Frequent readers to this space know that I am an unwavering advocate for gay rights. While there are many social issues that give me a deep sense of moral conflict - late term abortions, for instance, I see utter moral clarity in the struggle for equal rights for gay men and women. I have always rejected traditionalist views that revolve around either unprovable religious theories ("that is what God intended" rings shallow for me, unless you can put him or her on the phone) or constructs lacking evidence ("children are best raised by a mother and a father" may sound nice, but a. presents an utterly false choice and b. is not born out by the evidence of the success of children of gay adoptions versus straight adoptions and/or birth children raised by gay couples versus other divorced/remarried children.)
Beyond any factual debate of the social impacts of gay marriage, gay adoption and non-discrimination laws against gay and transgendered people, this is fundamentally a moral debate. If we believe in freedom and equal rights as fundamental American and human moral precepts, then they demand that those rights be applied without filter.
To wit, would anyone argue against black marriage or black adoption due to the fact that children raised by black couples have higher recidivism rates than those raised by white couples? To do so would be repugnant, racist and offends our very moral fabric.
Would anyone argue that Catholics should not be allowed to adopt children or get married since Catholic children experience a higher rate of sexual abuse than those raised by parents of other religions? To do so would be absurd and bigoted.
Such it is with gay rights. Gay people have a right to lead the lifestyle that they choose. They have a right to have the person that they love make critical medical decisions when they cannot. They have a right to protect the financial well-being of those that they love. They have the right to access to the same health care benefits as straight people. Or at least they should.
Gay marriage has been a lightning rod issue in this country. I have said frequently that I believe that the evolving moral compass of this country always eventually swings towards greater social justice. But the path is not always a straight line. It has taken us over 200 years to get to where we are with civil rights and women's rights, and there the work is certainly not done.
So it is with a level of wonder and excitement that I take in the pace at which our attitudes and laws about gay rights are changing.
Think back to 2004, a mere 9 years ago. In that election cycle, gay marriage was a wedge issue for the right. 11 states passed ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, including blue states like Oregon and Michigan. Karl Rove leveraged public sentiment against gay marriage to mobilize conservative voters and defeat John Kerry, who, ironically, was against gay marriage.
In fact, every Presidential candidate from both parties through 2008 had stated opposition to gay marriage. Bill Clinton signed the awful Defense of Marriage Act during his Presidency. Al Gore was opposed to gay marriage, as was John Kerry. Barack Obama was a stated opponent of gay marriage in 2008.
Then the wonder began to happen.
In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage, by court order. Connecticut followed in 2008, then Iowa in 2009, also by court order.
While gay marriage was beginning to happen in the US, it was happening at the dictate of judges. Through 2009, no state legislature had passed a gay marriage law and no pro-gay marriage ballot proposition had ever passed a state.
Then, a flurry of change happened. Vermont legalized gay marriage in 2009 by legislative action. New Hampshire followed in 2010. Washington, DC did so in 2010 also. New York followed in 2011, including passage from a Republican state house. Legislators were showing courage and changing their stripes.
President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden showed up to the part, albeit way too late and endorsed gay marriage.
Then the voters weighed in in 2012, legalizing gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington by ballot initiative. Minnesota, while not legalizing gay marriage, explicitly rejected a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
Now comes the Supreme Court Case over the gay marriage ban in California. Amazingly, to date, over 100 national REPUBLICAN figures have signed on to an amicus brief in SUPPORT of gay marriage. While they do not include 2016 Presidential aspirants, they do include Meg Whitman, Rep. Ilena Ros-Leithan, Rep. Richard Hanna, former RNC Chair Ken Melhman and former Governors Jon Huntsman, Wiliam Weld, Christie Todd Whitman, Jane Swift and Paul Celucci. Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson is also a strong supporter of gay marriage, although he has yet to sign the brief.
Republicans SHOULD be advocates for same sex marriage. If they are to be the party of liberty and freedom, as they aspire to, they should never acede to having the government dictate marriage terms. Democrats should also support same sex marriage as it supports their cause of social justice.
We have come a long way on this issue. National recognition of same sex marriage now seems inevitable at some point in the next 20 years. And it can't come soon enough.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Saturday, June 25, 2011
A Civil Rights Victory in New York, Huntsman Gets in the Game, Miserable Money Malaise
New York Makes it Six
Despite weak national leadership on the subject by President Obama, a courageous New York State Senate voted Friday night to legalize gay marriage in the State of New York. The bill had previously cleared the Democratically controlled state House and passed on a final vote through the GOP-controlled body 33-29, which included the votes of 29 of the 30 Democrats in the body and 4 Republicans who were bold enough to buck their party base and their leadership to do the right thing. An enthusiastic Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the bill and it is now law.
It is worth appreciating just how far we have come on this issue in a short period of time. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage, but did so through a state court order. This court order set off a fire-storm which, along with some clever politicking by Karl Rove, led to a slew of ballot initiatives in 2004 and beyond which explicitly banned same-sex marriage in 28 states. It wasn't until 2009 that the first legislative legalization of same-sex marriage occurred, with most of New England acting the same year - Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all legalized through the legislative process although Maine's legalization was overturned by a 53%-47% ballot vote on a proposition to repeal in 2009. Iowa and Connecticut also legalized same-sex marriage by court order. The District of Columbia has also legalized same-sex marriage by city ordinance.
The New York law is significant in several ways. First of all, it is the largest state that currently allows same-sex marriage (California allowed same-sex marriage for a brief period before the now-infamous Prop 8 passed by a narrow 52-48% vote in 2008.) Secondly, it is the first time ever that a Republican-controlled state body has passed a gay marriage bill. The 4 Republicans who crossed over deserve all the credit in the world for their courage, credit I withhold from President Obama, who has been decidedly weak on this issue.
So, here is where things stand as of the New York change:
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal and Performed: Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, District of Columbia -- 35.1 million people live in these states or 11.4% of the population
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal But Not Performed (out-of-state gay marriages recognized): Maryland, New Mexico -- 7.8 million people live in these states or 2.5% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Equivalent Rights: New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii -- 74.4 million people live in these states or 24.1% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Limited Rights: Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine -- 12.0 million people live in these states or 3.9% of the population
So, cumulatively,
11.4% of the population can get a gay marriage in their home state
13.9% of the population can get a gay marriage and have it recognized in their home state
38.0% of the population has access to either gay marriage or equivalent rights through a civil union
41.9% of the population has access to at least some form of civil union rights
So, we've made a lot of progress but still have a lot to do.
So where are the next fronts in this debate?
(1) The Potential Gay Marriage States
California - a Prop 8 repeal seems likely eventually. The vote was very close in 2008, attitudes have shifted to be somewhat more pro-gay marriage since then and the 2008 vote was ironically hampered by a very high African-American turnout in 2008 (African-Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage but tend to break liberal other than that.) 2012 wouldn't be the ideal time to try, but 2014 might be.
Maine - the last vote in 2009 was only 53%-47%, a new vote might yield a victory for gay rights advocates at the ballot box.
Rhode Island - recent polling indicates strong support (60%+) among the voting population there, although the actual avenue would likely be by legislation through the state house.
Illinois, Washington, Oregon - all states with full civil unions where there is public support for gay marriage (I exclude New Jersey from this list as gay marriage likely has no chance as long as Chris Christie is Governor)
(2) Next Frontiers for Civil Unions
States where civil unions would likely have public support but are probably not ready for gay marriage include a lot of traditional swing states:
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan
(3) The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
This act, cowardly signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 permitted states not to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. I've been amazed that this issue has not made it to the Supreme Court, as it seems, on face, to be flagrantly unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 1 of the constitution states:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The so called "Full Faith and Credit" clause is crystal-clear to the average person. States must honor contracts, legal proceedings and public acts performed in all the other states. It is the basis of our system of rights and property laws. And gay marriage is clearly all three (a contract, a legal proceeding and a public act.)
The Defense of Marriage Act itself quotes the Full Faith and Credit clause and claims constitutionality on the basis that the constitution provides congress the right to the Congress to make determinations about what qualifies under Article 4, Section 1. The constitution contains no such language. I've quoted Article 4, Section 1 in its entirety above.
Conservative support for this highly dubious constitutional argument flies in the face of alleged "strict constructionism". The truth is, conservatives seem fine with judicial activism as long as it supports their agenda.
Much more to come on this key civil rights fight.
Jon Huntsman, The Moderate Long Shot
Speaking of gay rights supporters, former Utah Governor and former Obama Administration Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman got in the race this week. Huntsman is a long shot, for several reason. The first is that his pragmatic, moderate politics don't play well to Republican primary crowds. Huntsman favors civil unions (the same position, as best I can tell, as President Obama), recognizes man-made global warming and has a history of working across the aisle, great general election qualities but poison pills to the tea party. He also suffers from very low name recognition and crowded space among mainstream establishment Republicans (he looks and sounds a lot like both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.) I don't expect Huntsman to win, but he is going to be an interesting voice in the debate.
The Rotten Economy
Unemployment still stands at 9.1%. US Economic growth for the first quarter was only 1.9% and expected to be only modestly better in the second quarter (to give you a feel, 3% growth is generally required just to maintain the unemployment rate, 4 or 5% to significantly dent it.)
President Obama is stuck. New stimulus is a non-starter in the GOP House. Tax cuts only pile on to an already untenable deficit and debt load. He's stuck riding this one out. And as we've often discussed, economics are the single most important factor in Presidential elections.
The approximately 3-year stimulus plan that was already passed continues but is almost out of juice. As of now:
Tax Cut Paid Out: $259.9 billion out of $288 billion (90.2% complete)
Spending: $395.0 billion of $499 billion (79.2% complete)
Overall: $654.9 billion out of $787 billion (83.2% complete)
Of course, the GOP and President Obama agreed to a stimulus bill of sorts at the end of 2010 as part of the deal to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for all. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provided for many measures intended to stimulate the economy:
* Extension of Bush-era income and capital gains tax reductions through 2012 as well as a compromise on the estate tax rate
* A "fix" to the alternative minimum tax, which raised exemptions to prevent middle-class families from falling under the tax
* Extensions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit
* Job Creation Tax Credits, Ethanol Tax Credits and Accelerated Depreciation Tax Credits for businesses
* A 13-month extension in unemployment benefits
* A brand-new, 1 year payroll tax reduction
This was clearly a much more Republican bill than the original stimulus. The original stimulus was 62% spending and 38% tax cuts and totaled $787B in cost.
The 2010 bill was almost as large, costing approximately $671B, but was only 8% taxing and 92% tax cuts. Spending in the bill broke down as follows:
* Provisions extending Bush-era tax cuts -- 46%
* New Middle Class and Working Class tax cuts -- 37%
* New spending provisions - 8%
* Provisions extending Obama stimulus tax cuts -- 6%
* Other business tax cuts - 3%
Arguably, for all the talk of President Obama being a socialist, he has been the most tax-cutting President in US history. The problem is, he also likes to spend. There is some argument for this as a short-term measure to jump-start the economy. But we are way past short-term. We need to solve the structural deficit, not pass another set of tax gimmicks. Any ideas on how to get to a compromise on that one?
Despite weak national leadership on the subject by President Obama, a courageous New York State Senate voted Friday night to legalize gay marriage in the State of New York. The bill had previously cleared the Democratically controlled state House and passed on a final vote through the GOP-controlled body 33-29, which included the votes of 29 of the 30 Democrats in the body and 4 Republicans who were bold enough to buck their party base and their leadership to do the right thing. An enthusiastic Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the bill and it is now law.
It is worth appreciating just how far we have come on this issue in a short period of time. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage, but did so through a state court order. This court order set off a fire-storm which, along with some clever politicking by Karl Rove, led to a slew of ballot initiatives in 2004 and beyond which explicitly banned same-sex marriage in 28 states. It wasn't until 2009 that the first legislative legalization of same-sex marriage occurred, with most of New England acting the same year - Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all legalized through the legislative process although Maine's legalization was overturned by a 53%-47% ballot vote on a proposition to repeal in 2009. Iowa and Connecticut also legalized same-sex marriage by court order. The District of Columbia has also legalized same-sex marriage by city ordinance.
The New York law is significant in several ways. First of all, it is the largest state that currently allows same-sex marriage (California allowed same-sex marriage for a brief period before the now-infamous Prop 8 passed by a narrow 52-48% vote in 2008.) Secondly, it is the first time ever that a Republican-controlled state body has passed a gay marriage bill. The 4 Republicans who crossed over deserve all the credit in the world for their courage, credit I withhold from President Obama, who has been decidedly weak on this issue.
So, here is where things stand as of the New York change:
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal and Performed: Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, District of Columbia -- 35.1 million people live in these states or 11.4% of the population
States/Localities Where Gay Marriage is Legal But Not Performed (out-of-state gay marriages recognized): Maryland, New Mexico -- 7.8 million people live in these states or 2.5% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Equivalent Rights: New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii -- 74.4 million people live in these states or 24.1% of the population
States/Localities Without Gay Marriage but With Civil Unions with Limited Rights: Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine -- 12.0 million people live in these states or 3.9% of the population
So, cumulatively,
11.4% of the population can get a gay marriage in their home state
13.9% of the population can get a gay marriage and have it recognized in their home state
38.0% of the population has access to either gay marriage or equivalent rights through a civil union
41.9% of the population has access to at least some form of civil union rights
So, we've made a lot of progress but still have a lot to do.
So where are the next fronts in this debate?
(1) The Potential Gay Marriage States
California - a Prop 8 repeal seems likely eventually. The vote was very close in 2008, attitudes have shifted to be somewhat more pro-gay marriage since then and the 2008 vote was ironically hampered by a very high African-American turnout in 2008 (African-Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage but tend to break liberal other than that.) 2012 wouldn't be the ideal time to try, but 2014 might be.
Maine - the last vote in 2009 was only 53%-47%, a new vote might yield a victory for gay rights advocates at the ballot box.
Rhode Island - recent polling indicates strong support (60%+) among the voting population there, although the actual avenue would likely be by legislation through the state house.
Illinois, Washington, Oregon - all states with full civil unions where there is public support for gay marriage (I exclude New Jersey from this list as gay marriage likely has no chance as long as Chris Christie is Governor)
(2) Next Frontiers for Civil Unions
States where civil unions would likely have public support but are probably not ready for gay marriage include a lot of traditional swing states:
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan
(3) The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
This act, cowardly signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 permitted states not to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. I've been amazed that this issue has not made it to the Supreme Court, as it seems, on face, to be flagrantly unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 1 of the constitution states:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The so called "Full Faith and Credit" clause is crystal-clear to the average person. States must honor contracts, legal proceedings and public acts performed in all the other states. It is the basis of our system of rights and property laws. And gay marriage is clearly all three (a contract, a legal proceeding and a public act.)
The Defense of Marriage Act itself quotes the Full Faith and Credit clause and claims constitutionality on the basis that the constitution provides congress the right to the Congress to make determinations about what qualifies under Article 4, Section 1. The constitution contains no such language. I've quoted Article 4, Section 1 in its entirety above.
Conservative support for this highly dubious constitutional argument flies in the face of alleged "strict constructionism". The truth is, conservatives seem fine with judicial activism as long as it supports their agenda.
Much more to come on this key civil rights fight.
Jon Huntsman, The Moderate Long Shot
Speaking of gay rights supporters, former Utah Governor and former Obama Administration Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman got in the race this week. Huntsman is a long shot, for several reason. The first is that his pragmatic, moderate politics don't play well to Republican primary crowds. Huntsman favors civil unions (the same position, as best I can tell, as President Obama), recognizes man-made global warming and has a history of working across the aisle, great general election qualities but poison pills to the tea party. He also suffers from very low name recognition and crowded space among mainstream establishment Republicans (he looks and sounds a lot like both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.) I don't expect Huntsman to win, but he is going to be an interesting voice in the debate.
The Rotten Economy
Unemployment still stands at 9.1%. US Economic growth for the first quarter was only 1.9% and expected to be only modestly better in the second quarter (to give you a feel, 3% growth is generally required just to maintain the unemployment rate, 4 or 5% to significantly dent it.)
President Obama is stuck. New stimulus is a non-starter in the GOP House. Tax cuts only pile on to an already untenable deficit and debt load. He's stuck riding this one out. And as we've often discussed, economics are the single most important factor in Presidential elections.
The approximately 3-year stimulus plan that was already passed continues but is almost out of juice. As of now:
Tax Cut Paid Out: $259.9 billion out of $288 billion (90.2% complete)
Spending: $395.0 billion of $499 billion (79.2% complete)
Overall: $654.9 billion out of $787 billion (83.2% complete)
Of course, the GOP and President Obama agreed to a stimulus bill of sorts at the end of 2010 as part of the deal to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for all. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provided for many measures intended to stimulate the economy:
* Extension of Bush-era income and capital gains tax reductions through 2012 as well as a compromise on the estate tax rate
* A "fix" to the alternative minimum tax, which raised exemptions to prevent middle-class families from falling under the tax
* Extensions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit
* Job Creation Tax Credits, Ethanol Tax Credits and Accelerated Depreciation Tax Credits for businesses
* A 13-month extension in unemployment benefits
* A brand-new, 1 year payroll tax reduction
This was clearly a much more Republican bill than the original stimulus. The original stimulus was 62% spending and 38% tax cuts and totaled $787B in cost.
The 2010 bill was almost as large, costing approximately $671B, but was only 8% taxing and 92% tax cuts. Spending in the bill broke down as follows:
* Provisions extending Bush-era tax cuts -- 46%
* New Middle Class and Working Class tax cuts -- 37%
* New spending provisions - 8%
* Provisions extending Obama stimulus tax cuts -- 6%
* Other business tax cuts - 3%
Arguably, for all the talk of President Obama being a socialist, he has been the most tax-cutting President in US history. The problem is, he also likes to spend. There is some argument for this as a short-term measure to jump-start the economy. But we are way past short-term. We need to solve the structural deficit, not pass another set of tax gimmicks. Any ideas on how to get to a compromise on that one?
Sunday, December 26, 2010
The Very Active 111th Congress, The Highly Questionable Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
The End of 2 Whirlwind Years
It's become a more or less accepted truth in liberal circles that the 111th Congress underachieved. They failed to get immigration reform done. The health care bill that ultimately passed contained no public option. Cap and trade didn't happen. Those are 3 big expectations of liberals that remain unmet.
To Conservatives, the 111th Congress was a haven socialism, passing a massive increase in government spending through the stimulus package and a huge government takeover of Health Care.
Of course, in the end, the actions of the 111th Congress were neither socialist (the government didn't take over health care, the stimulus was one third tax cuts and all the spending end next year) or inactive (big pieces of legislation passed, more on that later.)
Like it or not, President Obama owns the 111th Congress. It more or less mirrored the first 2 years of his Presidency and in large measure reflected his legislative and executive priorities.
According to , 322 bills became law during the 111th Congress, 321 of them under Obama's watch (1, an act relating to executive compensation was signed by President George W. Bush prior to Obama assuming office - this is possible as Congress convenes on January 5th and the Presidential inauguration doesn't take place until over 2 weeks later.) Of course, many of the bills were inconsequential and non-controversial, such as the ever-present fun of naming post offices and government buildings. But, below is a brief review of the very meaningful legislation that became law over the past two years:
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - a major change in equal employment law that removed a restrictive statute of limitations on civil claims involving unequal pay. The act was named for Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who discovered after 20 years of work that she had been consistently underpaid versus her male peers but was ineligible to seek redress under the prior statute.
SCHIP Expansion - this bill expanded children's health insurance to 4 million additional children in poverty and was paid for with an increased in the federal cigarette tax from 34 cents to 101 cents per pack.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - the famous economic stimulus bill contained $787 billion in stimulus funds, approximately one third through tax cuts and two thirds through spending which was more or less equally divided between infrastructure projects and temporary entitlement expansions.
CARD Act - a bill that regulates consumer financial arrangements, requiring disclosure of fees by credit card issues, limiting the use of so-called "teaser" rates and minimizing the penalties that can be made for an infrequent late payment.
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - gave the FDA authority to regulate cigarettes and their contents, including prohibiting the use of "light" in cigarette labeling, forbidding flavored cigarettes, further restricting marketing efforts by tobacco makers and expanded and more explicit warning labels on packs.
HIRE Act - a much smaller stimulus bill than the ARRA, it provided modest tax incentives for businesses to hire unemployed persons.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act / Health Care Reconciliation Act - a series of 2 bills (so divided because of legislative sausage making to enable passage of the controversial legislation) that requires everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty by 2014, sets up insurance exchanges, removes tax benefits for high benefit employer provided plans, prohibits exclusion from coverage based on pre-existing conditions and levies a variety of smaller taxes, including one on sun tan parlors.
Note: Contained in the reconciliation measure was an unrelated provision that essentially federalized the handling of student loans.
Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act - outlawed shipment of cigarettes via the US Postal Service, effectively cutting off a source of business for Indian Casinos, that had made a business out of shipping cigarettes from low-tax locations on reservations to locations in high tax states.
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - made major changes to the regulation of financial institutions, including heightened disclosure and transparency requirements in the derivatives market, increased requirements for equity against futures bets, increased oversight to look for systematic risk and a new office of consumer protection.
Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal - will allow gay Americans to openly serve in the military without any disciplinary consequences.
Tax Cut Extension Act - extended Bush-era tax rates through 2012 and implements a modified estate tax, that is higher than the zero rate in 2010, but significantly lower than the rates most of the past decade.
Two budgets (Fiscal 2009, which was overdue when the President took office and Fiscal 2010) plus funding a portion of Fiscal 2011 (until March 2011)
Senate Only Approval (by law/constitution)
A full slate of cabinet and sub-cabinet level appointments. Of course, this includes all the top level cabinet officers, but encompasses hundreds of other deputies and other Senate "advise and consent" sub-cabinet level positions.
Approval of 2 Supreme Court nominees, including Sonia Sotomayor, the first hispanic justice on the Supreme Court and third woman and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman on the supreme court (and rumored to be the first lesbian on the court, although arguably not the first LGBT member as previous member David Souter, who Sotomayor replaced, was widely rumored to be gay.) Additionally, the nomination of hundreds of lower-level judges were also approved.
START Treaty - a strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia which will reduce the number of strategic warheads in both countries from 2,200 to 1,500 over 10 years.
Taken in total, the 111th was among the most significant in US history in terms of shaping the future of the country. So, in total, I would say the conservatives are more right than liberals in terms of the amount of activity. Whether they are right on the merits of that activity is a matter of opinion.
There were some major holes in pressing national problems that were not addressed in the 111th congress. Three major issues stand out:
(1) Deficit Reduction Plan
The blue-ribbon commission headed by centrist Democrat Erskine Bowles and libertarian Republican Alan Simpson finally returned its set of recommendation after the election, but Congress has yet to take any sort of meaningful action to reduce the long-term, structural deficit the country faces, an issue that threatens to consume the economy over the next 10 years if not dealt with. Republicans have vowed this will be a top priority in the new House in 2011 and rightfully so. Let's hope the actions are more than window-dressing.
(2) Immigration Law
Illegal immigration continues, largely unabated. It has slowed from its peak in the mid-2000s, due in large part to the declining economy and reduced opportunities for employment, but there are still millions of illegal and undocumented workers across the United States, but obviously concentrated very heavily in the Southwestern states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. The 111th Congress basically took no action to remedy either the ongoing influx of undocumented workers or to deal with the legal status of those who are already here. Even the very modest DREAM Act, which sought to deal with the legal status of people brought here by their parents illegally as children failed to garner enough support to break a Senate filibuster. The GOP majority in the House has vowed to focus on enforcement first (i.e. stopping the flow) before addressing the legal status of those already there. This isn't the approach that I would advocate (comprehensive reform is clearly needed in my opinion), but any improvement in the situation would be better than nothing. I also think that focusing on border security is mid-guided and expensive; a far better and more cost-effective method of reducing illegal immigration would be to step up penalties and enforcement for hiring illegals, thus decreasing the incentive to come in the first place.
(3) Environmental Legislation
The last major piece of environmental legislation passed in this country was the Clean Air Act of 1991, signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush (yes, three Presidents ago) that instituted a cap and trade system on sulfur emissions and severely restricted the ability to build new coal-fired power plants without significant emissions recapture. Republicans in the House will have absolutely zero taste for going after the sweeping cap and trade plan that the House passed in the 111th but the Senate failed to act on (and it's highly unlikely such a bill could get through the Senate either, honestly.) There may be some common ground on issues such as reducing dependence on foreign oil...I continue to advocate for a revenue-neutral increase in the gasoline tax, a Republican idea that Democrats should embrace, but I haven't heard much discussion on such a bill being taken up next year.
So, there you have it, 2 meaty years in American political history where a lot happened. It would certainly surprise me if as much legislation happens in the 112th Congress, which will be far more politically divided. But, you never know.
Taking Aim at the Defense of Marriage Act
With Don't Ask Don't Tell soon to be a thing of the past, the obvious next frontier in the LGBT fight for equal rights will center around the issue of gay marriage. Let's first summarize where things stand legally.
At the state level,
5 states plus the District of Columbia have Gay Marriage - Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa
5 states have "Strong Civil Unions", civil unions that are essentially equal to marriage in all ways except the name - New Jersey, California, Washington, Oregon and Nevada
5 states have weaker civil unions, civil unions that afford only some of the legal protections of marriage - Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Wisconsin, Colorado
35 states essentially have no legal protections whatsoever for gay couples
The fight for legality of gay marriage has largely occurred at the state level, with one major exception, the Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. This law allows states to not recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
The law is a departure from how marriage has been handled in every other case. States have historically honored all other state's marriages. This includes variations in the law, including the legal age for marriage and laws concerning blood relatives marrying. For instance, if one state requires an age of 17 to marry, but another requires only age 16, the state requiring 17, by law must recognize a marriage performed at age 16 in the other state. Similarly, if one state prohibits first cousins from getting married, but another state allows it, the state with the prohibition must legally recognize a marriage between first cousins performed in the other state.
There is a fairly simple constitutional rationale for this legal recognition process. If two people are married in one state, but not married in another, it creates all sorts of thorny legal issues around division of property and legal rights. For instance, if a couple gets married in one state and vacations in another, it would be a legal mess if property division and medical decision rights did not transfer. This basic precedent was abandoned with DOMA.
I strongly question DOMA's constitutionality. This is not a liberal expansive interpretation of the constitution, it is a quite literal one. Here is the text I cite, from Section 1 of Article 4 of the constitution:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
The full faith and credit clause is very clear...public acts and judicial proceedings that occur in one state must be recognized in other states. Gay marriage is EXACTLY the sort of situation that this clause was designed for. It is both a public act (a legal, public contract, sanctioned by the state government) and, in almost all cases a judicial proceeding (marriages in most states must be performed by a recognized agent of the state...hence the phrase "by the power vested in my by the State of xxx, I pronounce you husband and wife") Whether this case makes it to the Supreme Court or not remains to be seen, but I certainly would like to see conservatives, who have long argued for "strict constructionism", reading the constitution for exactly what it says, explain how the DOMA doesn't clearly overstep the authority provided in the constitution.
Repealing DOMA would be a game-changer for gay marriage, because, in effect, were DOMA repealed, gay marriage would be legal across the US. While only 5 states would still perform the marriages, any gay couple could then go to those 5 states and have their marriage legally recognized across the US.
Vice-President Joe Biden stated in an interview over the weekend that he viewed gay marriage as "inevitable". President Obama, at his last press conference after the lame duck Congress, said his views on gay marriage were "constantly evolving". Both have supported strong civil unions but opposed gay marriage in the past, but have opposed the Defense of Marriage Act. They are both late to the game, but public support from them for gay marriage would be a big boon. And the Supreme Court doing the right thing legally would be an even bigger boon.
A Supreme Court reversal of the DOMA would not doubt prompt an effort to amend the constitution in a way to prohibit federal recognition of gay marriage. That is fine and is a debate worth having. It is also a debate that I suspect that opponents of gay marriage would lose.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
It's become a more or less accepted truth in liberal circles that the 111th Congress underachieved. They failed to get immigration reform done. The health care bill that ultimately passed contained no public option. Cap and trade didn't happen. Those are 3 big expectations of liberals that remain unmet.
To Conservatives, the 111th Congress was a haven socialism, passing a massive increase in government spending through the stimulus package and a huge government takeover of Health Care.
Of course, in the end, the actions of the 111th Congress were neither socialist (the government didn't take over health care, the stimulus was one third tax cuts and all the spending end next year) or inactive (big pieces of legislation passed, more on that later.)
Like it or not, President Obama owns the 111th Congress. It more or less mirrored the first 2 years of his Presidency and in large measure reflected his legislative and executive priorities.
According to , 322 bills became law during the 111th Congress, 321 of them under Obama's watch (1, an act relating to executive compensation was signed by President George W. Bush prior to Obama assuming office - this is possible as Congress convenes on January 5th and the Presidential inauguration doesn't take place until over 2 weeks later.) Of course, many of the bills were inconsequential and non-controversial, such as the ever-present fun of naming post offices and government buildings. But, below is a brief review of the very meaningful legislation that became law over the past two years:
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - a major change in equal employment law that removed a restrictive statute of limitations on civil claims involving unequal pay. The act was named for Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who discovered after 20 years of work that she had been consistently underpaid versus her male peers but was ineligible to seek redress under the prior statute.
SCHIP Expansion - this bill expanded children's health insurance to 4 million additional children in poverty and was paid for with an increased in the federal cigarette tax from 34 cents to 101 cents per pack.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - the famous economic stimulus bill contained $787 billion in stimulus funds, approximately one third through tax cuts and two thirds through spending which was more or less equally divided between infrastructure projects and temporary entitlement expansions.
CARD Act - a bill that regulates consumer financial arrangements, requiring disclosure of fees by credit card issues, limiting the use of so-called "teaser" rates and minimizing the penalties that can be made for an infrequent late payment.
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - gave the FDA authority to regulate cigarettes and their contents, including prohibiting the use of "light" in cigarette labeling, forbidding flavored cigarettes, further restricting marketing efforts by tobacco makers and expanded and more explicit warning labels on packs.
HIRE Act - a much smaller stimulus bill than the ARRA, it provided modest tax incentives for businesses to hire unemployed persons.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act / Health Care Reconciliation Act - a series of 2 bills (so divided because of legislative sausage making to enable passage of the controversial legislation) that requires everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty by 2014, sets up insurance exchanges, removes tax benefits for high benefit employer provided plans, prohibits exclusion from coverage based on pre-existing conditions and levies a variety of smaller taxes, including one on sun tan parlors.
Note: Contained in the reconciliation measure was an unrelated provision that essentially federalized the handling of student loans.
Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act - outlawed shipment of cigarettes via the US Postal Service, effectively cutting off a source of business for Indian Casinos, that had made a business out of shipping cigarettes from low-tax locations on reservations to locations in high tax states.
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - made major changes to the regulation of financial institutions, including heightened disclosure and transparency requirements in the derivatives market, increased requirements for equity against futures bets, increased oversight to look for systematic risk and a new office of consumer protection.
Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal - will allow gay Americans to openly serve in the military without any disciplinary consequences.
Tax Cut Extension Act - extended Bush-era tax rates through 2012 and implements a modified estate tax, that is higher than the zero rate in 2010, but significantly lower than the rates most of the past decade.
Two budgets (Fiscal 2009, which was overdue when the President took office and Fiscal 2010) plus funding a portion of Fiscal 2011 (until March 2011)
Senate Only Approval (by law/constitution)
A full slate of cabinet and sub-cabinet level appointments. Of course, this includes all the top level cabinet officers, but encompasses hundreds of other deputies and other Senate "advise and consent" sub-cabinet level positions.
Approval of 2 Supreme Court nominees, including Sonia Sotomayor, the first hispanic justice on the Supreme Court and third woman and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman on the supreme court (and rumored to be the first lesbian on the court, although arguably not the first LGBT member as previous member David Souter, who Sotomayor replaced, was widely rumored to be gay.) Additionally, the nomination of hundreds of lower-level judges were also approved.
START Treaty - a strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia which will reduce the number of strategic warheads in both countries from 2,200 to 1,500 over 10 years.
Taken in total, the 111th was among the most significant in US history in terms of shaping the future of the country. So, in total, I would say the conservatives are more right than liberals in terms of the amount of activity. Whether they are right on the merits of that activity is a matter of opinion.
There were some major holes in pressing national problems that were not addressed in the 111th congress. Three major issues stand out:
(1) Deficit Reduction Plan
The blue-ribbon commission headed by centrist Democrat Erskine Bowles and libertarian Republican Alan Simpson finally returned its set of recommendation after the election, but Congress has yet to take any sort of meaningful action to reduce the long-term, structural deficit the country faces, an issue that threatens to consume the economy over the next 10 years if not dealt with. Republicans have vowed this will be a top priority in the new House in 2011 and rightfully so. Let's hope the actions are more than window-dressing.
(2) Immigration Law
Illegal immigration continues, largely unabated. It has slowed from its peak in the mid-2000s, due in large part to the declining economy and reduced opportunities for employment, but there are still millions of illegal and undocumented workers across the United States, but obviously concentrated very heavily in the Southwestern states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. The 111th Congress basically took no action to remedy either the ongoing influx of undocumented workers or to deal with the legal status of those who are already here. Even the very modest DREAM Act, which sought to deal with the legal status of people brought here by their parents illegally as children failed to garner enough support to break a Senate filibuster. The GOP majority in the House has vowed to focus on enforcement first (i.e. stopping the flow) before addressing the legal status of those already there. This isn't the approach that I would advocate (comprehensive reform is clearly needed in my opinion), but any improvement in the situation would be better than nothing. I also think that focusing on border security is mid-guided and expensive; a far better and more cost-effective method of reducing illegal immigration would be to step up penalties and enforcement for hiring illegals, thus decreasing the incentive to come in the first place.
(3) Environmental Legislation
The last major piece of environmental legislation passed in this country was the Clean Air Act of 1991, signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush (yes, three Presidents ago) that instituted a cap and trade system on sulfur emissions and severely restricted the ability to build new coal-fired power plants without significant emissions recapture. Republicans in the House will have absolutely zero taste for going after the sweeping cap and trade plan that the House passed in the 111th but the Senate failed to act on (and it's highly unlikely such a bill could get through the Senate either, honestly.) There may be some common ground on issues such as reducing dependence on foreign oil...I continue to advocate for a revenue-neutral increase in the gasoline tax, a Republican idea that Democrats should embrace, but I haven't heard much discussion on such a bill being taken up next year.
So, there you have it, 2 meaty years in American political history where a lot happened. It would certainly surprise me if as much legislation happens in the 112th Congress, which will be far more politically divided. But, you never know.
Taking Aim at the Defense of Marriage Act
With Don't Ask Don't Tell soon to be a thing of the past, the obvious next frontier in the LGBT fight for equal rights will center around the issue of gay marriage. Let's first summarize where things stand legally.
At the state level,
5 states plus the District of Columbia have Gay Marriage - Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa
5 states have "Strong Civil Unions", civil unions that are essentially equal to marriage in all ways except the name - New Jersey, California, Washington, Oregon and Nevada
5 states have weaker civil unions, civil unions that afford only some of the legal protections of marriage - Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Wisconsin, Colorado
35 states essentially have no legal protections whatsoever for gay couples
The fight for legality of gay marriage has largely occurred at the state level, with one major exception, the Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. This law allows states to not recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
The law is a departure from how marriage has been handled in every other case. States have historically honored all other state's marriages. This includes variations in the law, including the legal age for marriage and laws concerning blood relatives marrying. For instance, if one state requires an age of 17 to marry, but another requires only age 16, the state requiring 17, by law must recognize a marriage performed at age 16 in the other state. Similarly, if one state prohibits first cousins from getting married, but another state allows it, the state with the prohibition must legally recognize a marriage between first cousins performed in the other state.
There is a fairly simple constitutional rationale for this legal recognition process. If two people are married in one state, but not married in another, it creates all sorts of thorny legal issues around division of property and legal rights. For instance, if a couple gets married in one state and vacations in another, it would be a legal mess if property division and medical decision rights did not transfer. This basic precedent was abandoned with DOMA.
I strongly question DOMA's constitutionality. This is not a liberal expansive interpretation of the constitution, it is a quite literal one. Here is the text I cite, from Section 1 of Article 4 of the constitution:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
The full faith and credit clause is very clear...public acts and judicial proceedings that occur in one state must be recognized in other states. Gay marriage is EXACTLY the sort of situation that this clause was designed for. It is both a public act (a legal, public contract, sanctioned by the state government) and, in almost all cases a judicial proceeding (marriages in most states must be performed by a recognized agent of the state...hence the phrase "by the power vested in my by the State of xxx, I pronounce you husband and wife") Whether this case makes it to the Supreme Court or not remains to be seen, but I certainly would like to see conservatives, who have long argued for "strict constructionism", reading the constitution for exactly what it says, explain how the DOMA doesn't clearly overstep the authority provided in the constitution.
Repealing DOMA would be a game-changer for gay marriage, because, in effect, were DOMA repealed, gay marriage would be legal across the US. While only 5 states would still perform the marriages, any gay couple could then go to those 5 states and have their marriage legally recognized across the US.
Vice-President Joe Biden stated in an interview over the weekend that he viewed gay marriage as "inevitable". President Obama, at his last press conference after the lame duck Congress, said his views on gay marriage were "constantly evolving". Both have supported strong civil unions but opposed gay marriage in the past, but have opposed the Defense of Marriage Act. They are both late to the game, but public support from them for gay marriage would be a big boon. And the Supreme Court doing the right thing legally would be an even bigger boon.
A Supreme Court reversal of the DOMA would not doubt prompt an effort to amend the constitution in a way to prohibit federal recognition of gay marriage. That is fine and is a debate worth having. It is also a debate that I suspect that opponents of gay marriage would lose.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
What a Mess in the Gulf, Kagan Hearings Set for July, At Long Last Some Action on Gay Rights, Another Incremental Jobs Bills
An Inept Response All Around
We are now over 40 days into the spill on a BP rig in the gulf that is spewing thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean every day and the sad reality is that we appear no closer to solving the issue than we were on day one.
The so called "top kill", an effort to pump heavy mud and solid material into the well to stem the flow of oil has failed and the next plan is a custom fitted cap to limit (but likely not eliminate) the flow of oil while a relief well is dug, which will take at least until August to complete.
Don't expect a full resolution to this spill, already the largest in United States history, until at least August or September, which means that this spill may wind up being 4 to 5 times larger than the horrific Exxon Valdez spill a generation ago. To make matters worse, while the Valdez was devastating to the Alaskan coast, the economic, social and ecological impact of a spill in the gulf is far worse. The entire gulf coasts economy will be impacted in huge ways: fishing will be badly damaged for at least a decade, tourism to the beaches will be destroyed and all of the dependent things in the local economy (fish processing, hotels, restaurants, you name it) will be devastated. The ecological damage will be immense, destroying scores of natural wildlife under suffocatingly thick oil. This is, to put it simply, quite possibly the worst ecological disaster in United States history.
And still the oil flows on. And I'm left with the question why?
I take a very simple view of this. There are only two possibilities. The first possibility is that regulations were utterly inadequate to prevent such a spill or to ensure that a contingency plan was in place to quickly solve it where it to occur. The second possibility is that the regulations existed but were not followed. In reality, it is probably a mix of those two categories, but the more information that I find out, the more it supports the first theory.
I'd never even heard of the Minerals Management Service prior to this spill, but the obvious coziness and outright corruption of that organization has now become clear. How is it possible that it did not require back-ups to a valve failing on oil rig designs? Can you imagine a nuclear power plant that wasn't required to build a back-up system if one part failed? How on Earth did inspections not reveal this kind of risk? The head of the MMS has been fired and that is a good start, but it is utterly insufficient. We basically have a complete failure of a regulatory scheme and a need to start over, with new people and with new authority. I'd start by replacing Ken Salazar, a nice guy who seems to care deeply about these issues, but not the kind of tough enforcer that you need to fix the broken system. Plus, what kind of message does it send if there is no accountability at the top in an instance like this?
The President has appeared weak-kneed and late to the game here. If BP didn't have a plan to quickly solve the issue, than the government should have. If it didn't, it should've been in their with all of its best resources, from day 1, running things. Where is the Army Core of Engineers? Where is the President's Science Advisor? Heck, where is the plan? Are we just going to try stuff and hope it works?
It has been speculated on the right that this is President Obama's Katrina. I'm not quite ready to go that far yet, but let's just say that I'm not at all satisfied with his handling of this crisis. It does not inspire confidence in how he would deal with a natural disaster like a hurricane. And my view of the supposedly smart people around him is heavily wounded.
Kagan Hearings to Begin in Late July
Elena Kagan's hearings to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court will begin in late July, according to the senior Democrats in charge in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans are already complaining that this gives them insufficient time to prepare, which is of course, utter nonsense, since they fully vetted Kagan less than 2 years ago as solicitor general, but as I've pointed out several times over the past few months, is a complaint consistent with a strategy of running out the clock on the current Congress in the belief (almost certainly correct) that the GOP will control more seats in the next Congress. They will complain and the hearings will go ahead anyway. Kagan will be confirmed, barring some unlikely previously unknown damning fact. Her vote totals will look a lot like the vote totals to confirm her for solicitor general (that vote was 61-31.)
Rumors have swirled around Kagan's sexual orientation, given her middle age and the fact that she has never been married. I have no direct knowledge of whether Kagan is gay or not, but can only say that if she is, I would love for her to come out of the closet and be a role model for gay Americans. I think it would be fantastic to have an openly gay Supreme Court justice. However, I don't even know if she is, in fact gay and if she is, she seems to have shown a preference for keeping those matters private, as should be her right.
Americans Worst Case of Employment Discrimination May Soon End
The House has finally voted, as part of the large Defense Authorization Bill, to end the awful, discriminatory and bigoted policy of "don't ask, don't tell" in the United States Military, following a full military review and sign-off by both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the President. The House Amendment passed with only 5 GOP votes and 26 Democrats voting no, despite the fact that new polling shows 80% of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly (although, out of fairness, I'm sure that the numbers if you polled the enlisted military would be far lower.)
The same day, the Senate Defense Committee agreed to a similar amendment to the Defense Authorization, with all Democrats on the committee voting for it, joined by Republican Susan Collins of Maine (thank goodness for those last two remaining Republican moderates in the US Senate.)
The road is certainly not over. The House has passed its version of the Defense Authorization Bill, but the Senate must still pass it's version, then both houses pass a reconciled conference report on the bill before in can go to the President for signature. Following that, the military review must be completed and the sign-offs from Gates and Obama take place before the policy goes into effect.
Because of the delay above, I renew my call on President Obama to show some leadership and suspend prosecution of gay members of the military until this work is completed. It is a crime that we continue to discharge brave members of the armed services for no other reason than being gay. And it is a crime that 4 out of 5 Americans, including the majority in some very red states, now recognizes as wrong. The American people are progressing their thinking a lot faster than Washington is.
Another Do-Little "Jobs" Bill
There is little question that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the Stimulus Bill) is the President's signature piece of economic policy in his first two years. A massive $787 billion collection of expenditures and tax cuts spread over the first three years of his term, is more or less defines his economic approach in his first term. The reality is that most of the spending associated with that bill, which has, in a lot of ways, faded from public attention, is yet to take place. Here are the latest stats on the spending associated with the bill:
Spending: $236B out of $499B (47% complete)
Tax Cuts: $163B out of $288B (56% complete)
Total: $399B out of $787B (51% complete)
That's right, the stimulus bill is just barely half executed. And it was designed that way, not just as a short-term shot in the arm (which is what people typically think about when they think stimulus), but as a multi-year, multi-tiered approach to driving economic growth. Big tax incentives on the front-end for things like Cash for Clunkers or the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit to spur sales of cars and homes. By the way, remember how everyone on the right said Cash for Clunkers simply pulled forward sales that would have otherwise occurred later an that the auto industry would be back in the doldrums after it expired? Checked the stats lately? Auto sales are now up 25% year over year WITHOUT the credit. So, it's hard to argue the effectiveness of the short-term incentives.
Tier two was infusions of entitlements and state cash to stave off massive state budget cuts that would drive unemployment and to put cash in the hands of the unemployed and needy that would immediately be reinserted into the economy driving growth. This stage has had mixed success, with states staving off cutbacks....until now that the money is running out. Perhaps the money served it's purpose by saving those cuts until the economy was on more solid footing, but there is no doubt that there are state budget crisis everywhere right now that have to be solved.
The third stage, which we are really now entering in earnest is about infrastructure spending. Road and bridge upgrades. Green energy programs. Things which create jobs but are also investments in the future of our economy. There is road work upgrading I-295 near me (a badly needed project.) Solar panels have gone up on light poles all around me, provided by private industry, but subsidized by stimulus funds. This is all good stuff, whether or not it is enough to immediately bring down the unemployment rate. In fact, my criticism at the time is that I wished far more of the bill were devoted to infrastructure spending (only $275B out of the $787B packaged was devoted to such items, scarcely over a third.)
So with a clear approach already laid out and in progress, why is congress passing silly little $48B (and yes, $48B is tiny in the scheme of our economy) jobs bills? Because they are trying to show that they are doing "something" about the persistent near 10% unemployment rate and the 8+ million jobs lost in the recession. The truth is that the latest bill, a collection of small tax cuts which is about 50% offset by some tax hikes, does little either way to impact the economy. But it looks like action. And as mad as people still are about unemployment, they want to show some action.
The latest "jobs bill" is a small aside that will be quickly forgotten. But, keep the faith, unemployment will come down. The fundamentals are returning to the economy, with economic growth taking place and good employment growth over the past two months, for the first time since the recession started. But it is now obvious to me that it will take a painfully long time to get down to an acceptable level of unemployment (I define "acceptable" as somewhere around 7%, "good" as somewhere around 5%.) We'll see if the American people have that kind of patience. I suspect not.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
We are now over 40 days into the spill on a BP rig in the gulf that is spewing thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean every day and the sad reality is that we appear no closer to solving the issue than we were on day one.
The so called "top kill", an effort to pump heavy mud and solid material into the well to stem the flow of oil has failed and the next plan is a custom fitted cap to limit (but likely not eliminate) the flow of oil while a relief well is dug, which will take at least until August to complete.
Don't expect a full resolution to this spill, already the largest in United States history, until at least August or September, which means that this spill may wind up being 4 to 5 times larger than the horrific Exxon Valdez spill a generation ago. To make matters worse, while the Valdez was devastating to the Alaskan coast, the economic, social and ecological impact of a spill in the gulf is far worse. The entire gulf coasts economy will be impacted in huge ways: fishing will be badly damaged for at least a decade, tourism to the beaches will be destroyed and all of the dependent things in the local economy (fish processing, hotels, restaurants, you name it) will be devastated. The ecological damage will be immense, destroying scores of natural wildlife under suffocatingly thick oil. This is, to put it simply, quite possibly the worst ecological disaster in United States history.
And still the oil flows on. And I'm left with the question why?
I take a very simple view of this. There are only two possibilities. The first possibility is that regulations were utterly inadequate to prevent such a spill or to ensure that a contingency plan was in place to quickly solve it where it to occur. The second possibility is that the regulations existed but were not followed. In reality, it is probably a mix of those two categories, but the more information that I find out, the more it supports the first theory.
I'd never even heard of the Minerals Management Service prior to this spill, but the obvious coziness and outright corruption of that organization has now become clear. How is it possible that it did not require back-ups to a valve failing on oil rig designs? Can you imagine a nuclear power plant that wasn't required to build a back-up system if one part failed? How on Earth did inspections not reveal this kind of risk? The head of the MMS has been fired and that is a good start, but it is utterly insufficient. We basically have a complete failure of a regulatory scheme and a need to start over, with new people and with new authority. I'd start by replacing Ken Salazar, a nice guy who seems to care deeply about these issues, but not the kind of tough enforcer that you need to fix the broken system. Plus, what kind of message does it send if there is no accountability at the top in an instance like this?
The President has appeared weak-kneed and late to the game here. If BP didn't have a plan to quickly solve the issue, than the government should have. If it didn't, it should've been in their with all of its best resources, from day 1, running things. Where is the Army Core of Engineers? Where is the President's Science Advisor? Heck, where is the plan? Are we just going to try stuff and hope it works?
It has been speculated on the right that this is President Obama's Katrina. I'm not quite ready to go that far yet, but let's just say that I'm not at all satisfied with his handling of this crisis. It does not inspire confidence in how he would deal with a natural disaster like a hurricane. And my view of the supposedly smart people around him is heavily wounded.
Kagan Hearings to Begin in Late July
Elena Kagan's hearings to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court will begin in late July, according to the senior Democrats in charge in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans are already complaining that this gives them insufficient time to prepare, which is of course, utter nonsense, since they fully vetted Kagan less than 2 years ago as solicitor general, but as I've pointed out several times over the past few months, is a complaint consistent with a strategy of running out the clock on the current Congress in the belief (almost certainly correct) that the GOP will control more seats in the next Congress. They will complain and the hearings will go ahead anyway. Kagan will be confirmed, barring some unlikely previously unknown damning fact. Her vote totals will look a lot like the vote totals to confirm her for solicitor general (that vote was 61-31.)
Rumors have swirled around Kagan's sexual orientation, given her middle age and the fact that she has never been married. I have no direct knowledge of whether Kagan is gay or not, but can only say that if she is, I would love for her to come out of the closet and be a role model for gay Americans. I think it would be fantastic to have an openly gay Supreme Court justice. However, I don't even know if she is, in fact gay and if she is, she seems to have shown a preference for keeping those matters private, as should be her right.
Americans Worst Case of Employment Discrimination May Soon End
The House has finally voted, as part of the large Defense Authorization Bill, to end the awful, discriminatory and bigoted policy of "don't ask, don't tell" in the United States Military, following a full military review and sign-off by both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the President. The House Amendment passed with only 5 GOP votes and 26 Democrats voting no, despite the fact that new polling shows 80% of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly (although, out of fairness, I'm sure that the numbers if you polled the enlisted military would be far lower.)
The same day, the Senate Defense Committee agreed to a similar amendment to the Defense Authorization, with all Democrats on the committee voting for it, joined by Republican Susan Collins of Maine (thank goodness for those last two remaining Republican moderates in the US Senate.)
The road is certainly not over. The House has passed its version of the Defense Authorization Bill, but the Senate must still pass it's version, then both houses pass a reconciled conference report on the bill before in can go to the President for signature. Following that, the military review must be completed and the sign-offs from Gates and Obama take place before the policy goes into effect.
Because of the delay above, I renew my call on President Obama to show some leadership and suspend prosecution of gay members of the military until this work is completed. It is a crime that we continue to discharge brave members of the armed services for no other reason than being gay. And it is a crime that 4 out of 5 Americans, including the majority in some very red states, now recognizes as wrong. The American people are progressing their thinking a lot faster than Washington is.
Another Do-Little "Jobs" Bill
There is little question that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the Stimulus Bill) is the President's signature piece of economic policy in his first two years. A massive $787 billion collection of expenditures and tax cuts spread over the first three years of his term, is more or less defines his economic approach in his first term. The reality is that most of the spending associated with that bill, which has, in a lot of ways, faded from public attention, is yet to take place. Here are the latest stats on the spending associated with the bill:
Spending: $236B out of $499B (47% complete)
Tax Cuts: $163B out of $288B (56% complete)
Total: $399B out of $787B (51% complete)
That's right, the stimulus bill is just barely half executed. And it was designed that way, not just as a short-term shot in the arm (which is what people typically think about when they think stimulus), but as a multi-year, multi-tiered approach to driving economic growth. Big tax incentives on the front-end for things like Cash for Clunkers or the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit to spur sales of cars and homes. By the way, remember how everyone on the right said Cash for Clunkers simply pulled forward sales that would have otherwise occurred later an that the auto industry would be back in the doldrums after it expired? Checked the stats lately? Auto sales are now up 25% year over year WITHOUT the credit. So, it's hard to argue the effectiveness of the short-term incentives.
Tier two was infusions of entitlements and state cash to stave off massive state budget cuts that would drive unemployment and to put cash in the hands of the unemployed and needy that would immediately be reinserted into the economy driving growth. This stage has had mixed success, with states staving off cutbacks....until now that the money is running out. Perhaps the money served it's purpose by saving those cuts until the economy was on more solid footing, but there is no doubt that there are state budget crisis everywhere right now that have to be solved.
The third stage, which we are really now entering in earnest is about infrastructure spending. Road and bridge upgrades. Green energy programs. Things which create jobs but are also investments in the future of our economy. There is road work upgrading I-295 near me (a badly needed project.) Solar panels have gone up on light poles all around me, provided by private industry, but subsidized by stimulus funds. This is all good stuff, whether or not it is enough to immediately bring down the unemployment rate. In fact, my criticism at the time is that I wished far more of the bill were devoted to infrastructure spending (only $275B out of the $787B packaged was devoted to such items, scarcely over a third.)
So with a clear approach already laid out and in progress, why is congress passing silly little $48B (and yes, $48B is tiny in the scheme of our economy) jobs bills? Because they are trying to show that they are doing "something" about the persistent near 10% unemployment rate and the 8+ million jobs lost in the recession. The truth is that the latest bill, a collection of small tax cuts which is about 50% offset by some tax hikes, does little either way to impact the economy. But it looks like action. And as mad as people still are about unemployment, they want to show some action.
The latest "jobs bill" is a small aside that will be quickly forgotten. But, keep the faith, unemployment will come down. The fundamentals are returning to the economy, with economic growth taking place and good employment growth over the past two months, for the first time since the recession started. But it is now obvious to me that it will take a painfully long time to get down to an acceptable level of unemployment (I define "acceptable" as somewhere around 7%, "good" as somewhere around 5%.) We'll see if the American people have that kind of patience. I suspect not.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Partisan-Looking Appropriations, Angry Gay Rights Activisits, Kent Impeached, Iran Continued, Obama Approval Update
The Appropriation Process Beings with Partisan Sniping
The House has begun its appropriations process for the fiscal year that begins in October, and the first of the departmental appropriations bill -- the bill funding the seemingly not-so-controversial Departments of Justice and Commerce provides a striking example of just how large the partisan divide still can be. Democratic leadership made the decision to severely limit amendments, angering House Republicans, who, in turn, voted against the bill 149-24. Of course, the Democrats are demonstrating that they don't need Republican help to get things through the House (the bill passed 259-157 on the strength of Democratic votes.) And it isn't like this is the most partisan bill ever passed (after all, 24 Republicans voted for it and 8 Democrats against it.) But limiting amendments that might actually pass the Democratic-dominated body seems downright undemocratic, and the kind of practice that Pelosi and company used to decry when they were in the minority. Amazing how both partisans can do full 180s on the power of the ruling party when the balance of power shifts.
The appropriations process is long and this is just the first step. After passing the House, each appropriations bill will move to the Senate, which will have a lengthier debate about each because of the rules of debate (60 Senators have to vote to invoke cloture and limit debate.) Then, a conference committee will have to reconcile the two versions and a final version of the bill will have to pass both houses.
Often, the process is not finished by the start of the fiscal year in October and the congress has to pass temporary continuing resolutions to keep agencies funded in the mean time.
Gays to Obama: We Are Mad as Hell
Despite President Obama's efforts to reach out to the gay community by providing some federal benefits to gay partners, the gay community is mad.
They are mad that there has been no movement on gays in the military (see my previous blog: The Worst Law in the Land), they are made that he has not moved to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (which, among other things, allows states to not recognize gay marriages from other states) and they are still mad that Rick Warren spoke at the inauguration.
They certainly have a point, President Obama has been less than a stalwart promoter of gay rights. But, he never really claimed to be a gay rights advocate and I think what we are learning is that these issues frankly aren't that important to him.
I think the President is on the wrong side of history here and is missing a cultural revolution that is happening at the state level to promote gay rights. That is shame. But not that unexpected.
Judge Kent Impeached
In some high drama, the House has unanimously voted to impeach Judge Samuel Kent of the U.S. District Court in Texas after he pled guilty to sexually assaulting two women, but refused to resign his post, stating that he wanted to contineu to draw his salary for another year.
Are you kidding me? You just got convicted of a felony but think you are entitled to another year of free money from the tax payers?
In order to remove Kent from office, the Senate will have to conduct a trial and vote to remove by at least a 2/3rds margin. I hope they move quickly.
This is the first impeachment passed by the House since Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Iran -- President Obama on the Sidelines
As protest continue in Iran and the Iranian government threatens bloodshed if they continue, President Obama has remained largely silent on the topic. He has started to come under fire from some for not taking a more active role.
My question is: what possible good would a more active role play? President Obama claiming the election was rigged (without real evidence, although most experts agree it was) would only inflame the Arab world against continued U.S. intervention. Right now, this is a grassroots uprising -- if President Obama speaks out it is a western-led conspiracy.
Obama Approval Update
No big shifts in President Obama's numbers in the past week and a half. He is holding at an approve minus disapprove of 26.9%. He has been in the 25% to 30% range since mid-May.
Broken down monthly, he continues to show a lower average in June than in May (every month of his presidency have seen his numbers decline, albeit slowly.)
Looking by poll sample type, we see:
Adult Americans: +29% Approval
Registed Voters: +31% Approval
Likely Voters: +9% Approval
This is the first time that we have seen the Adult Americans and Registered Voters numbers inverted with Registered Voters being more approving. This could be a statistical anamoly (Likely Voters still show much lower numbers) or it could suggest some poll methodology divergence. Either way, we'll keep an eye on it.
If you like this site, visit us often and tell your friends.
The House has begun its appropriations process for the fiscal year that begins in October, and the first of the departmental appropriations bill -- the bill funding the seemingly not-so-controversial Departments of Justice and Commerce provides a striking example of just how large the partisan divide still can be. Democratic leadership made the decision to severely limit amendments, angering House Republicans, who, in turn, voted against the bill 149-24. Of course, the Democrats are demonstrating that they don't need Republican help to get things through the House (the bill passed 259-157 on the strength of Democratic votes.) And it isn't like this is the most partisan bill ever passed (after all, 24 Republicans voted for it and 8 Democrats against it.) But limiting amendments that might actually pass the Democratic-dominated body seems downright undemocratic, and the kind of practice that Pelosi and company used to decry when they were in the minority. Amazing how both partisans can do full 180s on the power of the ruling party when the balance of power shifts.
The appropriations process is long and this is just the first step. After passing the House, each appropriations bill will move to the Senate, which will have a lengthier debate about each because of the rules of debate (60 Senators have to vote to invoke cloture and limit debate.) Then, a conference committee will have to reconcile the two versions and a final version of the bill will have to pass both houses.
Often, the process is not finished by the start of the fiscal year in October and the congress has to pass temporary continuing resolutions to keep agencies funded in the mean time.
Gays to Obama: We Are Mad as Hell
Despite President Obama's efforts to reach out to the gay community by providing some federal benefits to gay partners, the gay community is mad.
They are mad that there has been no movement on gays in the military (see my previous blog: The Worst Law in the Land), they are made that he has not moved to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (which, among other things, allows states to not recognize gay marriages from other states) and they are still mad that Rick Warren spoke at the inauguration.
They certainly have a point, President Obama has been less than a stalwart promoter of gay rights. But, he never really claimed to be a gay rights advocate and I think what we are learning is that these issues frankly aren't that important to him.
I think the President is on the wrong side of history here and is missing a cultural revolution that is happening at the state level to promote gay rights. That is shame. But not that unexpected.
Judge Kent Impeached
In some high drama, the House has unanimously voted to impeach Judge Samuel Kent of the U.S. District Court in Texas after he pled guilty to sexually assaulting two women, but refused to resign his post, stating that he wanted to contineu to draw his salary for another year.
Are you kidding me? You just got convicted of a felony but think you are entitled to another year of free money from the tax payers?
In order to remove Kent from office, the Senate will have to conduct a trial and vote to remove by at least a 2/3rds margin. I hope they move quickly.
This is the first impeachment passed by the House since Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Iran -- President Obama on the Sidelines
As protest continue in Iran and the Iranian government threatens bloodshed if they continue, President Obama has remained largely silent on the topic. He has started to come under fire from some for not taking a more active role.
My question is: what possible good would a more active role play? President Obama claiming the election was rigged (without real evidence, although most experts agree it was) would only inflame the Arab world against continued U.S. intervention. Right now, this is a grassroots uprising -- if President Obama speaks out it is a western-led conspiracy.
Obama Approval Update
No big shifts in President Obama's numbers in the past week and a half. He is holding at an approve minus disapprove of 26.9%. He has been in the 25% to 30% range since mid-May.
Broken down monthly, he continues to show a lower average in June than in May (every month of his presidency have seen his numbers decline, albeit slowly.)
Looking by poll sample type, we see:Adult Americans: +29% Approval
Registed Voters: +31% Approval
Likely Voters: +9% Approval
This is the first time that we have seen the Adult Americans and Registered Voters numbers inverted with Registered Voters being more approving. This could be a statistical anamoly (Likely Voters still show much lower numbers) or it could suggest some poll methodology divergence. Either way, we'll keep an eye on it.
If you like this site, visit us often and tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
