The Upcoming Supreme Court Debate on Marriage Equality

By now, everyone has heard about the upcoming Supreme Court hearings regarding marriage equality. Tomorrow California’s Proposition 8 will be contested, and on Wednesday the Defensive of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, will be challenged on the basis of federal benefits given to married couples. Naturally everyone has a passionate opinion on this issue, and Washington has been buzzing about the impending hearings for weeks. Protestors from both sides have been camping outside the capital, ready to make their voices heard.

            As a recent NPR article points out, many influential politicians who voted for DOMA now want the law overturned. Even former President Clinton, who originally signed DOMA wants to see it reversed. All 15 sitting Democratic senators who originally voted for DOMA in 1996 now oppose it. It is certainly amazing how quickly the American people (and the world) have come to accept marriage equality, or at the least, civil unions, within the past 17 years. One could argue that this has become a party issue—with Democrats overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage, while Republicans remain in favor of DOMA. However, it seems to be more likely for a Republican to be in favor of gay marriage versus a Democrat against the idea, further proof of changing American attitudes towards this sensitive issue. Even Fox News recently reported that the gay marriage issue is diving the Republican Party—and it certainly is.

As Reuters reported, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio recently made headlines for changing his position on gay marriage after learning his son was gay. His declaration that he wants each of his children, including his gay son, to enjoy the love and commitment of marriage is certainly heartwarming to supporters. However, Senator John McCain remains staunchly in favor of DOMA despite having a gay daughter.

            I believe the need for equality will override politics, and it is my hope that the Supreme Court will agree tomorrow and Wednesday. Considering that inter-racial marriage only became fully legal in 1967 (due to a Supreme Court ruling, no less) marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples only seems imminent. If not this week, another time in the near future will provide marriage equality for all citizens, regardless of sexual identity.

References:

Lynch, Sarah N., and Kim Palmer. "Republican Senator with Gay Son Now Backs Gay Marriage." Reuters. N.p., 15 Mar. 2013. Web. 

Roth, Zachary. "Gay Marriage Showdown at Supreme Court." MSNBC. N.p., 25 Mar. 2013. Web.

Welna, David. "They All Voted for DOMA, But Now These Senators Are Split."NPR. N.p., 23 Mar. 2013. Web.

"Supreme Court Tackles Gay Marriage, as Advocates Line Up for Historic Argument." Fox News. N.p., 24 Mar. 2013. Web.

The Great Gun Debate

     There has been great controversy over gun control through the years and recent events across the country from Colorado to Connecticut have added to the debate. There seems to be a stark difference between Democrats and Republicans as to what acceptable gun control is and what should be re-evaluated. Senator Diane Feinstein has put forth legislation which she hopes will help cut down on gun related deaths and violence. Senator Feinstein’s legislation is aimed to regulate and ban certain military style assault weapons as well as ammunition clips that are designed to work with assault weapons. The bill would focus both on sales in stores and in private.

     The bill itself would strengthen previous legislation that was enacted in 1994 banning assault weapons but would exclude over 2,000 types of firearms from being banned. The latest controversy that took place over this legislation happened in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee when Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas lectured her on the constitution and the second amendment. The verbal exchange that ensued became heated as Senator Feinstein responded. Feinstein has personal motives behind attempting to pass this legislation. She is known to have worked on gun control reform based on her experiences in San Francisco with the murders of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. She describes the emotions of knowing how awful assault weapons were as she had to put her fingers in the bullet holes.

     Gun control has been a hotly contested issue with Republicans traditionally defending the right of American's to own any weapon they choose. Democrat's are more in favor of regulating which weapons are available on the market and who should be able to use them. This bill would help to strengthen background checks for anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm as well ban private sales of assault weapons.

     I see no problem with banning the types of assault weapons that Senator Feinstein is targeting. It doesn't seem necessary for private citizens to have access to military style assault weapons when there over 2,000 other types of firearms at their disposal. It will be interesting to see how members of each party will act once the final vote is called.

Works Cited

Liptak, Kevin. "Feinstein Describes Feelings during Exchange with 'arrogant' Colleague." CNN Political Ticker RSS. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/14/feinstein-describes-feelings-during-exchange-with-arrogant-colleague/?iref=allsearch.

Stirewalt, Chris. "Left Grows Impatient on Gun Ban." Fox News. March 15, 2013. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/15/left-grows-impatient-on-gun-ban/.

"United States Senator Dianne Feinstein." Assault Weapons -. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons.

"What's in Feinstein's Gun Bill." CNN. January 24, 2013. Accessed March 18, 2013. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details.

Nomination of the Drone Assassin John Brennan as Director of the CIA

President Obama has nominated current Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan to replace former CIA Director David Petraeus. Brennan has been a quintessential player in the drone program working hand in hand with the president to establish his notorious “kill list”. The drone program has killed at least 2629 people, of which 213 were confirmed militants and 331 were confirmed citizens (87 of which were children) according to a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.[1] Some estimates put the ratio of civilians killed to militants as high as 49:1, or 98% civilian deaths.[2]

Brennan’s nomination was delayed in early February due to Code Pink protestors at his confirmation hearing.[3] In mid February the senate panel delayed the hearing again as the awaited more information on the drone program that he oversaw. Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein repeated a demand to see all nine classified Justice Department memos on the supposed legal basis for targeted killings of U.S. citizens, only two of which had been released.[4] The panel then voted to delay the vote a second time, again citing the release of the drone memos.[5] After the senate panel finally approved Brennan’s nomination senator Rand Paul said that he would filibuster it on the senate floor,[6] which he then did for almost 13 hours. His concern was mainly over an American could be targeted domestically by the program, to which Eric Holder responded indirectly yes.

The public has no explanation of the legal basis for the drone killings. The drone program has already targeted and killed American Citizens abroad outside of a warzone, the victims were Anwar al-Aulaqi and his 16 year old son in Yemen. By doing so depriving them both the right of due process of law and habeas corpus.[7]

What’s equally concerning about Brennan are some of his statements on Iran. He was virtually echoing calls by the intelligence community before the move was made to go to war with Iraq. He even believes that Iran has not made the decision not to weaponize, despite the findings of 16 US Intelligence Organizations that say otherwise.[8]

The nomination of Brennan as Director of the CIA is a terrible choice. We do not need the person responsible for the wildly illegal drone program heading the intelligence committee. Brennan would make America less secure with the continuation of policies that he has been instrumental in implementing by creating more hostility abroad and breeding anti-American sentiment. Senator Rand Paul is to be commended for his attempts to delay the process and raise awareness, though I believe they fell short of what was needed, a veto.

---

[1] Steadman, Ian. "'Naming the Dead' aims to give a voice to civilians killed in drone strikes." Wired.co.uk. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/05/naming-drone-victims (accessed March 8, 2013).

[2] Taylor, Robert. "Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare." Policymic. http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare (accessed March 8, 2013).

[3] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for February 08, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/headlines#281 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[4] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for February 14, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/14/headlines#2144 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[5] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for February 28, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/28/headlines#2282 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[6] Goodman, Amy. "Headlines for March 06, 2013." Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/6/headlines#362 (accessed March 8, 2013).

[7] Jay, Paul, and Michael Ratner. "Brennan Hearings: What is the Legal Basis for Drone Targeted Killings?." The Real News. therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=9651#.UTlddxmoHk1 (accessed March 7, 2013).

[8] Jay, Paul, and Lawrence Wilkerson. " CIA Appointee's Statement on Iran Echoes Tenet on Iraq." The Real News. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=9681#.UTldYRmoHk1 (accessed March 7, 2013).

Will Spring Bring a Political Thaw to Washington?

                President Obama’s recent dinner with 12 Republican lawmakers has some wondering if the coming months will see a lessening of the strict partisan gridlock that has prevented Congress from completing any major legislation. A number of news articles have reported on the dinner, although so far the participants have been reluctant to say what was discussed.  From brief statements afterwards, however, it seemed like the Republican lawmakers thought that it had been a useful dinner, and they hoped that President Obama would more frequently engage personally with members of Congress.  President Obama apparently took their advice to heart, because he is now scheduled to have lunch today with Congressman Ryan, chair of the House of Representatives Budget Committee (and frequently described as the leader of GOP thought regarding finances) and Congressman Van Hollen, the Democrat’s top Budget Committee member.

                This is an interesting turn of events, since President Obama emerged from the 2012 election in a very combative form.  This may have been an attempt on his part to reassure members of his own party, who thought he had been too conciliatory with Republicans during his first term.  In the face of such an obdurate Republican Party (particularly in the House), however, his combative style has achieved very little.  And with a recent Gallop Poll showing declining approval ratings, President Obama must have decided that it was time to change his approach.  Striking a bipartisan tone isn’t new to the President (just look at his first term), personally engaging with members of Congress is.  Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have complained that President Obama has not done a very good job of reaching out to members of Congress on an individual basis, instead dealing with people in leadership positions (like house speaker John Boehner), mounting campaign-style public events, or using Joe Biden (who still has a good relationship with many members of Congress). 

                I find it refreshing to see President Obama making an effort to reach out to Republicans in an effort to reach some sort of compromise.  While I can understand his frustration in dealing with such an intransigent Republican opposition, his most recent actions look much more presidential than simply complaining about the other side.  I think that if he is seen as making a genuine effort to negotiate with Republicans and come to some sort of “Grand Bargain”, he will have a lot of public support and improve his negotiating position.  I think in the Senate there may be enough Republican Senators that recognize the public wants action to come to some sort of deal.  The real unknown is if there are enough Republicans in the House who would be willing to compromise for the benefit of the country, even if it meant risking a strong primary challenge from the right.  Speaker Boehner seems like he really wants to reach a deal, but whether or not he can drag the rest of his caucus along with him is another matter. 

Sources

Cowan, Richard, and Susan Heavey. "Obama Hosts Ryan Lunch in New Outreach to Republicans on Budget." Reuters. Thompson Reuters, 7 Mar. 2013. Web.

Horsey, David. "Hoping to Break the Stalemate, Obama Takes GOP Senators to Dinner." Los Angeles Times. Tribune Newspaper, 7 Mar. 2013. Web.

Lerer, Lisa, and Kathleen Hunter. "Obama Tries Charm Offensive to Woo Republicans on Deficit." Businessweek. Bloomberg LP, 7 Mar. 2013. Web.

Sequestration Continued….

          For this week’s blog, I wanted to get back to the issue of sequestration.  This hot-button topic has both parties pointing fingers and essentially blaming the other for the budget cuts.  When looking at GOP and Democrat websites, I have seen basically the same exact articles, only the blame gets placed on the opposing party depending on what site you are on.  For example, the GOP.gov website explains the sequester in terms of the 3 things you should know, and those things are , “ 1) President Obama Proposed the Sequester…. 2) House Republicans took steps to replace President Obama's sequestration, passing bills on two separate occasions. Neither of which the Democratic-controlled Senate considered…. 3) No One Should be Talking About Raising Taxes on Americans with so much wasteful spending in Washington”.  [1]

            I thought this was interesting because I was under the impression that Republicans demanded the sequestration in return for giving the Obama administration the legal “wiggle room” to pay bondholders in the wake of the debt ceiling negotiations of 2011 as I discussed in last week’s post. I then stumbled upon a democratic perspective on democrats.org where Elizabeth Chan suggests, “Republicans continue to refuse to work with President Obama and Democrats to reach a balanced approach to reducing the deficit and averting the sequester. Their insistence on putting politics first has put our nation's military preparedness on the line and jeopardized the livelihood of the 800,000 Defense Department employees who now face furloughs—the consequences of which are already being felt across the country.” [2] 

            It seems as though the parties are campaigning more for the absolution of responsibility rather than the urgency for action.  With so many conflicting views and claims, I went to a relatively neutral source to try and sort out the mess.  What I found in an article on CNNMoney.com helped to put a non-partisan spin on the issue.  With respect to the blame game, the article appears to support my idea that too much time is being wasted on pointing the finger when it says, “Myth 1 - Obama is to blame for the spending cuts: No. In fact, both sides got behind the idea and time has been wasted playing the blame game.”[3]  The author goes on to state, “To make matters worse, agencies will have little discretion about what gets cut since the sequester mandates that the cuts be made by the same percentage to every non-exempt area. Efficient programs will be axed right along with bloated or duplicative ones.”[3] 

            Sequestration highlights many of the negative aspects of our two party system, but it is not only this issue that showcases how blame for a problem is unfortunately equally important to assign as the solution to it.  Congress had a year and a half to subvert the effects of these cuts, but was unable to find common ground, regardless of the formation of the “super committee”.  I then wonder, when the effects of the cuts really start being felt by Americans, will the parties expend more energy on righting the ship, or remain hindered by party allegiance. 

 

References

           

1.“About the Sequester – The Three Things You Need To Know.” GOP.gov n.p.,n.d.(accessed  7 March 2013) http://www.gop.gov/sequester/ Web.

 2. Chan, Elizabeth. “The GOP Sequester: Defenseless.”  www.democrats.org.  6 March 2013. (accessed 7 March 2013) http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/the_gop_sequester_defenseless. Web.

3. Sahadi, Jeanne. “4 myths about the spending cuts.” CNNMoney.com. 1 March 2013. (accessed 7 March 2013)

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/01/news/economy/spending-cuts/index.html?iid=article_sidebar. Web.

 

The Heath Care Debate

            Healthcare should not be viewed as a market commodity like sneakers or pencils. It is a complex system that can bring up fundamental questions about the way in which we view society here in the United States. We should not be kidding ourselves with the illusion that our current system of healthcare is the best in the world when it ranks 37^th. We have the most costly per capita health care system in the world and only the 15^th best results. The United States pays two and a half times the per capita health care costs than the average of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.[1]

            There are 45 million Americans without health insurance and another 25 million with inadequate coverage. The US ranks 46^th in life expectancy in the world. The United States currently spends about 17% of GDP on healthcare. That money basically goes to private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies whose goal isn’t to take care of people but to make money. The overhead, including profit for these companies is between 15-20% whereas Medicare is 2%.[2]

            The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare, was an improvement to the previous system because it expanded coverage and provided subsidies. Unfortunately large portions of the subsidies got sent right back to those same profiteering insurance and pharmaceutical companies and it doesn’t get to the root of the issues. By switching to a sort of Medicare for all single payer system, like that of the rest of the developed world, the United States would save 500-600 billion dollars a year in administrative costs alone.[3]

            The Green Party, which is a minor party in the United States, supports the single payer system.[4] Some progressive Democrats had originally favored a single payer system, but it was abandoned in negotiating a bill that would pass.[5] There were Democrats however that were prepared to pursue a single payer system if PPACA failed to pass.[6] Republicans generally don’t favor a single payer system and argue that free market competition is the best way to keep prices down and the quality of care up.[7] Facts say otherwise.

            The United States should adopt a single payer healthcare system. An all around more holistic approach is needed for a variety of health issues with emphasis on prevention. The implications of which are far reaching, such as drug addictions being treated as a health issue rather than as a crime. The minor reforms being proposed by Democrats and the desire to maintain the status quo by Republicans is hurting the country. We need to face the facts and fix our broken system; unfortunately the two major parties are not working towards the simple solution.

---

[1] Taylor, Adam, and Samuel Blackstone. "The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World." Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1 (accessed February 25, 2013).

[2] "Healthcare." Econ4. http://econ4.org/statement-on-healthcare (accessed February 25, 2013).

[3] Ibid.

[4] " Green Party on Health Care." OnTheIssues.org. http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Green_Party_Health_Care.htm (accessed February 25, 2013).

[5] " Health Care: 2012 contenders' Views." OnTheIssues.org. http://ontheissues.org/Health_Care.htm (accessed February 25, 2013).

[6] Bendery, Jennifer. "Single-Payer Health Care Favored By House Progressives If Court Strikes Down Obamacare." The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/house-progressives-single-payer-health-care_n_1630777.html (accessed February 25, 2013).

[7] “Health Care: 2012 contenders' Views." OnTheIssues.org. http://ontheissues.org/Health_Care.htm (accessed February 25, 2013).

Sequestration: A Conservative Victory?

Recently, several conservative political commentators have written opinion pieces for the website Politico where they argue that the coming sequestration is good for both the US and the Republican Party.  Rich Lowry, editor at National Review, argued in a piece called “The Great Sequestration Panic” that warnings about the consequences of sequestration are overblown and being used by the Whitehouse as scare tactics.  Another column, entitled “Sequestration: Good for US and GOP” (by David Avella, president of the conservative group GOPAC) claims that sequestration will have a positive effect on the US, and will help Republicans in the next election. 

The arguments presented in these columns boils down to the fact that the US has a large debt, and sequestration is going to cut spending.  Lowry in particular throws around a lot of figures to try to show that sequestration will not have a large impact on the economy, at one point saying that “It’s hard to see how a cut of a little more than $40 billion this year can possibly tank a $16 trillion economy”.  (Of course, if the cuts are so insignificant it begs the question of why the fight over sequestration is bringing Washington, D.C. to a standstill).  Avella, meanwhile, claims that the reason the economy is still in such poor shape is because businesses are worried about the national debt and if we could reduce the debt, or at least the deficit spending, the economy will rebound and Republicans will sweep the midterm elections. 

            Of course, what these commentators miss is the fact that the reason sequestration is damaging is not because of the size of the sequester compared to the overall budget, but the way the sequestration will be implemented.  The US budget could most likely handle these reductions if the cuts were done in a targeted, balanced approach.  The upcoming sequestration, however, uses an across-the-board method of cutting without consideration of what these cuts will do to already-underfunded government programs.  Avella also does not take into consideration that the reason that Washington has been spending so much money is to help the economy recover.  Deficit spending is oftentimes necessary when facing an economic downturn, as the money the government pumps in to the economy helps put more people to work.  And as more people re-enter the work force and see wages rise, the increased tax revenue naturally eliminates the deficits.   

               While reading these columns, I was reminded of an article by Conor Friedersdorf that ran in The Atlantic.  Titled “How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File”, Friedersdorf talked about how, during the 2012 election, many conservative commentators offered analyses that supported their ideological position, rather than based purely on available facts.  This happened to such an extent that many people who got their news from only conservative sources were genuinely surprised when Mitt Romney lost.  I think that the conservative commentators who have been opining on the upcoming sequestration have not learned any lessons from the 2012 election if they really think that sequestration will be good for the US and help Republicans in the next election. 

Works Cited

Avella, David. "Sequestration: Good for US and GOP." POLITICO. N.p., 28 Feb. 2013. Web.

Friedersdorf, Conor. "How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File." The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 7 Nov. 2012. Web.

Lowry, Rich. "The Great Sequester Panic." POLITICO. N.p., 21 Feb. 2013. Web.