In naming Carl Levin one of the ten best senators, Time Magazine wrote in April 2006 that he has “gained respect from both parties for his attention to detail and deep knowledge of policy,” and that “his carefully researched, thoughtful remarks carry great weight with his colleagues.”
Since 1979, Carl has represented the people of Michigan in the United States Senate, where he has fought for Michigan’s industrial economy; for the Great Lakes and the environment; for Social Security and more affordable health care and prescription drugs; for education programs; for agriculture programs; and for roads and infrastructure. A Senate colleague once remarked on the floor of the Senate that Carl “adds new meaning to ‘fighting like a pit bull.’ Every day, there is Senator Levin, making sure, ‘Hey, what about Michigan?’”
Carl Levin is a powerful voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee where, as the ranking Democrat, he has worked to make America more secure and fought to reduce fraud and waste in the Department of Defense. He has strongly supported programs to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to produce them, and he has argued for years that any national missile defense system should be tested and proven before it is deployed. He has been recognized for his passionate commitment to the readiness, morale, and welfare of our men and women in uniform.
Carl opposed the unilateral decision of the Bush Administration to attack Iraq. Although he has been critical of the Administration’s policies and actions in Iraq, particularly the misuse of prewar intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq, he has worked tirelessly to find ways the United States can help support the creation of a unified, democratic government in Iraq and to bring our forces home sooner rather than later. Columnist E.J. Dionne wrote that “This administration rarely pays attention to constructive criticism from the opposition party. But somebody in the White House ought to listen to Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who opposed the war but keeps trying to help Bush find a way out of this mess.”
Carl is also the senior Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where he has long led efforts to make the federal government more efficient and more ethical. He authored the Competition in Contracting Act to reduce government procurement costs and the Whistleblower Protection Act to protect federal employees who expose waste, fraud and abuse, and he coauthored the Taxpayers Bill of Rights to protect individuals and small businesses from IRS harrassment. Carl was the principal author of the Ethics Reform Act in 1989, which simplified and strengthened ethics requirements for the government and prohibited members of Congress from accepting honoraria from special interests. In 1995 he authored legislation to ban gifts and paid trips to senators, as well as to impose strict disclosure requirements for lobbysists. He has also gained international recognition for his thorough investigations into abusive tax shelters, off-shore tax avoidance, Enron accounting practices, money laundering, terrorist financing, corporate tax evasion, and high oil prices.
Carl serves as the co-chair of the Senate Auto and Auto Parts Task Force, through which he has been a leading voice in the fight for trade policies that would create a level playing field with our trading partners and promote U.S. manufacturers. He has fought for energy policies that decrease our dependence on foreign oil and protect our national energy security, while also promoting renewable energy sources, environmentally responsible domestic production, and tax incentives for energy efficiency and advanced automobile technology.
As co-chair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, Carl has fought to clean up and protect the Great Lakes, one of the world’s greatest natural resources. He has led Senate passage of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act and the Great Lakes Legacy Act to fight pollution and toxic contaminated sediments and to ensure the water quality of the lakes, on which millions of people rely for drinking water. He has also led efforts to minimize the damage done by invasive species that threaten the lakes’ ecosystem.
Carl’s decade-long effort to come up with a more effective means of combating drug abuse and addiction paid off in 2000 when President Clinton signed into law the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, which Carl Levin authored with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). This law permits physicians, for the first time, to prescribe and dispense in their private offices a medication called buprenorphine, which actually blocks the craving for heroin with a non-addictive substance. This new office-based system has opened the door to treatment to tens of thousands of individuals previously unable or reluctant to seek medical treatment at centralized and distant methadone clinics.
Carl was born in Detroit and attended Detroit public schools. He is a graduate of Swarthmore College and Harvard Law School. Before being elected to the Senate, Carl served as Michigan assistant attorney general and general counsel for the Michigan Civil Rights Commission from 1964-67. He was special assistant attorney general for the State of Michigan and chief appellate defender 1968-69. Carl served as a member of the Detroit City Council from 1970-77, the last four years as Council President.
Carl Levin married Barbara Halpern in 1961. They have three daughters and four grandchildren. His brother, Sander, has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1983.
Saul, on his "blog," is reporting that Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski dropped his bid to get fanny-whacked by Carl Levin come November, because he got called to active duty. Announcing the official kick-off for his bid is creationist Jack Hoogendyk.
Levin's last opponent, an ex-represenative and veteran named Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski has already announced his bid to get creamed again by Levin come November. Last time around, he got 39 percent of the vote.
Carl Levin still supports George Bush's war. Just this Tuesday, the Senator voted with 20 other Democrats to continue funding the War in Iraq. This vote has seen surprisingly little coverage, particularly from this site. Well, no longer.
Carl Levin could be a leader of the anti-war movement. He is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, giving him tremendous credentials on foreign affairs. Yet the Senator has been very conservative when it comes to ending the war. He spoke out against the surge, but despite its obvious failure in regards to the political benchmarks, Carl still votes for this war.
We in the netroots can no longer pretend that just because you have a 'D' by your name, you are infallible. It is necessary for us to go campaign against the Dick DeVoses of the world, but it is just as necessary to show Carl Levin what it means to be a true Michigan Liberal.
So call Senator Levin. Call him often. Tell him that he can not continue to support George Bush's war. You see, that is the benefit of a democracy. Not even a five-term Senator is immune from the people.
I have to confess to knowing nothing about free trade with Peru, and I have to confess that I'd like Carl Levin to better articulate that leaving Iraq in a huff and without securing that nation's untapped oil will make life for all Americans -- in the long run -- more difficult. But, I do know that he is at the forefront of tackling what is actually a more serious problem -- this nation's obsession with getting something for nothing.
It is the root cause of the crisis in the housing market (we're shocked that poor community planning and the general tendency for greed to triumph over common sense led to the construction of more homes than there were people who can afford to buy them?) , and it is why credit companies have managed to perpetuate a massive scam on the American people.
We all know, at the end of the day, how this scam works. You go into a wilderness outfitters and see a sleeping bag for $100. You can either lay down $100 in cold, hard cash, or you can hand them a credit card, and then pay the good people at Visa $11 (that is, if your monthly interest rate is only 11 percent, and not the 24 percent on all of the notices of pre-approved cards I tend to get in the mail) so they will buy it for you. That is, if you pay the entire thing off in one month, and don't pay late. If you deviate from that, you're paying more interest, and if you're late, they'll sock you with fees and then bump up your interest rate. In short, when you sign up for a credit card, you are giving someone permission to steal from you.
While we're all flaying Carl Levin for trying to turn something he opposed at the beginning (Iraq) into a positive (typically called trying to turn lemons into lemonade), and for agreeing to free trade deals with nations who represent a sliver of our trade, he's holding hearings on credit card company practices, which today amount to legalized and voluntary extortion.
As my MICHIGAN Senator, I am apalled that Levin would vote for the Peru trade deal. I was going to send his campaign a few bucks, but now, I'll send it to Edwards instead. And if Mrs corporate NAFTA Hillary is the nominee, I'm voting for the Republican.
Levin has failed this state again, and it is time he got a real job. This is the last straw. If I want a Republican Senator, I'll elect one.
Does the infrastructure exist in Hawaii and Michigan to pressure these two wavering, weak-kneed senators? I don't know. But it's clear that we must continue to build out the people-powered movement in all 50 states so that we can hold our elected officials to task when they consider abrogating the public trust.
Carl Levin
Washington office:
Phone (202) 224-6221
Fax (202) 224-1388
I'd thought of the idea that Dem presidential contenders maybe should request withdrawal of their names from the Michigan ballot, but it looks like they may've thought of it first; see Freep, Michigan fuels a political revolution,
"...some of the candidates -- including former Sen. John Edwards, who has invested heavily in building early momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire -- were said to be considering upping the ante by withdrawing their names from the Michigan primary ballot. Edwards campaign director David Bonior of Michigan didn't respond immediately to queries about his candidate's plans. But if one or more of the top contenders drops out, Michigan's Jan. 15 primary could quickly deteriorate into an insignificant sideshow. ...But [Carl] Levin said it was "inconceivable" that any Democratic candidate would do "something as self-destructive as taking their name off the primary ballot. ... In [a] letter, Levin and [Debbie] Dingell argued that it was New Hampshire -- not Michigan -- that first violated party rules by moving its primary from Jan. 22 to sometime before Jan. 19 in a "transparent effort ... to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa. ..." Levin said Michigan could revert to its original Feb. 5 primary date, but only if New Hampshire backs off its jump. ..."
So, if NH goes 3 days before it should, then Mich can go...3 WEEKS before it should? Oy. --Note, though, how Carl Levin gives wiggle room for Michigan to cave completely. Astute, if belated. With a pathetic little "rebellion" like Michigan is mounting against the DNC and Howard Dean, no wonder Levin wants an out.
Not even discussing related issues like primarying John Dingell out of office: I hope the presidential candidates remove their names from the rulebreaking Michigan primary ballot as soon as possible. It's actually good for Michigan, in the long run, since people will be taught that you can't win by cheating.
Senator Levin gives us a twofer today on the issue of Iraq.
Fresh off his two day tour of Iraq, the good Senator decided to give cover for Blue Dog Democrats, Republican lawmakers and the president.
In case you haven't been paying attention, the Administration, with the willing capitulation from the Democrats on Capitol Hill, are laying the groundwork for punting on the Iraq War come September.
September was when the talking heads dutifully carbon copied Congressional Republican talking points that September was do or die for them.
Glenn Greenwald takes Sen. Levin correctly to task for offering Republicans this easy out and caving on the most important issue of the day.
Carl Levin, probably the most influential Senate Democrat on Iraq policy, just returned from a "visit to Iraq." In a joint statement with GOP Sen. John Warner, he pronounced that "the military aspects of President Bush's new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results."
While expressing various "concerns," they particularly hailed "the continuing improvement in the ability and willingness of the Iraqi Army to conduct combat operations against the insurgents." Predictably, war supporters on Fox News and elsewhere wasted no time in hauling out the "even-Carl-Levin-admits-we're-winning" claim.
The "trip to Iraq" which Levin and Warner took was so short and so controlled that it makes the Pollack/O'Hanlon jaunt look like a full tour of combat duty. "We completed a very productive two-day visit to Iraq," they said, adding that they spent the whole "two days" meeting with U.S. military commanders (including Gen. Petraeus) at "forward operating bases," as well as with Iraqi politicians. And, you see, they "came to Iraq to assess the progress being achieved by 'the surge.'"
The next round of Iraq debate is set to kick of as part of the annual defense budget appropriations. Our very own senior Senator, Carl Levin, is now chair and in a position to not only end the war in Iraq, but also help the state's economy.
"Carl Levin plays a major role in deciding how half a trillion dollars in defense money is spent," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank. "It's of tremendous significance."
The bill gives Levin an outsized voice in nearly every aspect of Pentagon operations, from how much troops are paid to whether the nation should build a new type of nuclear warhead. That means several potential battles with the Bush administration. None is bigger than the debate over the Iraq war. Levin plans to once again introduce his preferred solution to the conflict -- a timetable for troop withdrawals beginning in four months -- this time as an amendment to the authorization bill.
Hey senator, how's about throwing Michigan a couple of billion so we can study the use of remote viewing on Al Qaeda?
In addition to his role as Chair of Armed Services, the senator's amendment will be brought up for consideration in another attempt of Senate Dems to end this foolish war and bring our troops home.
Hi again, MLers! It's been awhile since I dropped by. Last year I took a pretty intense interest in the governor's race, fighting to keep Amway Guy out of the state government, and enjoyed participating here from a distance. Since then though I've been focusing more on where I actually live, inside the Beltway. What's cool is that Sen. Levin and now Rep. Conyers have both taken the lead on the larger issue of credit card practices.
And I was just going to write a new version of a post I did for Daily Kos last week when I saw that ScottyUrb had linked it as part of the Saturday round-up. This one is more work-related, actually. There's a group here I've been consulting for called the Merchants Payments Coaltion -- it's a coalition of coalitions, small businesses, restaurants, convenience stores and so on, banding together to fight against unfair credit card fees that target merchant account holders. The website is appropriately named UnfairCreditCardFees.com.
The specific fee, my pet issue, is called the interchange fee. If you have an account to accept credit card payments, or are close to someone who does, then this hardly needs explaining. But for the uninitiated, here's the deal:
When you use a credit card either online or in person, your bank has to talk to the merchant's bank. Similar to ATM fees, this is not a costless transaction (although it is much cheaper than they let on). But as we know, any business always passes on costs to its customers, and so those fees end up embedded in the cost of the goods we pay.
Interchange fees have a complex pricing structure, which is based on the card brand, the type of credit or debit card, the type and size of the accepting merchant, and the type of transaction (e.g. online, in-store, phone order). Further complicating the rates schedules, interchange fees are typically a flat fee plus a percentage of the total purchase price (including taxes). In the United States, the fee averages approximately 2% of transaction value.
Ever wonder why you see those signs that say "minimum credit card purchase" at coffee shops, mom n pop stores and the like? That's because the credit card fee eats so far into the margins that if you use a card to buy something less than a dollar, the store-owner could actually lose money on the sale.
Now, it's against the rules set by the credit card associations to charge different prices for cash and credit, unless it's calculated ahead of time and advertised that way. Gas stations and liquor stores sometimes find this manageable, but it's impossible for most businesses.
(Also worth noting, Visa and MasterCard, though publicly traded or headed for IPO, are little more than shell companies controlled by banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citi. When you talk about deceptive and manipulative credit card practices, you're talking about the banks.)
Worse, those thousand-plus page agreements that merchants have to sign before they can accept Visa or Mastercard is a rule included to ensure the customer has no idea what's going on: it's highly highly against the rules for merchants to tell customers about the interchange fee they pay.
These interchange fees keep rising though technology keeps reducing the cost of transactions. That makes it a huge cash cow for the banks. And as I said in my first Daily Kos diary on the subject, this fee is the biggest reverse-Robin Hood scheme you've never heard of:
The banks that control the Visa/MC use the money generated from them to pay for the rewards cards you can only get if you qualify, and you have to be worth something already to qualify.
So think about it: A person living on a fixed income, who uses cash to pay for most items, pays a small percentage of that interchange fee every time he or she buys everyday goods at any place that takes credit cards. The banks then take those fees and give them to people who certainly don't need it, but like it when their bank gives them free stuff. And who doesn't like free stuff?
Anyway, I hope you're still reading, because here's what's timely -- later this week, Conyers and his Antitrust subcommittee are expected to hold a hearing on this. From our website:
No official announcement has been made, but sources tell the Merchants Payments Coalition (MPC) that the hearing will likely be held on July 19. Witnesses have not been named, but Committee members are expected to use the hearing to examine the impact of interchange fees on consumers and businesses as well as the antitrust law implications of the interchange fee system.
The hearing would be the fourth congressional session this year to examine credit card fees and the first to focus specifically on interchange. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee and a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held major hearings on whether interchange practices violate federal antitrust laws and the consumer protection impacts of the fees.
If there's more, and if you'll have me, I'll be back to follow up on it. This could be big, at least if you care about unsavory banking practices and fixing the interchange fee.
I've seen a lot of shit slung at Senator Levin -- and others -- today after his vote against increasing the government CAFE standards. All other issues aside, I need to speak up in defense of his vote. First, the senate vote:
WASHINGTON -- Auto companies and Michigan lawmakers were regrouping Friday in the wake of the approval Thursday of a Senate bill that raises corporate average fuel economy mandates by 40 percent by 2025.
Passage of the bill was a huge blow to Detroit's automakers, which had lobbied hard against the new rules. They had backed a compromise proposed by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and Christopher Bond, R-Mo., among others, that would have raised CAFE mandates, but less dramatically than the Senate bill.
Nearly the entire Michigan congressional delegation met this morning for 45 minutes to discuss how to proceed in the wake of the loss.
"The bill would mean the death of Michigan," said U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton. "We owe it to a lot of families who rely on the auto industry to get this right."
Added Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee: "You think things are bad now in Michigan? You haven't seen anything yet if that bill became law."
Stupak and Rogers said automakers need to emphasize their advanced technology efforts and push for more assistance to make vehicles like the Chevy Volt a reality.
But Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid used harsh language to say that senators didn't find automakers credible suggested auto companies "misrepresented the facts" at time.
"We don't believe you anymore,'" Reid said. "The answer is we've had enough. It's time the American automobile manufacturers join with the rest of the world in recognizing that people want to buy more fuel efficient cars."
UPDATE by Hazen Pingree:There is now a sequel to this post. Read it here.
So
our own Sen. Carl Levin - who originally sponsored the
amendment requiring George Bush to get approval from the
United Nations Security Council before
starting the Iraq War, who voted
against starting the war (unlike Sens. Edwards, Clinton and
Reid - who not only voted for the war, but also against
Sen. Levin's amendment), and was one of its most outspoken critics - is
now the embodiment of all evil in the universe? My, that certainly is
quite a change.
Well, before I jump on that
bandwagon, I have some questions I need answered. I've mentioned them a
couple of times in the comments, and so far no one has come close to
answering them. Mind you these are real questions. I actually could be
convinced here - but I'm going to need a lot more than angry rhetoric.
Okay. Here they are:
So let's say Sen.
Levin gets overruled and Congress cuts off funding for the war. What do
we believe is then likely to happen? Do we believe that George Bush
will simply throw up his hands and say "well gee whiz, looks like you
beat me, Dems! Better start shipping the boys home." I find this pretty
hard to swallow.
Instead, what I see happening is
George Bush leaving the troops in the field and allowing their gas and
ammo to run out. Then, as troop deaths begin to multiply, he'll send
his press secretary out to blame it all on the Dems. This stalemate
will ensue until one side or the other buckles. Problem is,
Bush simply doesn't seem to posess a conscience. I don't think
there's any limit to the number of troops he'd let
be killed in order to get his way. If he's demonstrated anything during
their war, it's a complete disregard for the safety well-being of our
fighting forces. I see no indication that would change in this scenario.
If
I'm right and cutting off funding to the war does NOT result in an end
to the war - then what's the point? Is it just symbolic? If so - and
we're just working with symbolic manuevers here - then why not take it
right to the source and start working on impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
It will most likely fail, but at least it won't cloud the issue and
will focus attention directly on the real problem - which is
that we have a couple of crazy Republican idiots in charge of the most
powerful fighting force ever assembled.
Absent any
satisfactory answers to these questions, I have to go with Sen. Levin
on this one.
Okay, there you go. Have at it. BTW,
more anti-Levin tirades will get you nowhere. I'm serious when
I say I can be convinced - but I really need some solid answers.
Our discussion of the 2008 elections continues today with our focus shifting to the reelection of U.S. Senator Carl Levin, to our challenge of Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Cliff Taylor, and our efforts to keep the majority in the State House. Watch my video below and tell me what you think:
(Sen. Levin, please stop using Right Wing talking points about your own party's efforts...if you don't know which are which...ask someone not named Joe Lieberman. - promoted by Nazgul35)
Dear Senator Levin:
I write to you, today, as a citizen who took the time to read the letter you published in The Washington Post concerning the Iraq policy, and in particular with regard to this passage in which you talk about sending "the wrong message to the troops":
One way to try to change course is to stop funding for the war, which sends the wrong message to the troops and won't pass in Congress. The better way to change course, an option that is also more likely to succeed, is to place in law a requirement that the president do so.
The "wrong message"? Senator Levin, the only way to send a wrong message to our soldiers is to tell them that Democrats will try anything short of everything to bring them home. "We will try everything--without pause, without fear--to end the Bush Iraq policy that is destroying the lives of America's soldiers!" That is the only right message to send the troops. Can you not see that, yet?
Carl Levin's Michigan Senate seat should be one of the safest up for re-election in 2008.
CQPolitics just profiled the seat, labeling it "Safe Democratic." The profile offered as potential Levin challengers:
There are some prominent Republicans mentioned as possible 2008 candidates, though, who could give Levin a stronger test than usual were any of them to run. They include 8th District Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land and state Attorney General Mike Cox. None of them is expected to run.
In addition to these names, the wives of prominent Michigan Republicans, Michelle Engler and Jane Abraham, have seen their share of speculation.
So, what's the latest gossip? Who do you think will get in the Senate race? Or do you expect that Carl Levin and his hefty campaign war chest will face only token opposition, if any?
MoveOn.org is collecting donations to run an ad targeting Senator Levin for his vote on Feingold-Reid (to stop funding for major combat operations in Iraq). Previous discussion of Levin's position this issue can be found here and here.
You can download the mp3, or read the script of the ad below the fold.
"...Senate Armed Services panel Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has discussed language in a second bill to measure the Iraqi government's progress on goals like a law to share oil revenues fairly among Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. McConnell and other congressional Republicans have signaled openness to benchmarks. A senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that was a "promising area" and praised Levin's role. ..."
Senator Carl Levin and myself--but what is he doing with the Black Flag shirt, and how did his hair get so long?
As per our earlier notation, the popular senior U.S. Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin (Democrat, by the way), visited the Michigan Union at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, from about 12:45-some to 2-some p.m. today. He spoke, largely about Iraq, and took questions afterwards.
C. Lev holding forth at podium, Pendleton Room, Michigan Union
He said a number of worthwhile things about Iraq, including how bad the war was, how he'd voted against it initially, how important it was that the Iraqi politicians work to reach a solution to their problems (and how crucial it was that the U.S. keep pressing them to do so).
