Cowardly Senate

Same old nonsense this past week with the Senate voting against universal background checks.  A policy that had 90% public support.  Well done, Senate.

VAWA Passes House Despite Some Republican Opposition

Last week the House finally passed the Violence Against Women Act, which the Senate had passed earlier.  The Republicans in the House had been holding up this legislation for quite some time.  Speaker Boehner finally brought the Senate version of the bill to the floor for a vote and it passed 286-138, winning over 199 Democrats and 87 Republicans.

The Republicans had proposed their own version of VAWA, which did not include the same protections for LGBT, Native Americans living on reservations or undocumented women.  It would create extra steps for Native women that are brutalized on reservations to find justice.  It would also create very strict guidelines for undocumented victims.  LGBT families would not be included in the protections.

Megan Whittemore, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said, “The House is expected to take up a strong Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization...so we can protect all women from acts of violence and help law enforcement prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law.”  Apparently she thinks excluding certain groups from protection constitutes "all women."

This is why it was really no shock when Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) admitted that she opposed VAWA because it granted protections to those groups. 

When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up. 

Watch here:

Ah, I see.  If only we used the money to open new crisis centers and shelters, maybe on reservations, she would support it.  And then there is that bit about diluting the money that goes to the existing shelters, so she probably wouldn't want new shelters being opened either.  The only way I read her comments is that she is upset that these extra provisions are taking away money from women in her district, her predominately white district.  If she was truly about protecting women, adding more groups of women to protect would not be a problem for her.

I won't even touch how she seems to oppose an "against violence act."

These groups do need protection just as much as any women in America do.  If a lesbian is the victim of domestic violence does she not deserve justice?  Does an immigrant deserve justice?

There is currently an epidemic of sexual assaults on Native American reservations.  This is why it was so important for this provision to be included.  While it's estimated that 1 out of 6 American women will be raped and/or sexually assaulted in her lifetime, more than 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in her lifetime.  And 80% of rapes on reservations are committed by non-natives.  This creates many legal hurdles for reservation authorities.  Only Federal authorities can prosecute crimes on tribal lands.  This means that many rapes are not reported.

An NPR investigation also revealed a system underfunded and often broken: a tribal health center inadequately staffed and without rape kits to collect DNA from victims; tribal leaders and Native police unable to prosecute non-native perpetrators; and a patchwork of confusing jurisdictions in which federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement intersect and clash with each other.

Progress Kentucky vs. Mitch McConnell

The battle for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat has been heating up lately and the election isn't for a year and a half!  There is a lot of talk about Ashley Judd running against him and she could actually have a shot.  Senator McConnell's poll numbers are not the greatest right now.  He has the worst numbers of any serving Senator with only 37% approval and 55% disapproval among Kentucky voters.  A poll was done of potential match ups for the 2014 race and Ashley Judd has the closest race, probably a lot to do with name recognition.

If the candidates for Senate in 2014 were
Republican Mitch McConnell and Democrat
Ashley Judd, who would you vote for?
Mitch McConnell ............................................. 47%
Ashley Judd .................................................... 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 10%

Progress Kentucky, a progressive group, has been hammering Sen. McConnell on outsourcing.  They have dedicated themselves to unseating Sen. McConnell.  

He is married to former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao who is of Chinese decent.  She was born in Taiwan after her family fled the mainland during the Chinese Civil War.  On February 14th, Progress Kentucky stepped over the line when they released the following tweet suggesting that it is McConnell's wife's fault that jobs have moved overseas.

This woman has the ear of @mcconnellpress — she’s his #wife.May explain why your job moved to #China! rense.com/general77/raci…

— Progress Kentucky (@ProgressKy) February 14, 2013

This is way over the line, not to mention completely ridiculous.  She served as Secretary of Labor for the United States, not China.  I am sure she is not trying to get her husband to move jobs to China.

Progress Kentucky spokesman Curtis Morrison said on the issue: “It’s not an official statement. It’s a Tweet. And we will remove it if it’s wrong.” Almost two weeks went by and it had not been taken down. That's when ThinkProgress got involved.  Pressed to retract their tweet and issue an apology, Progress Kentucky had this to say: “Senator Mitch McConnell has a conflict of interest that many are afraid to talk about, and Progress Kentucky is not.”  His wife's heritage is not a conflict of interest.  It is an interesting anecdote on the American Dream, nothing more.

Progress Kentucky has finally issued an apology, according to ThinkProgress, yesterday.

Progress Kentucky, you're better than this.  You are a progressive group and progressives hate when things like this happen.  If it was American's for Prosperity or any other conservative group that posted something this stupid, you would have been all over them immediately.  You're liberals.  And Liberals should hold themselves to a higher standard on things like this.  Practice what you preach.  I oppose Sen. McConnell too, of course, but there are much better ways to make your point than that.

Congratulations, Secretary Hagel

After a confirmation process marred by petty politics and a historic filibuster, Chuck Hagel has been confirmed by the Senate to be our next Secretary of Defense.

(Photo: The Washington Post)

He will no doubt be busy right away with the potential defense cuts in the sequester.  Also, the drawing down of troops in Afghanistan will present its own challenges.  

I was also glad to see that Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) voted to confirm Hagel.  Johanns replaced Hagel as senator for Nebraska when Hagel didn't run for re-election.  Johanns was Governor of Nebraska when Hagel was Senator.  I'd guess that gave him a unique perspective on Hagel.

Mike Johanns Leaving the Senate

Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) has announced today that he will not be seeking re-election in 2014.  In a letter to Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, he wrote:

At the end of this term, we will have been in public service over 32 years. Between the two of us, we have been on the ballot for primary and general elections 16 times and we have served in eight offices. It is time to close this chapter of our lives.

The "we" is Johanns and his wife.  

Before his election to the Senate, Senator Johanns served two terms as Nebraska's governor and then became President George W. Bush's Secretary of Agriculture.  

I think this will make it a very interesting primary season in the next election cycle.  I would be surprised if now Attorney General Jon Bruning does not get into the race early.  Many thought it was "his turn" last election cycle when now Senator Deb Fischer beat him in the primary.  Nebraska State Treasurer Don Stenberg is expected to run again in 2014 and Congressman Jeff Fortenberry's name is being mentioned as well.

It is still very early, of course.  The ink on Sen. Johanns' letter is hardly dry.

Lindsey Graham's Unserious Proposal

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has come up with a great idea to save money and avoid the sequestration: cut the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, has helped millions of young people by allowing them to have coverage they would not otherwise have had.  This law also helps poorer Americans.  It helps the single mom that has to work three part-time jobs to make ends meet, none of which would provide her health insurance coverage.  Likewise, the sequester would also disproportionately impact the poorer end of the population.  So essentially, Sen. Graham wants the President to choose between hurting the poor by eliminating Obamacare or hurting the poor by forcing Republicans to force the sequester.

This is a ridiculous choice Sen. Graham is proposing.

The White House has released a Fact Sheet on how the sequester will affect people and the economy should Congress allow March 1st to pass without addressing the issue.  With people like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Speaker John Boehner on the case, I would not be surprised if the sequester happens.

Here are some of the impacts the sequester would have: via WhiteHouse.gov

• Cuts to education: Our ability to teach our kids the skills they’ll need for the jobs of the future would be put at risk. 70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teacher jobs would be put at risk, and funding for up to 7,200 special education teachers, aides, and staff could be cut.

• Cuts to mental health: If a sequester takes effect, up to 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children could go untreated. This would likely lead to increased hospitalizations, involvement in the criminal justice system, and homelessness for these individuals.

• Cuts to food safety: Outbreaks of foodborne illness are a serious threat to families and public health. If a sequester takes effect, up to 2,100 fewer food inspections could occur, putting families at risk and costing billions in lost food production.

• FBI and other law enforcement – The FBI and other law enforcement entities would see a reduction in capacity equivalent to more than 1,000 Federal agents. This loss of agents would significantly impact our ability to combat violent crime, pursue financial crimes, secure our borders, and protect national security.

• Emergency responders – FEMA would need to reduce funding for State and local grants that support firefighter positions and State and local emergency management personnel, hampering our ability to respond to natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy and other emergencies.

• Homelessness programs – More than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, would be removed from their current housing and emergency shelter programs, putting them at risk of returning to the streets.

• AIDS and HIV treatment and prevention – Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could result in 7,400 fewer patients having access to life saving HIV medications. And approximately 424,000 fewer HIV tests could be conducted by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) State grantees, which could result in increased future HIV transmissions, deaths from HIV, and costs in health care.

All of these programs contribute to a stronger society. It doesn't make sense to cut these before cutting the inflated Defense budget.

Why Are Republicans Against Education?

In the State of the Union, President Obama proposed a plan to send every four-year-old to preschool.  Now Republicans are attacking him for it.  More making fun of him than attacking.  I don't understand what they have against education.

Charles Krauthammer on Fox News this week had this to say:

From losers, the four-year-olds of America. Here they are jumping around, laughing, screaming, having a great time and Obama wants them all to go to school. Every single one, right away. And why? To prepare them for the high-tech economy of the future. Can’t wait until the age of five – no siree.

We can’t let the Chinese four-year-olds be working on solar panels and cars that run on algae while our four-year-olds are lollying around doing nothing. We’re number one, we got to stay that way. The four-year-olds of America better shape up!

Have a good day kids.

But we're not number one, nor even close to it.  

The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics.

"This is an absolute wake-up call for America," U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told The Associated Press.  

Education is so important and the Republicans laugh it off.  It's no wonder our education rankings with the rest o the world continue to fall.  They just don't care.  This same type of proposal for universal preschool was proposed in 1971 by Senator Mondale.  He wanted everyone to have the ability to send their child to preschool. His bill passed the Senate only to be vetoed by President Nixon. He called it “communal approaches to child rearing.”

Better education in this country should be a priority for both parties.  It is the one issue that directly impacts all the rest.  It is the best chance a person has to move up in the world.  There are countless examples of people growing up in poverty and breaking out.  These stories almost always involve their educational achievements.  

Are they afraid they would lose voters if people were better educated?  If not that, why are they against education?

Friday Shakedown

History was made yesterday when Senate Republicans filibustered Chuck Hagel's nomination for Secretary of Defense.  A President's nomination of a cabinet secretary has never been filibustered before.  Sometimes they will not win the confirmation vote but this isn't even being brought to a vote.  The filibuster is out of control and Harry Reid lost his chance to fix it.

Wayne LaPierre continued making a fool of himself to rational people while stroking his base yesterday.

After the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act, Speaker Boehner "might" consider bringing it to a vote in the House.  How considerate of him.

VAWA Passes in Senate 78-22

The Violence Against Women Act has passed in the Senate despite Republican efforts to dismantle different portions of the bill.  Sen. Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) sponsored amendments to remove protections for Native American, undocumented, and LGBT victims.  As if they were not worth protecting.  Are they not people too?  If their spouse hits them, do they not bruise?

Here are the smiling faces of those that voted against continuing programs to help women affected by domestic violence.

The Senators who voted agains the bill are:

John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Thune (S.D.) and Tim Scott (S.C.).

I'm sad to see that one of my Senators voted against the bill.


Image via ThinkProgress

Secretary Kerry!

John Kerry was confirmed by the Senate today as the new Secretary of State.  He has some big shoes to fill.

From 12/3/2012

President Obama On Republican Obstructionism

The President sat down with The New Republic and this happened during the interview:

Franklin Foer: When you talk about Washington, oftentimes you use it as a way to describe this type of dysfunction. But it’s a very broad brush. It can seem as if you’re apportioning blame not just to one party, but to both parties—

Well, no, let me be clear. There’s not a—there’s no equivalence there. In fact, that’s one of the biggest problems we’ve got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. And so the default position for reporting is to say, “A plague on both their houses.” On almost every issue, it’s, “Well, Democrats and Republicans can’t agree”—as opposed to looking at why is it that they can’t agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?  

And I want to be very clear here that Democrats, we’ve got a lot of warts, and some of the bad habits here in Washington when it comes to lobbyists and money and access really goes to the political system generally. It’s not unique to one party. But when it comes to certain positions on issues, when it comes to trying to do what’s best for the country, when it comes to really trying to make decisions based on fact as opposed to ideology, when it comes to being willing to compromise, the Democrats, not just here in this White House, but I would say in Congress also, have shown themselves consistently to be willing to do tough things even when it’s not convenient, because it’s the right thing to do. And we haven’t seen that same kind of attitude on the other side.

Until Republicans feel that there’s a real price to pay for them just saying no and being obstructionist, you’ll probably see at least a number of them arguing that we should keep on doing it. It worked for them in the 2010 election cycle, and I think there are those who believe that it can work again. I disagree with them, and I think the cost to the country has been enormous.

He said that much nicer than was really necessary, but he is correct.  

The Facts About The "Liberal" Agenda

Since the election, the right is in a tizzy over how "partisan" President Obama's inauguration speech was.

"One thing is clear from the president's speech: The era of liberalism is back. His unabashedly far-left-of-center inaugural speech certainly brings back memories of the Democratic Party in ages past," McConnell said. "If the president pursued that kind of agenda, obviously it's not designed to bring us together, and certainly not designed to deal with the transcendent issue of our era, which is deficits and debt."

The Senator is correct, these are usually considered more liberal goals but the world is changing.  People in this country do not agree with him anymore and there is polling to prove that.

This shows that the President was not divisive and partisan at all, he was unifying and speaking to the people's issues.  That is what a good president should do, Senator.

Picture courtesy of ThinkProgress