Business friendly regulation

I haven't left yet and I'm nearly packed (though the suitcase, while under limit, is heavy). So perhaps I'll clean out a backlog of articles before I go.

First, a little image of my upcoming trip. This photo is from Wikipedia and is an aerial shot of Venice. The tallest spire is the bell tower at St. Mark's Cathedral.

Terrence Heath describes one reason why the power isn't back on in some Mid-Atlantic states. He lives outside Washington, DC and his post is about PEPCO, the electric utility for his area. He was fortunate -- he and his family left for vacation the day after the power went out and didn't have to endure five sweltering days waiting for it to come back on. Heath lists these contributing factors:

* About six years ago the GOP governor of Maryland filled the Public Service Commission with cronies, which "lobotomized" it. PEPCO was left accountable to no one.

* Because there was no accountability PEPCO was rated last in reliability -- power was interrupted more frequently and stayed off longer compared to other power companies. PEPCO stopped participating in these surveys.

* PEPCO has a tax rate of minus 57% (better than that for GE). The gov't pays PEPCO. Even so, PEPCO collects taxes from its customers.

* PEPCO found a little known regulation that allows it to recoup expenses for electricity it didn't sell when usage drops. Translation: in an outage the customer pays anyway. PEPCO gets paid whether it delivers electricity or not. There is no incentive to fix outages or upgrade equipment.

Heath says:

So, to recap, we have have a government-subsidized, untaxed, virtually unregulated, corporate monopoly (rather than a city utility) that has no real incentive to reduce outages or downtime, because (a) there’s nowhere else for its customers to go for electricity, and (b) they get paid whether they’re supplying us with power or not.

I guess that’s business friendly regulation for ya.

There is a glimmer of hope for Heath and residents in the area. Maryland now has a Democrat governor, who has replaced the members of the Public Service Commission. These new members are now paying very close attention to PEPCO.

I'll wave a rainbow flag with you

Paul Singer is a billionaire and a top GOP fundraiser. But he has started something rare in GOP circles -- he has started a Super PAC to push for marriage equality. This is partly in honor of his gay son who is married. The sole purpose of the PAC is to encourage GOP candidates to support marriage equality, partly by compensating them for Fundie blowback. This allows candidates who are close to actually proclaim their support.

Alas, he is also a big Romney fan.



A marriage protection amendment on the ballot in Minnesota has prompted progressive Christians to finally speak to blunt the Fundie voices. Pastors are speaking and getting their congregations to agree. This even included the Minnesota Conference of the United Methodist Church overwhelmingly approving a resolution against the amendment.



Mormons are showing up at Gay Pride events and not just in Salt Lake City (as I mentioned earlier). Yesterday it was in DC. They're not trying to condemn or push ex-gay ministries and they aren't worried about supporting sin. They are simply saying, "I'll wave a rainbow flag with you." Yeah, some people don't trust this kind of outreach. But this is a much better message than the last time Mormons organized around a gay issue.



I've noted that Obama's change of stance on marriage equality has prompted a shift in the poll numbers, especially in Black communities. Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin thinks there might be another reason at work. A couple years ago DC legalized gay marriage. Now Black residents of the city can see photos of Black gay and lesbian couples getting married and those people look happy. It is about family.

Washington Wedding Bells

Foes of gay marriage in Washington DC asked Chief Justice John Roberts to prevent the city's law from taking effect. The complaint is the voters didn't get a chance to decide and their anti-gay views weren't sufficiently aired. Roberts declined to intervene (gosh! he did something right!) saying:

* Local courts rejected the anti-gay arguments (they said votes on human rights issues are not permitted).

* Congress could have stepped in to overturn the new law and didn't.

That means DC has started issuing marriage licenses to gays and the happy couples can start getting married there next week.

Related efforts: Bill Moyers interviews the lawyers in the marriage case in Calif. It includes a good debunking of the tyranny of the majority. If the public has the right to vote on anything and everything and majority rules there is no need for a constitution.

Here is the final plaintiff (pro-gay) filing in the Calif. gay marriage case, summarizing all of their testimony. It's close to 300 pages. I haven't read it.

The District is giving Maryland fits

Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the DC Marriage Equality Bill! He held the signing ceremony in a Unitarian Church and remarked that when his own parents were married -- one black, one white -- many states would not have recognized it. Cool photo on this site. Yes, Congress can overrule it the next 30 days and GOP congresscritters are on record as wanting to do just that, but it is likely Reid and Pelosi won't let the subject come up.

A contagious lack of backbone

New Jersey Dems are wimping out over a vote for gay marriage. But they are acting like scared herd animals. The vote in NJ was supposed to be routine. Legislators said wait until after the election and we'll vote for marriage no matter the outcome. It's a promise. It seems the failure of the marriage vote in Maine scared them off. But perhaps if NJ had approved gay marriage first the vote in Maine may have gone the other way.

Some prominent Dems in NJ are trying to rally the troops. In November a GOP governor was elected and he has vowed to veto any marriage bill. If it is to become law it must be in this lame-duck session. There is still hope.

For the last several days the New York Senate has been on the verge of voting on gay marriage during their "emergency session." The Assembly even passed it a second time (bills must pass both houses during the emergency session) to avoid delays. Finally, they cleared other business and debated. A lot of senators said some encouraging things in the debate.

They voted. And came eight votes short. From what I can piece together, there were supposed to be 3 GOP votes in favor, giving enough votes to overcome two reluctant Dems. But one senator, who had been seen as a gay advocate, voted no early in the process, a serious defection. That gave the 3 GOP senators and several more Dems the cover they needed to vote no as well.

Ton Duane, the Dem senator pushing hardest for the marriage bill, was shaken by the rebuff and betrayal. He commented, "Unfortunately, I think there was a contagious lack of backbone that occurred here today." Ya think? Duane had previously predicted that the vote would be based on politics, not on righting a wrong. But some good came out of it. Such a debate and vote would have been impossible 5 years ago. This time many senators said some very nice things from the floor of the Senate.

There will be gay backlash. It started with a Times Square rally. A second rally was held in Union Square and featured many of the senators who had voted yes. Then there were prominent postings of the eight Dems who voted no, complete with email addresses. Along with that was analysis that several of these guys were unopposed in their primary and readily voted in at the general election. They will definitely have challengers during the next election cycle.

In the meantime the District of Columbia City Council voted for gay marriage by a margin of 11-2. This is the 1st of 2 votes. The next vote is in a couple weeks and the mayor has said he'll sign.

National Organization of Marriage responded by saying the citizens of DC have a God-given right to vote on marriage. Oh? Chapter and verse, please. Or Article of the Constitution. Voters did exercise that right -- by voting for a city council that favors gay marriage.

We're not going to let a pesky amendment stop us

Even though Wisconsin passed a marriage protection amendment in 2006 that also banned civil unions, the legislature has passed a domestic partnership registry. They feel they can get away with it because, unlike marriage, a DP registration doesn't require a license nor a ceremony. The law provides for inheritance rights, employment and wrongful death benefits, and rights of joint property. The bill isn't on the governor's desk yet because the DP provisions are part of a budget bill and that needs to go through a reconciling process first.


The DC City Council has approved recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. As expected, opponents sought to hold a referendum to overturn it. The DC Board of Elections refused to allow the referendum because if it passed it would authorize discrimination. The BoE said holding the vote would violate their Human Rights Act.

Naturally, a suit against the ruling was filed immediately.

Expect allowing gays to marry in DC by the end of the year.

The hits now coming in bunches

Washington!
An improved Domestic Partner bill (marriage except in name) is about to be signed into law in Washington State. Yup, efforts are underway to overturn it through a citizen referendum. Though a few of the anti-gay crowd want to make "a statement of belief" they are denouncing the attempt at a referendum. Say what? Joe Fuiten of the Family Policy Institute gives these reasons (according to The Stranger):

The referendum would be rejected by voters, the last signature-gathering effort failed, people don't care about taking away gay rights, people don't have the money for the fight, and the group is afraid to look like out-of-touch bigots.

Out-of-touch bigots? That never stopped them before. It's good to hear it does now. It is also good to hear the effort will fail and that Fuiten recognizes that.


Maine!
The legislature has passed and the governor has signed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. This is the 5th state to enact it, and the 2nd to do so without a court order. Governor John Baldacci is the first governor to approve such a bill (it became law in Vermont through a veto override). This article describes Baldacci's change of heart -- he used to think civil unions were enough. The bill contains explicit language that says religious institutions cannot be forced to perform marriages they disapprove. Opponents have a limited time to get a huge number of signatures to force a voter referendum.


District of Columbia!
DC has taken the second vote to approve a district law to recognize gay marriages from other states. Congress has 30 days to decide if they want to overturn it. One Mormon congressman from Utah is ready to do just that. So much for the hope that Congress will simply ignore the new law. But Pelosi is quite willing to let DC do what it wants -- Congress can't intervene in New York, why should it in DC?

No need to go out of your way

I wrote yesterday about the District of Columbia's preliminary vote to recognize gay marriages from other states. Follow the link to get a more complete understanding of the process. The key point is that Congress must go out of its way to affirm or block a vote by the DC City Council. The president must also sign it. With the current makeup of government it is unlikely they will overrule this one. Another possibility is that the DC City Council plays politics -- approving the new law just before the Congressional summer recess. The law stands if Congress doesn't act in 30 days.

Testing the waters

While Vermont was getting a lot of attention for legalizing gay marriage the District of Columbia took an important step. The city council took a preliminary vote to permit recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The official vote will come next month. This is why it is important: Congress has 30 days after the official vote to override it. Overrides don't happen all that often, but there is precedent. Congress could do nothing, or they could use it as an opportunity to say they are (or aren't) willing to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. D.C. isn't about to approve gay marriages being performed there, only recognizing marriages performed elsewhere.