OBAMA AND LGBT RIGHTS: Disappointing his LGBT supporters, President Obama decided not to sign an executive order that would have banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation among contractors who do business with the federal government. The executive order was thought to be a second-best to a broader non-discrimination bill that has been stalled in Congress for years; the executive order would be a way for the President to move to fight anti-gay employment discrimination without waiting for Congress. It is not entirely clear why the Administration backed away from the executive order. A spokesman reemphasized the President’s support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), but offered no greater explanation. Advocates who met with the White House got the impression that the Administration was extremely wary of being seen putting any new “regulations” on businesses before the election. The move comes as Obama is facing another impending decision on gay rights, namely, whether to support a move to include a marriage equality plank in this year’s Democratic Party platform. Four former DNC chairs have called for such a plank, joining 22 senators who have called for its inclusion as well. Obama has not yet taken a stance on it, and has said only that his position on gay marriage is “evolving.” It’s a position Greg Sargent points out is largely untenable: Either way Obama moves will look like political opportunism, especially since most people know that he does support marriage equality and has been unable to say so publicly because of political constraints. Whatever happens this year, it seems clear that the Democratic nominee for 2016 will almost certainly support full marriage equality, representing enormous progress over a relatively short period of time.
ROMNEY’S WOMAN PROBLEM: In what appears to be a bizarrely effective piece of messaging from the Democratic Party (yes, you read that right: effective messaging from the Democratic Party), everyone these days is talking about the GOP’s “war on women.” It’s been effective because it is hard to deny: After campaigning on a Tea Party agenda of jobs and deficit reduction, the newly-elected Republican state legislators promptly set their sights on a massive and unprecedented roll-back abortion rights and de-funding women’s health centers. The national party has been on the same track, introducing among other things a bill that would have allowed any employer to refuse to cover a woman’s birth control if he found it morally objectionable. Mitt Romney, as the GOP nominee, is now saddled with these deeply unpopular positions -- though he hasn’t done himself any favors, explicitly endorsing the Blunt Amendment, declaring he’ll “get rid of” Planned Parenthood, and enthusiastically supporting a constitutional amendment that would declare that life begins at conception. Unsurprisingly, Romney has a woman problem: A Washington Post/ABC poll this week showed him losing to Obama among women by 19 points. That echoes an earlier poll of voters in swing states, showing Obama with an 18 point lead among women. In response, Romney this week has tried to turn the tables on Obama, insisting that it is the President who is waging a “war on women,” specifically by failing to create more jobs. (Unfortunately for Romney, his campaign fumbled the rollout of this new line of attack pretty terribly.) Romney declared repeatedly this week that “92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women.” Wow, that sounds pretty bad. It is bad -- but it’s so misleading it may as well be a lie. Kevin Drum has a handy chart detailing why this is a bogus claim, but the bottom line is that where you start counting makes all the difference: This number can only be arrived at by starting to count job losses at January 2009, long after the recession began (but long before Obama’s stimulus started to take effect). Ben White explains: “The bulk of all job losses under Obama took place in the early months of 2009 before the president’s policies took effect. They were the last of the over 8 million jobs vaporized by the housing bubble burst, financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession. That these losses happened during the early months of Obama’s presidency and not under George W. Bush is simply a quirk of the calendar not the result of any actual policy.” What’s more, most of these job losses Romney is highlighting have been public sector job losses, which have accounted for nearly four-fifths of all jobs lost since Obama took office. That’s sort of important context, Catherine Rampell writes: “In other words, the ax falls predominantly on women when governments shrink, a trend that many Republicans (including Mr. Romney) have endorsed. The main way to stem these state and local job losses is to give more federal money to the states, a policy that Democrats (including the president) have been supporting and Republicans haven’t.” And let’s not forget that the Romney/Ryan budget plan would disproportionately harm women. (Bonus reading: ThinkProgress reminds us that Romney surrounds himself with unabashedly sexist/anti-woman surrogates.)
CHECKING IN ON THE WACKOS: You are probably aware that, of the many, many crazies on the Right, a few of them are serving in real positions of power. We got a few reminders of that fact this week. First, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) threw in her lot with birtherism. “I have doubts that it is really his real birth certificate, and I think a lot of Americans do,” she told a supportive audience. And she’s not the only out-and-proud Birther traipsing the halls of Congress. Last month, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) evinced similar skepticism about Obama’s birth certificate. “The question is, is it legitimate?” he asked a room of his constituents. Birtherism wasn’t the only way-out fringe talk going on this week. Rep. Alan West (R-FL) -- who has been promoted by the Tea Party as their top choice vice presidential pick -- told supporters this week that he “heard” there are “about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party that are members of the Communist Party.” He was dead serious. “No, they actually don’t hide it,” he continued. “It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.” Yes, the Progressive Caucus, calling for such radical ideas as Clinton-era tax rates and cutting the deficit by $5 trillion, should be grouped in with Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Republican Joe Scarborough, for one, was outraged, urging all fellow Republicans to refuse to contribute to West’s reelection campaign until he apologizes. Besides Scarborough, though, it’s been mostly crickets in terms of GOP condemnation. For his part, West has doubled down on the accusation. Our final stop on the Cuckoo Train takes us to Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who this week entertained the idea of impeaching the President and called Obama “a complete menace to our civilization.” Steve Benen notes that Akin is hardly alone in toying with specious impeachment threats.
CONNECTICUT REPEALS THE DEATH PENALTY: This week, the Connecticut legislature voted to repeal the death penalty and replace it with life without parole. The repeal bill passed the Senate 20-16 and the House 86-62, and now awaits the signature of Gov. Dannel Malloy, who has promised to sign it. Connecticut becomes the fifth state in five years to abolish the death penalty, although the repeal bill is prospective only, meaning that it exempts the 11 men who are currently on death row and who will, presumably, be executed at some point. The repeal is obviously a cause for celebration, though the debate revealed just how deeply the spirit of vengeance and dehumanization has penetrated our ideas about criminal justice. “Going forward,” Gov. Malloy said, “we will have a system that allows us to put these people away for life, in living conditions none of us would want to experience. Let’s throw away the key and have them spend the rest of their natural lives in jail.” It is important to note that life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) -- also known as a “death in prison” sentence -- is extremely harsh as well. And it sets the U.S. apart: LWOP has been ruled unconstitutional in Germany, France, and Italy, and it is hardly ever imposed in the United Kingdom. In 2008, more than 41,000 people were serving life without parole sentences in the United States; a recent estimate put the figure at 23 in the U.K. That’s disturbing enough, without even noting that the U.S. is virtually alone in sentencing children to death in prison.
Some Things to Read: I didn’t feel like writing about this more in depth this week, but the Buffett Rule is in the news and the Democrats will be pounding this issue for as long as possible. So make sure you understand what it’s about (and even if you think you do, you probably don’t know the details, so click that link!). And Jon Chait knows that the fight is more political than substantive -- this isn’t going to solve our deficit in one fell swoop -- but emphasizes that it’s a really important fight anyway.
Cool Things of the Week: Check out this tax fairness calculator that lets you adjust tax brackets and rates to see their effect. Similarly, the White House has put out this nifty “Buffett Rule Calculator,” which tells you exactly how many millionaires are paying a lower effective tax rate than you are. (More than 5,000 are paying a lower rate than I am!)
Fun Video of the Week: Jon Stewart on Easter vs. Passover.
No comments:
Post a Comment