Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said that it was inevitable that Republicans would support a candidate for president who backed gay marriage, but for him he said he would never support it while he was in office. Mr. Flake needs to reconcile that discrepancy quickly because inevitability is upon us. As Chuck Todd, sitting in for David Gregory, pointed out Mr. Flake clearly felt uncomfortable talking about the issue. You could tell by his hesitation in his answer that he bases his political persepctive on his religious beliefs when it comes to marriage. It's one of those grey areas for politicians where they can not separate the legal from the religious. The reason he can not do that is because his Republican base won't allow it - more about this later.
We've already stated our position on same-sex marriage, but if you're for the traditional definition, the President of the National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown did not help the cause. First of all, if being the President of the National Organization for Marriage is a full-time job, it's a waste of money and he should be fired; he's obviously not doing a good job. On today's program, he presented himself as nervous and defensive in his answers. One of his arguments was that same-sex couples do not have the civil right to redefine marriage. That's a weak argument because you can simply turn that statement around and say what gives him the right over someone else to make the decision. This is where Mr. Brown deferred to the voting results on the issue, in the particular the California case of Proposition 8. Despite his desperate rhetoric that it was a slur on the Americans who voted to uphold the traditional definition, what he fails to understand is that the basic civil rights of an individual in this country do not get voted on. "Inalienable Rights..." is what is says in the constitution.
What we found interesting was that there wasn't any consensus amongst the guests as to whether the Court would make a decision or 'punt' on the matter. Filmmaker Rob Reiner said that if the Supreme Court did in fact decide not to decide and send it back to California (See LL Cool J's "Going Back to Cali), it would be a victory for those who opposed Proposition 8 as a matter of educating the public. However, in reality if it does go back to California, it's really a victory for the supporters of traditional marriage. If the court decides that it is a matter of civil rights, then it's hard to see how they could not make a decision. Editorially, Meet The Press sees it as a civil rights issue, using the clips of Jackie Robinson talking about civil rights for African-American as a comparison to support that view. We agree with the comparison.
Like we said, the majority of the country's attitude toward same-sex marriage is one of a libertarian perspective. Where Mr. Flake displayed more confidence was when talking about comprehensive immigration reform, saying that he would not walk away from the process and he doesn't think Marco Rubio would either. That's the good news. David Axelrod called it a legacy issue for the president so there's push from that direction as well for success. The Senate will reach a deal Mr. Flake thought, and it's in the Republican's, particularly Mr. Rubio's, best political interest to get it done. If Mr. Rubio decides to run for president in 2016, he won't be able to count on the Latino vote if they don't have immigration reform. His problem is that in the Senate bill there is a path for citizenship provision, which doesn't exist in the House version. This key provision in the law that if it can not be resolved, could kill reform entirely.
Of course when you have a Republican Senator from Alaska, Don Young, calling immigrant workers 'wetbacks,' that doesn't help. In his apology, he said that the term should be left in the 20th century. Well, that century ended 13 years ago so where's he been - idiot. And it's idiotic to think that he'll resign over such a remark; lots of politicians haven't resigned for much more controversial acts and statements. But Latinos take such a comment as the deeply offensive slur that it is and come election time, they will not forget it especially if House Republicans block a path to citizenship.
David Axelrod and Tom Davis (In the first round table, or was it the second round table or the second part of the first round table? Two round tables, in the parlance of the day, was a bridge too far. ) had a brief exchange about whether the Republican party would be a regional Congressional party or a national party. Right now, it's trending that they will become a regional Congressional party especially if they can not work out something on immigration, hence alienating the fastest growing population block in the United States.
With the overwhelming percentages of people under 30 years old who support same-sex marriage, capturing young voters will also be difficult, and given the harsh anti-abortion legislation moving through several states, lead by North Dakota whose governor even said that it would be contested in the courts, Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors with women. If Republicans really want to be a national party, which means winning the executive branch, then they have to gain the support of these groups by ending the adversarial relationship they are creating with their narrow policies. Tom Davis inadvertently explained it - Republicans, by gerrymandering districts, have boxed themselves in. They're electorally safe in their districts but outside of those small pockets, they have no resonance. As he also explained, there are fewer suburban districts, like the one he represented, that are still Republican because of the aforementioned topics.
But maybe there is hope because one area where Republicans are gaining support is in the resistance to gun-safety legislation where now only 47 percent of Americans favor new restrictions. Senator Flake called universal background checks a 'bridge too far,' for gun owners explaining that the paperwork requirements would be too much of a burden and how would we be able to regulate someone loaning a gun to another person for duck hunting (Mr. Flake's example)? As long as we accept an answer like that of 'too much paperwork' for why we can not have new gun-safety legislation, then it's never going to happen. At the top of the program, there was a clip of President Obama saying, "Shame on us if we've forgotten," in reference to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Sadly, it's quite obvious that we can live with the shame.
Round Table 1: former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Former Rep. Tom
Davis (R-VA); the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and the Wall Street
Journal’s Peggy Noonan.
Round Table 2: President of the National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown; the
Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan; founder and President of the
National Action Network, MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton; and NBC News Justice
Correspondent Pete Williams.
We want to wish everyone a Happy and Healthy Easter and Passover!
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
3.24.13: Core Arguments
Of the three main topics for today's program, we'll comment on the president's trip to the Middle East first and then get to the domestic stuff. As New York Times columnist David Brooks said, both the left and right liked the results of his trip. With good reason, the president pulled a JFK speaking in Hebrew, telling a young crowd "You are not alone." Very powerful support. What we found interesting about Mr. Obama's trip to Israel is Prime Minister Netanyahu's change in temperament toward the president from their last meeting. When the Israeli Prime Minister visited the United States, he made news for first insulting the president and then having a rather cold meeting with him as it was reported. Little things like elections do matter and now that Mr. Obama has been reelected Mr. Netanyahu was definitely going to be more receptive. One reason is because of his struggle with his personal approval ratings at home that we're further damaged by his rebuke of the president. Secondly, the more obvious and speaking to what the president said was that in the face of hostility, America has Israel's back, which will always be the case despite squabbles amongst leaders.
However, also at the speech, the president said unequivocally that the Palestinians need a state of their own, to which he received applause. As Mayor Bloomberg had mentioned, he got both sides thinking about this possibility. There's no question that Barack Obama is a better representative than George Bush for the prospect of both sides talking simply because from the Palestinian perspective he is a more honest broker. With that said, make no mistake that Israel's security always comes first. The Administration left Secretary Kerry behind to handle the dirty work. As Richard Engel pointed out (great analysis all around in this segment), the Israeli apology to Turkey was big. All governments throughout history have always had trouble apologizing for anything so the significance of this gesture will not be lost, especially on the Turks. Mr. Engel pointed out that Istanbul would be the place for a Mid-East summit.
A summit that is desperately needed. Syria has completely melted down at this point and eventually outside forces who have been dabbling with the outcome are going to become overwhelming in what happens there. Iran, along with their nuclear ambitions, wants control of the region - they want to be that power (They have the influence in Iraq), and keeping Assad in power helps that cause. The United States Special Forces is training Syrian rebels in Lebanon but we haven't gone all in. The reason being is that someone at the Pentagon must be paying attention to history. We armed the Mujahadeen then eventually got the Taliban who didn't like us. We ousted Saddam and now have an Iraqi government more friendly with Iran than us. What do we get with Syria if Assad is gone? That's the question that no one can answer. Also, Americans are tired of our military getting involved in another Middle East country, we just don't have the patience for it at this point. There are louder calls coming from the Senate for a no-fly zone which would probably not upset the electorate too much. The jury is still out on whether that's a good idea or not.
Speaking of juries, that of course brings us back home and one of the other big topics of today's program - marriage equality and the upcoming Supreme Court hearings. The questions at hand are in regard to California Proposition 8 banning gay marriage and if the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. We've said before in this column that we support marriage equality on libertarian grounds. It's that 'live and let live' attitude that most Americans have as the reason for marriage equalities wide support. Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed's argument frankly was weak because he cited a study from one institution that said it was better if parents were a heterosexual couple. However, before he even finished Hilary Rosen and David Gregory were stipulating that there were other studies that had different results. Leave those aside for a moment and here is why we think his argument is insufficient. We understand his objection to marriage equality because Mr. Reed as the Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition believes that marriage is a sacred religious institution and according to his religion, marriage is only between a man and a woman. That's fine, but here's the rub. Marriage, as all things, has evolved and today in addition to being a confirmation of love and commitment, it's also a legal contract that determines power of attorney, visitation rights, and tax rates, which do not recognize religion. And as we all know, in the First Amendment it states that no law shall be made with respect to religion. - nowhere in there does religious play a role.
In an abbreviated interview segment, which worked for the purposes of today's program, David Boies (Vice President Gore's lawyer in Bush v. Gore) outlined the three core issues:
1. Is Marriage a fundamental right?
2. Do same sex couples harm the children that they are raising?
3. Is there sufficient evidence that says raising a child amongst same sex parents is detrimental?
The Supreme Court has ruled 14 times, as Mr. Boies noted, that marriage is a fundamental right. If you extrapolate that, one of Americans' fundamental rights is equal protection under the law and marriage has lawful implications, hence everyone should be treated the same. And these are just the conservative arguments. Mr. Boies offhandedly said at the end that it was a basic civil rights issue, but that's exactly what it is at its core.
[As an aside, think about the brilliance of the Constitution for a moment. Two hundred and thirty-seven years later and we're still talking about the First and Second Amendments.]
In regard to gun regulation, we were prepared to write about what nutty things Wayne LaPierre said on the program, but he didn't really get there and was calmer than you would usually see him. We believe that is because he knows one thing - ultimately he won. The gun safety legislation coming out of the Senate will not contain any kind of assault weapons ban and other tougher provisions, like magazine size, will be watered down by the time the bill gets amended in the House's version. Universal background checks will be the big 'win' for the other side, but as Mr. LaPierre stated today, they don't work anyway, a 'speed bump for the law-abiding' he called them.
Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, spending $12 Million of his own money (we'll get to that in a moment), is running ads advocating for the universal background check, and it was noted that there was no mention of an assault weapons ban in those ads. The bar for the new legislation has been lowered to the point that the NRA and Mr. LaPierre have prevailed over Mr. Bloomberg.
With regard to his big spending of money and how that might be offensive to you. We think about it this way, Mr. Bloomberg is his own SuperPAC. The difference between him and say Karl Rove's American Crossroads, is that you have a name and a face for where all the money comes from. Whether you agree with Mr. Bloomberg's agenda or not, that's actually more transparent than Mr. Rove's operation that does not disclose from whom it gets its funds.
Mr. LaPierre may be right that background checks don't work, that an assault weapons ban is ineffective, that limiting magazine size doesn't matter. However, our core argument with Mr. LaPierre is that he refuses to acknowledge the primary cause of some many gun deaths in America - guns. He presents his argument as if the ease of availability to all sorts of outlandish weapons doesn't play a role in all the violence.
He reiterated today that there should be armed security in schools and that teachers should have the right to carry a gun while teaching, yet he condemns the role that video games play in promoting gun violence. What that says is that he thinks it is not all right for a kid to be exposed to video guns at home, but O.K. for that same kid to walk into school and be exposed to real people with real guns.
How a new gun safety law will probably shake out is that there will be universal background checks and much stronger penalties for straw buyers and trafficking. With regard to magazines, if there is a ban on anything, it will be the purchase of 100-round drums, but don't expect a 10-round limit on magazines. Our lawmakers are all conservative on the issue of guns, and lobbyists remind them of that everyday despite what the American populace thinks.
So much more we could say but we'll leave it there for now...
Round Table: Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed; Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen; Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne; and the New York Times’ David Brooks
However, also at the speech, the president said unequivocally that the Palestinians need a state of their own, to which he received applause. As Mayor Bloomberg had mentioned, he got both sides thinking about this possibility. There's no question that Barack Obama is a better representative than George Bush for the prospect of both sides talking simply because from the Palestinian perspective he is a more honest broker. With that said, make no mistake that Israel's security always comes first. The Administration left Secretary Kerry behind to handle the dirty work. As Richard Engel pointed out (great analysis all around in this segment), the Israeli apology to Turkey was big. All governments throughout history have always had trouble apologizing for anything so the significance of this gesture will not be lost, especially on the Turks. Mr. Engel pointed out that Istanbul would be the place for a Mid-East summit.
A summit that is desperately needed. Syria has completely melted down at this point and eventually outside forces who have been dabbling with the outcome are going to become overwhelming in what happens there. Iran, along with their nuclear ambitions, wants control of the region - they want to be that power (They have the influence in Iraq), and keeping Assad in power helps that cause. The United States Special Forces is training Syrian rebels in Lebanon but we haven't gone all in. The reason being is that someone at the Pentagon must be paying attention to history. We armed the Mujahadeen then eventually got the Taliban who didn't like us. We ousted Saddam and now have an Iraqi government more friendly with Iran than us. What do we get with Syria if Assad is gone? That's the question that no one can answer. Also, Americans are tired of our military getting involved in another Middle East country, we just don't have the patience for it at this point. There are louder calls coming from the Senate for a no-fly zone which would probably not upset the electorate too much. The jury is still out on whether that's a good idea or not.
Speaking of juries, that of course brings us back home and one of the other big topics of today's program - marriage equality and the upcoming Supreme Court hearings. The questions at hand are in regard to California Proposition 8 banning gay marriage and if the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. We've said before in this column that we support marriage equality on libertarian grounds. It's that 'live and let live' attitude that most Americans have as the reason for marriage equalities wide support. Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed's argument frankly was weak because he cited a study from one institution that said it was better if parents were a heterosexual couple. However, before he even finished Hilary Rosen and David Gregory were stipulating that there were other studies that had different results. Leave those aside for a moment and here is why we think his argument is insufficient. We understand his objection to marriage equality because Mr. Reed as the Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition believes that marriage is a sacred religious institution and according to his religion, marriage is only between a man and a woman. That's fine, but here's the rub. Marriage, as all things, has evolved and today in addition to being a confirmation of love and commitment, it's also a legal contract that determines power of attorney, visitation rights, and tax rates, which do not recognize religion. And as we all know, in the First Amendment it states that no law shall be made with respect to religion. - nowhere in there does religious play a role.
In an abbreviated interview segment, which worked for the purposes of today's program, David Boies (Vice President Gore's lawyer in Bush v. Gore) outlined the three core issues:
1. Is Marriage a fundamental right?
2. Do same sex couples harm the children that they are raising?
3. Is there sufficient evidence that says raising a child amongst same sex parents is detrimental?
The Supreme Court has ruled 14 times, as Mr. Boies noted, that marriage is a fundamental right. If you extrapolate that, one of Americans' fundamental rights is equal protection under the law and marriage has lawful implications, hence everyone should be treated the same. And these are just the conservative arguments. Mr. Boies offhandedly said at the end that it was a basic civil rights issue, but that's exactly what it is at its core.
[As an aside, think about the brilliance of the Constitution for a moment. Two hundred and thirty-seven years later and we're still talking about the First and Second Amendments.]
In regard to gun regulation, we were prepared to write about what nutty things Wayne LaPierre said on the program, but he didn't really get there and was calmer than you would usually see him. We believe that is because he knows one thing - ultimately he won. The gun safety legislation coming out of the Senate will not contain any kind of assault weapons ban and other tougher provisions, like magazine size, will be watered down by the time the bill gets amended in the House's version. Universal background checks will be the big 'win' for the other side, but as Mr. LaPierre stated today, they don't work anyway, a 'speed bump for the law-abiding' he called them.
Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, spending $12 Million of his own money (we'll get to that in a moment), is running ads advocating for the universal background check, and it was noted that there was no mention of an assault weapons ban in those ads. The bar for the new legislation has been lowered to the point that the NRA and Mr. LaPierre have prevailed over Mr. Bloomberg.
With regard to his big spending of money and how that might be offensive to you. We think about it this way, Mr. Bloomberg is his own SuperPAC. The difference between him and say Karl Rove's American Crossroads, is that you have a name and a face for where all the money comes from. Whether you agree with Mr. Bloomberg's agenda or not, that's actually more transparent than Mr. Rove's operation that does not disclose from whom it gets its funds.
Mr. LaPierre may be right that background checks don't work, that an assault weapons ban is ineffective, that limiting magazine size doesn't matter. However, our core argument with Mr. LaPierre is that he refuses to acknowledge the primary cause of some many gun deaths in America - guns. He presents his argument as if the ease of availability to all sorts of outlandish weapons doesn't play a role in all the violence.
He reiterated today that there should be armed security in schools and that teachers should have the right to carry a gun while teaching, yet he condemns the role that video games play in promoting gun violence. What that says is that he thinks it is not all right for a kid to be exposed to video guns at home, but O.K. for that same kid to walk into school and be exposed to real people with real guns.
How a new gun safety law will probably shake out is that there will be universal background checks and much stronger penalties for straw buyers and trafficking. With regard to magazines, if there is a ban on anything, it will be the purchase of 100-round drums, but don't expect a 10-round limit on magazines. Our lawmakers are all conservative on the issue of guns, and lobbyists remind them of that everyday despite what the American populace thinks.
So much more we could say but we'll leave it there for now...
Round Table: Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed; Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen; Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne; and the New York Times’ David Brooks
Sunday, March 17, 2013
3.17.13 The Reality of Now
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George didn't answer David Gregory's question in how the church resolves the tensions between church doctrine and an individual's own life experience, but the round table discussion answered it quite well. That's not to diminish Cardinal George at all because it's more of a matter of articulating the answer versus knowing the answer, which he does. Ana Navarro put it best that you don't have to agree with the Pope (or the Church) on everything but you want to know that he is coming from the right place. And that's how it feels with the election of Pope Francis, a man who is coming from the right place.
The air of humility and warmth that Pope Francis has shown in these first few days has been a welcome sight to the Catholics who occupy all points of the spectrum. There is also a sense that everyone recognizes that the Pope has an opportunity to focus on something that transcends division and that is the plight of the poor. The Catholic Church understands, and this Pope who has spent his life amongst people suffering, that they should be that voice. Kathleen Kennedy outlined that the Church has been focused on sex (contraception and abortion) for too long and should focus on the core of the gospels which is the plight of the poor and sickness. She's correct because at this point, many rightly have the question that kind of goes, "Who are you to lecture me about issues of sex?" That's a natural reaction. The Catholic Church has to reconcile that within itself. Pope Francis' first step to go out amongst parishioners and give a sermon that talked about how God always has the capacity to forgive is what the Cardinal called style being substance.
Where Cardinal George spoke much more eloquently yet succinctly was with regard to the sexual abuse scandal saying that as long as there are victims, there will be the scandal, a deep admission and understanding. In answering this completely, it was important to hear a Cardinal simply say that they have gotten rid of all of the offenders they know of and that they are taking steps to make sure it never happens again. It was necessary to hear those words.
Does all this mean that there are going to be great changes in the Church, probably not. Should women play a more integral role in the hierarchy in Rome, certainly, but it isn't going to happen in the 5 to 10 years that Chris Matthews thinks it will, but no one expects that either. Just as no one expects the Church to all of a sudden come out in favor of gay marriage. They won't because it's one of the doctrines in the Catholic belief system that marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman. Whether you agree with that or not, you understand the Church's stance. For Catholics, it runs in opposition to their beliefs, but it shouldn't run counter to Republican beliefs.
The round table discussed Senator Portman's (R-OH) change on his stance toward gay marriage. Mr. Portman explained that his son is gay and that he would like to see his son enjoy the same rights as everyone else, a change of heart based on personal experience.
Now, Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) may have won his recall election, which makes him a successful politician, but he is by no means a successful leader. The reason for those harsh words is because during the discussion, he touted the Republican philosophy that an individual should be able to come to this country and freely live his or her dreams without the interference of government - a very libertarian type of idea. However, the Republican stance, Mr. Walker's, on gay marriage runs directly counter to that freedom. The libertarian view is that an individual should be able to marry whomever he or she wants. You see the contradiction there. And Mr. Walker's dismissive answer that states should sanction it in the first place was a cop-out, rightly called out by Chris Matthews who explained that Social Security and hospital visitation rights, for example, all play into the legal status of being married. It's a subject that Mr. Matthews assessed correctly in its importance, it's about the right for an individual to pursue love freely without recrimination. This notion will be heard by the Supreme Court with the Defense of Marriage Act. Every time Scott Walker has an opportunity to take a leadership stand on something, he declines.
And on the subject of leadership, do not look to the House Republican Whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), ho appeared on the program today with Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) who sits on the House Budget Committee. Granted he is the Republican Whip, which means that he takes what the leadership gives him and he rallies the troops behind it. Obviously, he and Speaker Boehner have not been on the same page. However, we single him out over Mr. Van Hollen because in this budget debate the position he represents disregards the poor and those who can not care for themselves (in the spirit of the new Pope).
The Republican budget repeals Obamacare, the implication of which is that millions of people will not have access to affordable healthcare - no Medicaid expansion within the states (the poor) and it will also change Medicare into a voucher system which effects millions of seniors (those who may need assistance). Aren't these the same people that we're happy to see the Pope focus on? Why not our political leaders?
With that said, understand that Democrats see the Republican plan as a slippery slope to ending Medicare all together. Conversely, Republicans see Obamacare as the first step to socialized medicine or Medicare for all, even though most seniors we know (O.K., all) like Medicare because it's easy and not as expensive as private insurance.
Mr. McCarthy outlined the urgency of the here and now on the debt and deficit, but Paul Ryan's budget ignores the reality of now. Right now, it is not politically impossible to repeal Obamacare whether you're for it or not so for a budget to be taken seriously right now, it has to work within the existence of said law. The realistic tact for Republicans to take is to say that if Obamacare has to stay then this, this, and this have to go and to be specific on those points.
Not that Mr. Van Hollen was any more convincing when challenged on Senate Democrats' budget and it's goal of coming into balance by 2040. The inherent problem with that timeline is that between now and then - 27 years - think about all the variables (conflict, war, natural and man-made disaster) that will occur in that time to throw the plan out the proverbial window. It boils down to either wanting a drastic approach where the overall economy and an individual's personal one are radically changed to get things in line quickly or a gradual approach that may not come into line at all. Where the Democrats win the debate is on the ratio of tax increases (closing of corporate tax loopholes) to spending cuts. Republicans have taken any revenue increases for the federal government off the table completely and as long as that's the case, the budget will not be balanced.
Where both Representatives fell down were on the topics of the Keystone Pipeline and Gun Control respectively. First, Mr. Van Hollen's tepid response that he was looking at all the information on the Keystone pipeline and reassessing was basically saying that he'll vote for it without saying he'll vote for it. Our feeling is that the pipeline should go forward - a source of oil that comes from an ally close by instead of from an enemy far away is a good thing. Mr. Van Hollen did mention that there was a re-routing of the line that answered an environmental concern. The United States should be able to build a state-of-the art-pipeline that fully takes the environment into consideration, right?!
On gun control, Mr. McCarthy displayed equally insufficient spine not saying whether he agreed with universal background checks or not, something that 90% of Americans endorse, which just shows that Mr. McCarthy has been sufficiently compromised by the gun lobby. He phrased it this way - It's a measure the House will take a look at - speaking as if he's not part of that discussion, which is he. No backbone.
We understand that the time within the context of a talk show, even the best one like Meet The Press, doesn't lend itself to more nuanced answers from our political leaders, but there could be a little bit of evidence that they're listening to one another at least. Alas, there isn't.
Round Table: Host of MSNBC's "Hardball" Chris Matthews; former two-term Republican Governor who, in 2002, was appointed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to investigate the sex abuse scandals in the Church, Frank Keating (R-OK); author and former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Kathleen Kennedy Townsend; and Republican Ana Navarro.
The air of humility and warmth that Pope Francis has shown in these first few days has been a welcome sight to the Catholics who occupy all points of the spectrum. There is also a sense that everyone recognizes that the Pope has an opportunity to focus on something that transcends division and that is the plight of the poor. The Catholic Church understands, and this Pope who has spent his life amongst people suffering, that they should be that voice. Kathleen Kennedy outlined that the Church has been focused on sex (contraception and abortion) for too long and should focus on the core of the gospels which is the plight of the poor and sickness. She's correct because at this point, many rightly have the question that kind of goes, "Who are you to lecture me about issues of sex?" That's a natural reaction. The Catholic Church has to reconcile that within itself. Pope Francis' first step to go out amongst parishioners and give a sermon that talked about how God always has the capacity to forgive is what the Cardinal called style being substance.
Where Cardinal George spoke much more eloquently yet succinctly was with regard to the sexual abuse scandal saying that as long as there are victims, there will be the scandal, a deep admission and understanding. In answering this completely, it was important to hear a Cardinal simply say that they have gotten rid of all of the offenders they know of and that they are taking steps to make sure it never happens again. It was necessary to hear those words.
Does all this mean that there are going to be great changes in the Church, probably not. Should women play a more integral role in the hierarchy in Rome, certainly, but it isn't going to happen in the 5 to 10 years that Chris Matthews thinks it will, but no one expects that either. Just as no one expects the Church to all of a sudden come out in favor of gay marriage. They won't because it's one of the doctrines in the Catholic belief system that marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman. Whether you agree with that or not, you understand the Church's stance. For Catholics, it runs in opposition to their beliefs, but it shouldn't run counter to Republican beliefs.
The round table discussed Senator Portman's (R-OH) change on his stance toward gay marriage. Mr. Portman explained that his son is gay and that he would like to see his son enjoy the same rights as everyone else, a change of heart based on personal experience.
Now, Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) may have won his recall election, which makes him a successful politician, but he is by no means a successful leader. The reason for those harsh words is because during the discussion, he touted the Republican philosophy that an individual should be able to come to this country and freely live his or her dreams without the interference of government - a very libertarian type of idea. However, the Republican stance, Mr. Walker's, on gay marriage runs directly counter to that freedom. The libertarian view is that an individual should be able to marry whomever he or she wants. You see the contradiction there. And Mr. Walker's dismissive answer that states should sanction it in the first place was a cop-out, rightly called out by Chris Matthews who explained that Social Security and hospital visitation rights, for example, all play into the legal status of being married. It's a subject that Mr. Matthews assessed correctly in its importance, it's about the right for an individual to pursue love freely without recrimination. This notion will be heard by the Supreme Court with the Defense of Marriage Act. Every time Scott Walker has an opportunity to take a leadership stand on something, he declines.
And on the subject of leadership, do not look to the House Republican Whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), ho appeared on the program today with Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) who sits on the House Budget Committee. Granted he is the Republican Whip, which means that he takes what the leadership gives him and he rallies the troops behind it. Obviously, he and Speaker Boehner have not been on the same page. However, we single him out over Mr. Van Hollen because in this budget debate the position he represents disregards the poor and those who can not care for themselves (in the spirit of the new Pope).
The Republican budget repeals Obamacare, the implication of which is that millions of people will not have access to affordable healthcare - no Medicaid expansion within the states (the poor) and it will also change Medicare into a voucher system which effects millions of seniors (those who may need assistance). Aren't these the same people that we're happy to see the Pope focus on? Why not our political leaders?
With that said, understand that Democrats see the Republican plan as a slippery slope to ending Medicare all together. Conversely, Republicans see Obamacare as the first step to socialized medicine or Medicare for all, even though most seniors we know (O.K., all) like Medicare because it's easy and not as expensive as private insurance.
Mr. McCarthy outlined the urgency of the here and now on the debt and deficit, but Paul Ryan's budget ignores the reality of now. Right now, it is not politically impossible to repeal Obamacare whether you're for it or not so for a budget to be taken seriously right now, it has to work within the existence of said law. The realistic tact for Republicans to take is to say that if Obamacare has to stay then this, this, and this have to go and to be specific on those points.
Not that Mr. Van Hollen was any more convincing when challenged on Senate Democrats' budget and it's goal of coming into balance by 2040. The inherent problem with that timeline is that between now and then - 27 years - think about all the variables (conflict, war, natural and man-made disaster) that will occur in that time to throw the plan out the proverbial window. It boils down to either wanting a drastic approach where the overall economy and an individual's personal one are radically changed to get things in line quickly or a gradual approach that may not come into line at all. Where the Democrats win the debate is on the ratio of tax increases (closing of corporate tax loopholes) to spending cuts. Republicans have taken any revenue increases for the federal government off the table completely and as long as that's the case, the budget will not be balanced.
Where both Representatives fell down were on the topics of the Keystone Pipeline and Gun Control respectively. First, Mr. Van Hollen's tepid response that he was looking at all the information on the Keystone pipeline and reassessing was basically saying that he'll vote for it without saying he'll vote for it. Our feeling is that the pipeline should go forward - a source of oil that comes from an ally close by instead of from an enemy far away is a good thing. Mr. Van Hollen did mention that there was a re-routing of the line that answered an environmental concern. The United States should be able to build a state-of-the art-pipeline that fully takes the environment into consideration, right?!
On gun control, Mr. McCarthy displayed equally insufficient spine not saying whether he agreed with universal background checks or not, something that 90% of Americans endorse, which just shows that Mr. McCarthy has been sufficiently compromised by the gun lobby. He phrased it this way - It's a measure the House will take a look at - speaking as if he's not part of that discussion, which is he. No backbone.
We understand that the time within the context of a talk show, even the best one like Meet The Press, doesn't lend itself to more nuanced answers from our political leaders, but there could be a little bit of evidence that they're listening to one another at least. Alas, there isn't.
Round Table: Host of MSNBC's "Hardball" Chris Matthews; former two-term Republican Governor who, in 2002, was appointed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to investigate the sex abuse scandals in the Church, Frank Keating (R-OK); author and former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Kathleen Kennedy Townsend; and Republican Ana Navarro.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
3.10.13: A Political Thaw
The question you may ask yourself is 'why now? ' Why haven't the opposing sides collaborated before this and the simple reason is when you have nothing to lose and don't have to answer to a monied interest or a constituency base, a politician gains the ability to speak more freely about his/her views. Take for example retiring Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who said he believes 'the president, my friend' has good intentions and that he wants to solve the problems of the country. He's also correct that it shouldn't be news but the reason it is news is because of all the hyper-partisanship we've all been subjected to. And finally, when Senator Coburn assesses that Washington is dysfunctional in its dysfunction, you know something has to give. If dysfunction is a conventional negative then maybe two of them will make a positive. The thaw that we're experiencing is the result of the political realization of the election outcome and fewer of the key players are worried about reelection at this point. That of course includes the president. The more cynical view is that if the Congress doesn't act on budget issues by April, they stop getting paid, a real motivator for certain.
But also at work, and in no small measure, is Washington coming to understand that the electorate is tired of all the counterproductive rhetoric and want a plan. And when you consider that two of the guests today are freshman in Congress, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) respectively, it's important for them to be initiated to a more civil tone, right? They were both a little too much into the talking points - Mr. Gardner more so than Ms. Gabbard, a very strong edition to the House of Reprensatives, evidenced by the amount of time given them to speak by the moderator. Despite that, both talked about working out a deal, which is a good sign. Just one thing - Mr. Gardner said that tax revenue was at a record high, which is a fact without context. In raw dollars yes, but as a percentage of GDP, no. Just thought we'd clarify that.
Also, the president doing an end-around on the leadership in both chambers and talking to others is a good strategy because frankly John Boehner and Harry Reid fail at leading their respective chambers. They are both so concerned about protecting the political ground underneath their feet that they don't see it crumbling all around them.
Mr. Obama does have to schmooze, as Joe Scarborough indicated and we've said it before in this column that the president needs to be a great salesman - take out the clients. And it would do Congressman Gardner well not to parrot too much off of the Speaker, starting off with 'the president got his tax increases [so revenue is off the table]. This implicitly answers Mr. Gregory's core question of what is the ratio of cuts to revenues that Republicans will accept, which is there is no ratio. Senator Tim Kaine pointed out the rhetorical out for Republicans with the phrase 'spending through the tax code,' but it's not enough. Too much money goes into protecting the corporate loopholes that politicians on both side talk about closing.
At a certain point, just as you get tired of fighting wars abroad, you become exhausted by wars of words at home. Where we have faith in that is with the discussion we're having about drones courtesy of Senator Rand Paul, whom will discuss more in a moment. All sides agree that there should be more Congressional oversight on the use of this technology. The president wants the oversight as well, make no mistake, because he doesn't want his legacy being tied to an accountability for that 'kill list' they have.
With regard to Senator Rand Paul, despite the disagreements we have with his policy views and his extreme rhetoric, we commend him for his filibuster. First, he actually did it - he took to the podium for 13 hours to make his point sparking this very important discussion because someday we'll have to discuss drone use from a defensive posture as other countries obtain the technology. Having said that, we mostly agree with conservative Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus who said that Senator Paul filibustered the wrong question. Mr. Paul's notion that the government is going to turn the drone program on its own citizens is that kind of borderline conspiracy nonsense that has no place in the United States Senate. Stick to the question of oversight and parameters of use. Most people paying attention understand the difference between Mr. Paul's flawed but commendable effort and the real question at hand. And what you find is that most people agree with what needs to be done so perhaps a good building block for cooperation.
And whatever your take on Sheryl Sandberg's core argument that women do not lean in, but instead lean back, there shouldn't be any disagreement with women being treated equally in the workplace. Steve Schmidt's comments that women need to have equal representation in leading were meant directly for Republican leadership, but also meant for the broader context.
In Ms. Sandberg's comments, she mentioned that women lean back and instead of going after success or seeking a leadership position, they sit back and weigh the options of family vs. career. Dee Dee Meyers said that women don't promote themselves as they should given that a woman's likeability suffers due to success. The obstacles for women are there, no doubt, and to a degree, what Ruth Marcus said could also be true that women do it to themselves. However, the leaning back Ms. Sandberg described really speaks to the core strength of women over men. They take a step back to assess and analyze instead of just jumping impulsively. It speaks to the greater responsibility that women carry in society and how they are more responsible than men.
Guests: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), freshman Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, fmr. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL).
Roundtable: Author of “Why Women Should Rule the World” and former White House Press Secretary under President Clinton, Dee Dee Myers; Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; former John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt; and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
Postscript: We stayed away from the Jeb Bush interview because we just didn't feel like discussing presidential election politics at this point. We felt that Governor Bush's analogy of the Washington press's obsession with the subject being a kin to a crack addiction refreshingly accurate.
But also at work, and in no small measure, is Washington coming to understand that the electorate is tired of all the counterproductive rhetoric and want a plan. And when you consider that two of the guests today are freshman in Congress, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) respectively, it's important for them to be initiated to a more civil tone, right? They were both a little too much into the talking points - Mr. Gardner more so than Ms. Gabbard, a very strong edition to the House of Reprensatives, evidenced by the amount of time given them to speak by the moderator. Despite that, both talked about working out a deal, which is a good sign. Just one thing - Mr. Gardner said that tax revenue was at a record high, which is a fact without context. In raw dollars yes, but as a percentage of GDP, no. Just thought we'd clarify that.
Also, the president doing an end-around on the leadership in both chambers and talking to others is a good strategy because frankly John Boehner and Harry Reid fail at leading their respective chambers. They are both so concerned about protecting the political ground underneath their feet that they don't see it crumbling all around them.
Mr. Obama does have to schmooze, as Joe Scarborough indicated and we've said it before in this column that the president needs to be a great salesman - take out the clients. And it would do Congressman Gardner well not to parrot too much off of the Speaker, starting off with 'the president got his tax increases [so revenue is off the table]. This implicitly answers Mr. Gregory's core question of what is the ratio of cuts to revenues that Republicans will accept, which is there is no ratio. Senator Tim Kaine pointed out the rhetorical out for Republicans with the phrase 'spending through the tax code,' but it's not enough. Too much money goes into protecting the corporate loopholes that politicians on both side talk about closing.
At a certain point, just as you get tired of fighting wars abroad, you become exhausted by wars of words at home. Where we have faith in that is with the discussion we're having about drones courtesy of Senator Rand Paul, whom will discuss more in a moment. All sides agree that there should be more Congressional oversight on the use of this technology. The president wants the oversight as well, make no mistake, because he doesn't want his legacy being tied to an accountability for that 'kill list' they have.
With regard to Senator Rand Paul, despite the disagreements we have with his policy views and his extreme rhetoric, we commend him for his filibuster. First, he actually did it - he took to the podium for 13 hours to make his point sparking this very important discussion because someday we'll have to discuss drone use from a defensive posture as other countries obtain the technology. Having said that, we mostly agree with conservative Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus who said that Senator Paul filibustered the wrong question. Mr. Paul's notion that the government is going to turn the drone program on its own citizens is that kind of borderline conspiracy nonsense that has no place in the United States Senate. Stick to the question of oversight and parameters of use. Most people paying attention understand the difference between Mr. Paul's flawed but commendable effort and the real question at hand. And what you find is that most people agree with what needs to be done so perhaps a good building block for cooperation.
And whatever your take on Sheryl Sandberg's core argument that women do not lean in, but instead lean back, there shouldn't be any disagreement with women being treated equally in the workplace. Steve Schmidt's comments that women need to have equal representation in leading were meant directly for Republican leadership, but also meant for the broader context.
In Ms. Sandberg's comments, she mentioned that women lean back and instead of going after success or seeking a leadership position, they sit back and weigh the options of family vs. career. Dee Dee Meyers said that women don't promote themselves as they should given that a woman's likeability suffers due to success. The obstacles for women are there, no doubt, and to a degree, what Ruth Marcus said could also be true that women do it to themselves. However, the leaning back Ms. Sandberg described really speaks to the core strength of women over men. They take a step back to assess and analyze instead of just jumping impulsively. It speaks to the greater responsibility that women carry in society and how they are more responsible than men.
Guests: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), freshman Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, fmr. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL).
Roundtable: Author of “Why Women Should Rule the World” and former White House Press Secretary under President Clinton, Dee Dee Myers; Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; former John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt; and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
Postscript: We stayed away from the Jeb Bush interview because we just didn't feel like discussing presidential election politics at this point. We felt that Governor Bush's analogy of the Washington press's obsession with the subject being a kin to a crack addiction refreshingly accurate.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
3.3.13: Mountains of Evidence
We can't help but think watching this interview with John Boehner how there is such a dearth of leadership in Washington DC. However, for
as much as Republicans and some Democrats criticize the president's lack
of leadership (some justified), the Speaker of the House doesn't bear the same burden that he should. He explained that the House has acted twice in passing a bill to stop the sequester, but what he refuses to acknowledge is that what they are proposing will not pass a Democratically controlled Senate, which Mr. Gregory rightly called him out on. Because the fact is that both sides are equally to blame for the sequester. Obama proposed it as an extreme and the extreme right happily voted for it so now we all have to live it.
The Speaker said that for two years he couldn't come to an agreement with the president, but actually they had one in the form of the grand bargain. He just couldn't sell it to the base of his party, and still doesn't have the mustard so to take them on in any capacity. Mr. Boehner's first goal is to maintain his position as Speaker, and as Mr. Todd pointed out during the round table, neither he nor Mitch McConnell (R-KY) nor John Cornyn (R-TX) are going to sacrifice themselves politically to get something done. So when Mr. Greogry asks the Speaker if his Republican caucus leads him or does he lead it, the answer is clearly with the former. With that in mind, you're not going to see a deal get done. At this point, the president isn't worried about his job so he is able to compromise on measures that his base disagrees with, but this is not the case for the other side obviously.
And that entire sideshow with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling (the Administration) is just that - a side show. Just looking at that e-mail response on the screen from Mr. Sperling, it is clear that he is not threatening Mr. Woodward but telling him that he'll regret the statement because he'll find he'll be wrong. It was not a threat to do harm against him. Mr. Woodward needs to grow a backbone (that's putting it in politically correct terms) and he knows better that a reporter shouldn't become the news.
However, Mr. Sperling, though he didn't threaten Mr. Woodward, was completely incorrect in saying that the President didn't exaggerate the consequences. There were lots of signals from the Administration that we'll feel the consequences on Monday, which is not the case. Will there be people hurting down the road from the sequester? Absolutely, but as Mr. Sperling and Gregory discussed, what the sequester does is push for a big budget fight in the fall. Great, so what that really says is that this back and forth is going to continue for another seven months and beyond.
Mr. Sperling also said that the administration originally proposal $1.5 trillion in revenue, but only got $650 billion and wants $400 billion more. The Republicans now want roughly one trillion in more cuts - this is all over ten years. This nets out to $600 billion in cuts over ten years. Politicians (mostly Republicans) like to say that Americans balance their budgets so the government should as well. What they don't say is that most Americans also carry debt while trying to achieve a balance. What do they do with their debt? They chip away at it, which is what the government needs to do, not take to it with an ax because if you do then you can't afford the basics.
The one question that Mr. Boehner begged was where is the Senate's plan. Well, they did take a test vote which didn't pass (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-02-28/economy/37346422_1_test-vote-senate-vote-automatic-cuts) and how would it? The Democrats don't have 60 votes and as we all know, if the Democrats go for the simply majority to pass it (cloture), the Republicans will threaten to filibuster, all of which means it's dead in the water.
What we're wondering is when Mr. Boehner said that the president has gotten his tax increases, now we need spending cuts, does the sequester now qualify as those cuts? Did we just open up a can of worms? Maybe we should see what happens. When Mr. Gregory asked John Boehner about closing loopholes, he responded by saying that the President got his increases - meaning that revenue is now off the table. But thirty seconds later, Mr. Boehner said that closing tax loopholes is part of the solution. His catch is that overall tax rates need to be lowered for everyone but unsaid is the broadening the base part, which means people in poverty will have to start paying taxes on any income they get, no matter how small. It's all this unsaid minutiae that you have to sift through to understand why things aren't getting done. And not to discourage you further but it's disheartening to hear the Speaker say that he doesn't think anyone understands how to resolve this impasse of noncooperation in Washington.
Before we get to the discussion of the Voting Rights Act, there is one last thing we need to say as it relates to Mr. Boehner's views on taxes, spending, the sequester, everything. On today's program when Mr. Gregory challenged the Speaker on the philosophy that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, he said there were mountains of evidence to prove it. The example he cited was when Ronald Reagan did it in 1981. Whether you believe in that philosophy or not, what deeply concerns us is the willingness to consciously ignore the other side of the equation that President Reagan, as Mr. Gregory pointed out, raised taxes, eleven times in fact. To acknowledge this hurts the Republican brand as Kathleen Parker pointed out on tax increases, but it ignores a historically recorded truth. That whole exchange with Mr. Boehner just seemed like an example of willingness to mislead to serve a narrower agenda.
By extension, Mr. Boehner also said that he thought the Voting Rights Act has served as effective legislation, but that there is one small part that the court is considering. It is NOT small nor inconsequential. Section 5 is what is being challenged. From Justice.org:
Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.
The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.
Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.
Basically, it singles out some states who have had a history of suppressing the vote because of race, color, language minority, and stipulates that they need federal approval before changing any voting laws. Justice Scalia's much publicize comment that this was the perpetuation of a racial entitlement was completely ignorant, one worthy of censure, especially in light of certain states mentioned in Section 5 who tried to employ new voting restrictions in this last election. Our question is this: Elections have national consequences, federal implications, so why single out those states when maybe it should just say all states? There should be federal enforcement to ensure voting rights of minorities and everyone in every state, no?
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); columnist for the Washington Post Kathleen Parker; Managing Editor of TheGrio.com Joy Reid; NBC Chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd and NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw.
The Speaker said that for two years he couldn't come to an agreement with the president, but actually they had one in the form of the grand bargain. He just couldn't sell it to the base of his party, and still doesn't have the mustard so to take them on in any capacity. Mr. Boehner's first goal is to maintain his position as Speaker, and as Mr. Todd pointed out during the round table, neither he nor Mitch McConnell (R-KY) nor John Cornyn (R-TX) are going to sacrifice themselves politically to get something done. So when Mr. Greogry asks the Speaker if his Republican caucus leads him or does he lead it, the answer is clearly with the former. With that in mind, you're not going to see a deal get done. At this point, the president isn't worried about his job so he is able to compromise on measures that his base disagrees with, but this is not the case for the other side obviously.
And that entire sideshow with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling (the Administration) is just that - a side show. Just looking at that e-mail response on the screen from Mr. Sperling, it is clear that he is not threatening Mr. Woodward but telling him that he'll regret the statement because he'll find he'll be wrong. It was not a threat to do harm against him. Mr. Woodward needs to grow a backbone (that's putting it in politically correct terms) and he knows better that a reporter shouldn't become the news.
However, Mr. Sperling, though he didn't threaten Mr. Woodward, was completely incorrect in saying that the President didn't exaggerate the consequences. There were lots of signals from the Administration that we'll feel the consequences on Monday, which is not the case. Will there be people hurting down the road from the sequester? Absolutely, but as Mr. Sperling and Gregory discussed, what the sequester does is push for a big budget fight in the fall. Great, so what that really says is that this back and forth is going to continue for another seven months and beyond.
Mr. Sperling also said that the administration originally proposal $1.5 trillion in revenue, but only got $650 billion and wants $400 billion more. The Republicans now want roughly one trillion in more cuts - this is all over ten years. This nets out to $600 billion in cuts over ten years. Politicians (mostly Republicans) like to say that Americans balance their budgets so the government should as well. What they don't say is that most Americans also carry debt while trying to achieve a balance. What do they do with their debt? They chip away at it, which is what the government needs to do, not take to it with an ax because if you do then you can't afford the basics.
The one question that Mr. Boehner begged was where is the Senate's plan. Well, they did take a test vote which didn't pass (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-02-28/economy/37346422_1_test-vote-senate-vote-automatic-cuts) and how would it? The Democrats don't have 60 votes and as we all know, if the Democrats go for the simply majority to pass it (cloture), the Republicans will threaten to filibuster, all of which means it's dead in the water.
What we're wondering is when Mr. Boehner said that the president has gotten his tax increases, now we need spending cuts, does the sequester now qualify as those cuts? Did we just open up a can of worms? Maybe we should see what happens. When Mr. Gregory asked John Boehner about closing loopholes, he responded by saying that the President got his increases - meaning that revenue is now off the table. But thirty seconds later, Mr. Boehner said that closing tax loopholes is part of the solution. His catch is that overall tax rates need to be lowered for everyone but unsaid is the broadening the base part, which means people in poverty will have to start paying taxes on any income they get, no matter how small. It's all this unsaid minutiae that you have to sift through to understand why things aren't getting done. And not to discourage you further but it's disheartening to hear the Speaker say that he doesn't think anyone understands how to resolve this impasse of noncooperation in Washington.
Before we get to the discussion of the Voting Rights Act, there is one last thing we need to say as it relates to Mr. Boehner's views on taxes, spending, the sequester, everything. On today's program when Mr. Gregory challenged the Speaker on the philosophy that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, he said there were mountains of evidence to prove it. The example he cited was when Ronald Reagan did it in 1981. Whether you believe in that philosophy or not, what deeply concerns us is the willingness to consciously ignore the other side of the equation that President Reagan, as Mr. Gregory pointed out, raised taxes, eleven times in fact. To acknowledge this hurts the Republican brand as Kathleen Parker pointed out on tax increases, but it ignores a historically recorded truth. That whole exchange with Mr. Boehner just seemed like an example of willingness to mislead to serve a narrower agenda.
By extension, Mr. Boehner also said that he thought the Voting Rights Act has served as effective legislation, but that there is one small part that the court is considering. It is NOT small nor inconsequential. Section 5 is what is being challenged. From Justice.org:
Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.
The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.
Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.
Basically, it singles out some states who have had a history of suppressing the vote because of race, color, language minority, and stipulates that they need federal approval before changing any voting laws. Justice Scalia's much publicize comment that this was the perpetuation of a racial entitlement was completely ignorant, one worthy of censure, especially in light of certain states mentioned in Section 5 who tried to employ new voting restrictions in this last election. Our question is this: Elections have national consequences, federal implications, so why single out those states when maybe it should just say all states? There should be federal enforcement to ensure voting rights of minorities and everyone in every state, no?
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); columnist for the Washington Post Kathleen Parker; Managing Editor of TheGrio.com Joy Reid; NBC Chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd and NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)