference to much more serious hazards?

In Sen. Collins's home state of Maine, her bill would continue the emission of at least 12,000 pounds of mercury and other toxics from Maine power plants and cement plants. At least 2.6 million pounds of airborne toxics are emitted into Maine's skies every year--or two pounds for every Maine resident.

Sen. Collins's most recent bill continues her yearlong assault on the health and safety of Mainers and other Americans. In February she targeted the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule, which would require facilities with large industrial boilers to reduce their emissions of mercury, lead, and other pollutants that harm our health. These chemicals have proven, damaging effects on the heart, lungs, and brain. By clearing the air of these toxics, the boiler MACT rule would save 2,600 to 6,600 lives per year.

I suspect the different reactions can be explained by the relative power and influence of the companies involved in each issue--the same piece reports, for example, that energy and natural resources companies have contributed over $400,000 to the junior senator since she was elected.

But I wouldn't discount the importance of Collins' introductory clause above:

"As a frequent flyer, I just cannot believe that it is good for people who are traveling every week..."

It's easy for a pol to prioritize concerns about dangers she faces regularly. Looking out for the greater good when there's not much electoral incentive is something else entirely.

Principles and Commitments

Yesterday an anonymous commenter drew attention to the text of the "Gang of 14" agreement to argue that Sen. Collins had committed to the "extraordinary circumstances" standard for judicial nominee filibusters only for a set period of time.

Indeed, the text of the agreement specifies that its provisions are "related to...judicial nominations in the 109th Congress." So it's certainly fair to say that Collins, by backing filibusters in less than extraordinary circumstances several years later, hasn't violated the letter of the agreement.

On the other hand, I don't remember anyone stressing the time-limited nature of the Gang of 14 compromise when it was put into effect. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there was a widely shared sense that the "extraordinary circumstances" standard in particular was being put forward as a "new normal"--one the Gang of 14 members didn't just settle for but actually believed in.

And the contemporaneous news accounts that show up near the top of a Google search do nothing to undercut that impression.

But of course, the best way to evaluate Collins' integrity on the issue is to look at her own statements. Here's her press release on the agreement:

This agreement is based on trust. And most important, it helps preserve the unique culture of this institution. It is a culture that is built upon a foundation of collegiality and cooperation that transcends partisanship. It is a culture in which legislative goals are reached with patience and perseverance, and through the art of negotiation and compromise. This agreement preserves that Senate culture and shows a respect for the important principles that make the Senate such a great institution.

And here she is in 2010, several years after the end of the 109th Congress:

In 2005, a group of senators came together to negotiate an agreement for considering judicial nominees. This "Gang of 14," of which I was part, sought to avoid what was known as the "nuclear option," a change in the Senate rules that would have brought about a legislative meltdown.

[...]

While leaders on both sides hardened their positions, the 14 of us--seven from each party--joined to forge a solution. We established a new standard, stating that we would support filibusters of judicial nominees only in "extraordinary circumstances."

[...]

Our deal restored trust and helped preserve the unique culture of the Senate.

If in 2010 Collins thought that her commitment to the culture-preserving, principle-respecting "extraordinary circumstances" standard had long lapsed...she sure had a funny way of expressing it.

Promise Breaking

Can anyone sincerely believe that Collins' bizarre interest in pruning the judiciary meets the "extraordinary circumstances" threshold that she committed to back in 2005?

Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joined all but one other Republican today in blocking the nomination of Caitlin Halligan for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

[...]

Collins told reporters on Capitol Hill that she voted against the former New York state solicitor general because the seat has been vacant for six years and is no longer needed because the D.C. Circuit’s case load is on the wane.

[...]

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was among those pointing out that there are three vacancies currently on the D.C. Circuit, so two seats would remain vacant if Halligan is confirmed.

[...]

Snowe and Collins are part of a group of senators who have promised not to use the filibuster to block judicial nominees from receiving final Senate votes except under extraordinary circumstances.

As with Collins' decision to block the nomination of Goodwin Liu and her vote against the confirmation of trailblazer Alison Nathan, what's involved here--other than hypocrisy--is naked partisan politics.

Stonewall

PPH:

President Obama hopes to persuade Maine's two senators and several other Republican lawmakers to break party ranks and help confirm his nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

A Senate vote is expected this week, but so far Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are apparently not budging.

Both have said they are concerned about oversight of the bureau.

[...]

Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray is Obama's nominee to head the bureau.

[...]

Collins has met with Cordray and found him to be "an intelligent, qualified individual," said Kevin Kelley, Collins' spokesman.

Remember in 2008 when Collins ran on a platform of blocking qualified nominees to extract political concessions? Me neither.

But then maybe there's another explanation for what's going on here?

Collins is disappointed "the White House is choosing to make this a partisan issue," Kelley said.

Got that? The Obama administration has the temerity to try to stand up a regulatory agency mandated by law--a law Collins voted for--and they're the ones engaged in partisan politics.

Standing Corrected

Sen. Collins surprises your humble narrator and does the right thing, coming out in favor of the payroll tax cut being offered up by Senate Democrats:

Collins said in a phone interview tonight that her goal is to make sure "working families aren't faced with a tax increase come January, frankly at a very bad time given the fragility of our economy."

And while Collins doesn't want to see small business owners hit with a surcharge on the income tax paid by people making more than $1 million, she said the Senate Democrats' proposal does help offset the impact of the surcharge by also applying the payroll tax cut to the first $5 million of an employer's payroll as well as to employees' wages.

Since the bill doesn't have enough support to make it to the floor, the vote is more or less symbolic.

But it's an important symbol.

And when a pol as typically obsequious to corporate interests as Susan Collins feels compelled to align herself with working people at the expense of the wealthiest among us, you know the political winds have shifted.

Quote of the Day

Sen. Collins:

"What we've been hearing over and over again is that the reason Republicans are opposed to the surtax [on the rich] is because of the concern on its impact on job creation," she said. "Well if you carve out employers you take away that argument."

Carve Out

Press Herald:

A number of Republicans say they are agreeable to extending the payroll tax cut, but don't want its cost -- about $250 billion -- added to the deficit. They also say that the surcharge on millionaires will hurt small businesses and hinder job creation. Other Republicans are ambivalent about the tax cut, saying they aren't sure it will do much in the long run to strengthen the economy.

Collins told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday that she might be willing to compromise on the issue if Senate Democrats agreed to exempt small business income from the surcharge on the income taxes paid by millionaires.

"I have advocated that we do a carve out for small business out of the so-called millionaires tax to make sure that it is not hitting subchapter S corporations, for example, and discouraging small employers from doing more hiring," Collins said.

Set aside the question of whether folks making more than $1 million per year in personal income should be seen as engaging in "small business."

Here we have Sen. Collins saying that she's got no problem raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires--she just want to tweak the plan currently on the table.

Has a bit of a familiar ring to it, no?

Any chance Collins is looking to associate herself with a popular proposal while giving herself an out--in the form of an unworkable amendment with no constituency--so that she can avoid actually having to vote for it?

No, of course not.

Deference

Unless you're a hard right Republican, isn't the whole point of electing someone like Sen. Collins that she doesn't defer to a fringe radical like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)?

Neither Maine Republican is a supporter of Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act...Collins...hopes negotiations going on over Lautenberg’s bill will lead to an agreement large numbers of senators can support.

[...]

Collins...noted that there are behind-the-scenes, talks reportedly going on between environmental and industry groups and staffers from the offices of Lautenberg and GOP Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the environment committee.

Revolving Door Watch

And so it goes:

Blank Rome has been hired by Tiburon Associates Inc., an Alexandria, Va.-based government contractor, to lobby for "congressional assistance regarding compliance with federal acquisition rules governing small-business set-asides," according to lobbying disclosure records. C.J. Zane, ex-chief of staff to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), and Katherine Scontras, once a legislative correspondent to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), are lobbying for the contractor.

Collins: Palestinian PM Concedes UN Error

Sen. Collins:

[Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and I] discussed the PA's unilateral appeal to the UN to grant recognition to a Palestinian State, a move that I strongly oppose. He seemed to concede that this approach was a mistake.

Quote of the Day

Via Andrew Sullivan, here's former Sen. Rick Santorum:

"We'll repeal Obamacare and get rid any idea that you have to have abortion coverage or contraceptive coverage. One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is okay. It's not okay because it's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Sen. Collins worked to re-elect Santorum in 2006. (And no, this isn't much more outrageous than the kinds of things he was saying at the time.)

Define "Open-Ended"

Sen. Collins:

"I have never supported an open-ended and unconditional commitment of U.S. troops in Iraq. However, I do remain concerned that many U.S. military officials have repeatedly said that they believe a residual force of U.S. troops might have to remain in order to continue training Iraqi troops to help ensure that the significant gains we have made there, at great cost to American blood and treasure, are not lost."

Flashback to May, 2007:

CNN reports that Sen. Collins "will consider calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq if sufficient progress has not been made in the country by September."

Ayotte Amendment

Via e-mail, ACLU of Maine Executive Director Shenna Bellows says that her organization is "very concerned" about Sen. Collins' vote in favor of the Ayotte amendment, which would have banned the use of civilian courts for many terrorism cases.

Some more background from an ACLU prepared statement:

The failure of the Ayotte amendment...should be a wake-up call to anyone who still thinks there is a binding deal for the National Defense Authorization Act detention provisions. Top leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee have repeatedly said they struck a deal on detention issues when the Committee passed its bill behind closed doors earlier this year. But now it turns out that literally all six Republicans on the Armed Services Committee who supported the NDAA detention deal by voting against a nearly identical Ayotte amendment in committee markup (McCain, Graham, Wicker, Chambliss, Scott Brown, and Collins) flipped sides this morning and voted for the Ayotte amendment.

“It should be clear now that the bipartisan NDAA detention 'deal' is a farce.

Sen. Snowe also supported the amendment.

Quote of the Day

Lawrence Lessig:

Forget the 99 percent. We are the 99.95 percent of people who have never maxed out in a Congressional election campaign by giving the maximum amount. It is .05 percent of America who have given $2500 in the last election to a Congressional candidate, .05 percent, and Congress listens to them.

Drum Roll Please

We're excited to announce the 2012 Margaret Chase Smith Journalism Award competition.

The $100 award, named after an American who spoke uncomfortable truths to powerful people, will go to a Maine journalist with the fortitude to press elected officials to answer difficult, important questions.

For the 2012 round, the award will be given to the first Maine-based reporter who asks Sen. Snowe or Sen. Collins how she would balance the federal budget and then provides readers/viewers/listeners with the context necessary to assess the plausibility of the answer and see how it squares with the pol's legislative record.

Fine print:

--No, this is not a joke.

--Want to make a commitment of $5 toward the $100 prize to help defray our costs? E-mail us at the address at right.

--The contest period begins today. The deadline for eligible reporting is October 13, 2012.

--Maine-based print, radio and TV journalists are eligible for the prize. Reports must run on Maine TV, radio or in the print edition of Maine newspaper to be eligible. (Sorry, no blog posts.)

--Judgments as to eligibility will be made by Collins Watch at our sole discretion.

--Judgements as to whether a particular piece of reporting meets the award criteria will be made by Collins Watch at our sole discretion.

--No application necessary. $100 prize will be sent automatically to the author of the first piece of reporting that meets the award criteria.

--Collins Watch reserves the right to grant no award if no Maine-based reporting is found to qualify during the award period.

--Collins Watch reserves the right to amend the rules governing the award at any time, as necessary.

No On Nathan

In spite of no votes from Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe, the nomination of Alison Nathan to US District Court was approved today by the US Senate. She will become only the second "out" lesbian to serve in the federal judiciary.

It's not clear why Collins opposed the nomination--there's no explanatory press release on her website as of this writing.

But given her support for truly fringe Bush administration nominees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, you'd think she might want to explain her decision to vote against a trailblazer like Nathan, about whom Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine said, via e-mail, "[her] qualifications are superb and [her] presence reflects the diversity of our country."

Collins Filibusters Jobs Bill

Sen. Collins, who played a pivotal role in shaping the largest Keynesian stimulus in US history just three years ago, has voted to block even a debate on the administration's jobs bill:

Collins said, the administration's "take it or leave it" proposition in an effort to score political points persuaded her to vote against the bill. She added that the administration also changed the bill to retain "sweetheart tax breaks for the five biggest oil and gas companies."

Got that? Unemployment is at 9%. Incomes are falling. The middle class is struggling mightily.

But since the administration went ahead and offered a "take it or leave it" proposal (which was somehow substantially rewritten just days ago) everyone should suffer.

And besides, the bill didn't get rid of tax breaks which have nothing to do with its goal. Ergo, the whole thing is a bad idea.

To call this incoherence is to be way too generous.

Which is why Collins ought to be pressed to explain herself more clearly, and to offer something closer to an honest explanation for her vote.

If only there was a group of people--a corps you could say--whose job it was to report back to their fellow citizens about what accountable representatives are up to and why...

Collins Defends Scott Brown

After Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren noted--in response to a debate question referencing Sen. Scott Brown's (R-MA) nude Cosmopolitan centerfold--that she had "kept [her] clothes on" while paying for law school, Brown had a sharp, tart response: "Thank God."

Too bad it was classless, ugly and kind of icky.

But that hasn't stopped Sen. Collins from coming to the aid of the Brown campaign's furious spin operation:

Collins similarly turned the spotlight on Warren, saying Brown was "merely responding" to comments first made by the Harvard professor, in which she "made light of the difficult choices in his life"--a reference to Warren's recent jab at Brown's decision to pose nude for a magazine in his 20’s.

Set aside Collins' one-sided take on what transpired. Set aside her decision to use "difficult choices" as a euphemism for Brown's decision to pose nude.

Remember, Collins is a civility scold. She's literally made a career out of the proposition that our country would be stronger if politicians treated each other more politely.

And yet Scott Brown comes along and says "thank God" Elizabeth Warren didn't take her clothes off. And we all know exactly what he means. And Collins doesn't just give Brown a pass. She defends him.

It's enough to make you wonder.

The "Small Business" Canard

There's been a noticeable improvement in the quality and diversity of political writing on BDN Op-Ed page in recent months. This piece from Nate Libby, director of the Maine Small Business Coalition, exemplifies the trend:

Small-business owners know what's happening in our communities because we serve and employ the workers who make our local economies thrive.

[...]

Too often, we hear arguments for "business-friendly" policies that don’t match up with our experience--mostly coming from big-business lobbyists who claim to speak for our interests. The latest example is the “business” support for Sen. Susan Collins' "regulatory time out" and "regulatory accountability" proposals.

[...]

Take the "time out" proposal, which puts a freeze on new health and workplace safety rules or standards. When a football team calls a time-out, play stops on the field. But that's not what Sen. Collins is proposing at all. She is proposing to let big polluters, big banks and big insurers keep playing their games, but to take the officials out of the game so they can't throw flags on penalties.

Who wins in that situation? The big guys do. And who loses? The little guys.

It's striking to see a Maine small business owner--let alone the leader of a 2,500 business coalition--calling out Collins' bogus "small business" posturing. But Libby's basic point in the piece isn't controversial--at least not in the small business community.

The fact is, very few business owners spend their days obsessing about government regulations.

Collins "Unfamiliar" With DOMA Impact

Sen. Collins, who has won plaudits and awards from several gay rights groups in recent months--and is slated to be honored by another prominent group next week--professes not to know how the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is affecting gay couples:

When Metro Weekly spoke with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) about her views on the repeal of DOMA, the senator celebrated by many LGBT advocates for her prominent role in ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" said she was unfamiliar with the federal impact of DOMA on same-sex couples and with the law aimed at repealing DOMA...

Speaking with Metro Weekly at [the Sept. 20 Log Cabin Republican's dinner honoring her], Collins had no view on the bill and claimed to be unaware of the impact of Section 3 of DOMA--which defines "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law as referring only to marriages between one man and one woman.

Asked about and given a brief description of the [Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA], Collins said, "I was going to say, I'm not sure what the Respect for Marriage Act is." She then added that she would "have to look at that."

Collins then said that she hadn't "looked at" the federal limits on marriage recognition put in place by DOMA, stating that she was not aware of how Section 3 of DOMA impacts same-sex couples.

Collins's comments are particularly confusing given that she was the sole Republican Senate co-sponsor of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act in the 111th Congress, a bill to extend health insurance benefits to federal employees in same-sex relationships--legislation made necessary by Section 3 of DOMA.

Asked on Sept. 28 for follow-up information about Collins's position on DOMA and the RMA, Collins's office was unable to provide immediate comment and a spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment.

They Write Op-Eds

Jonathan Shenkin, former president of the Maine Dental Association, on potato consumption and childrens health:

Our senators' argument, which appears to have originated with the potato industry, is that the potato is full of nutrients. In a recent press release, Snowe detailed all the healthful components of the potato, but neglected to mention its established association with obesity.

Collins claimed that the potato is much healthier than iceberg lettuce, which is low on nutrients. Iceberg lettuce, however, is not associated with weight gain and obesity.

I decided to call my medical colleagues in Maine and throughout the United States to hear their opinions about the Institute of Medicine's recommended changes in school nutrition.

Physicians were unanimous in their belief that we must moderate potato consumption among children in the country to tackle the obesity epidemic. No one I spoke with supported the senators' views...

Their political strategy, not based on scientific evidence, greatly concerns me.

Taking A "Breather"

The Center for American Progess isn't happy with Sen. Collins

On September 12, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and 20 of her colleagues introduced the Regulatory Time-Out Act, S. 1538. This bill would establish a one-year moratorium on regulations from the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies...

This moratorium would halt the implementation of rules to reduce mercury, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals from coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, and cement manufacturing. The American Lung Association noted that allowing these sources to continue unchecked will inflict real harm on Americans, particularly children, seniors, and the sick:

These emissions can make breathing difficult and can worsen asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis and other lung diseases. These pollutants can cause heart attacks and strokes, lung cancer and other cancers, birth defects and premature death.

The American Lung Association projects that these two pollution reduction requirements would save at least 51,000 lives and prevent over half a million asthma attacks every year...

In Sen. Collins’s home state of Maine, her bill would continue the emission of at least 12,000 pounds of mercury and other toxics from Maine power plants and cement plants. At least 2.6 million pounds of airborne toxics are emitted into Maine’s skies every year—or two pounds for every Maine resident. The energy and natural resources companies have contributed over $400,000 to Sen. Collins since she was elected...

Sen. Collins’s most recent bill continues her yearlong assault on the health and safety of Mainers and other Americans. In February she targeted the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule, which would require facilities with large industrial boilers to reduce their emissions of mercury, lead, and other pollutants that harm our health. These chemicals have proven, damaging effects on the heart, lungs, and brain. By clearing the air of these toxics, the boiler MACT rule would save 2,600 to 6,600 lives per year.

Sen. Collins has also sponsored the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens Act and the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. Both acts target regulations that would reduce emission of hazardous air pollutants.

Sen. Collins says she is proposing S. 1538 in order to give U.S. companies a “sensible breather” from the regulations that suppress job creation. But this would make breathing harder for children, seniors, and the ill by prolonging emission of millions of pounds of toxic pollution.

Inflation

Way back in 2008--in the middle of a re-election campaign--Sen. Collins supported raising taxes on people with annual income of more than $1 million.

Here she is this week:

Collins said she favors overhauling the tax code and hiking taxes on the extremely wealthy, perhaps people making $5 million a year or more.

Seems like something of a moving target, no?