There's a job opening

Did you happen to notice that a week ago Kevin McCarthy withdrew from campaigning for Speaker of the House of Representatives and nobody has stepped forward to ask for the job? There's a reason for that.

The Tea Party members of the House now call themselves the Freedom Caucus. They have 40 members and maybe a hundred admirers – members who don't want to make a scene yet know their constituents want them to vote the same way as the Freedom Caucus. That means there aren't enough other Republicans to get a vote for Speaker through the House.

The Freedom Caucus says they want to be heard by the leadership. But in their proposal for "more democracy" they include a list of demands. If a candidate for Speaker won't commit to these demands the Freedom Caucus refuses to vote for him. Their demands include a cut in welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs comparable to the coming increase in the debt limit, and a removal of funding for Planned Parenthood from all budget bills. Failure to meet their demands and they threaten to shut down the government and let gov't debt default.

So, yeah, nobody wants the job of Speaker. I've heard that might give John Boehner an opening to stay in the job. He had been coddling the Freedon Caucus because he was afraid they would force him out of the job of Speaker. But he has already resigned. He may have room to ignore the Freedom Caucus and craft deals with Democrats. Kick me out? Go right ahead.

Recognition

There are two marriage cases from Michigan. The famous one is about same-sex couples' right to marry. It had a big trial last March with a favorable outcome, was overturned by the 6th Circuit, and is now before the Supremes. When that big announcement came out last March about 300 couples got married before the 6th Circuit issued a stay. Shortly after that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder proclaimed those 300 marriages are legal, but the state won't recognize them or provide any benefits (taxes, joint ownership, adoption, etc.). Eight couples sued for recognition, becoming the second case.

Last month a federal district judge ruled the state must recognize those marriages. A three-week stay was added to the ruling, giving the state time to appeal. That time is almost up and... Snyder will not appeal. Yay!

All the news reports I've seen highlight the words of Snyder. Conspicuously absent are words from Attorney General Bill Schuette. It was Schuette who wrote the Free Press editorial whining how he just had to support the rule of law and take that first case all the way to the Supremes. So did Snyder knock some sense into Shuette's head?

Gary Glenn, our nemesis who wrote Michigan's 2004 Marriage Protection Amendment and is now a member of the Michigan House, is pissed at Snyder. He's calling on Snyder to do what Schuette claimed must be done.

Between the Lines is reporting that arguing the marriage case before the Supremes will cost $1 million – and that's with the lawyers doing all their work for free. The cost includes such things as filing all the legal documents with the court, putting on mock trials so their brief time in front of the Supremes goes well, and getting advice and assistance from constitutional law experts. A group renamed itself from Michigan Marriage Challenge to National Marriage Challenge to raise money to meet those expenses.

In other marriage news...

The 11th Circuit has denied an extension of the stay in the Alabama case. The Supremes have until Monday to intervene. Otherwise marriages begin. The 11th Circuit has also put the Alabama and Florida cases on hold until the Supremes rule on the Michigan case.

The 8th Circuit has agreed to combine and expedite the marriage cases from Arkansas, Missouri, and South Dakota. Oral arguments are scheduled for mid May.

When the Defense of Marriage Act went before the Supremes John Boehner and GOP colleagues in the House spent $2 million to help defend it when Obama said he wouldn't. The Supremes ruled in our favor in June of 2013, which provided the legal framework for the mountain of same-sex marriage rulings that have come since. Now that marriage itself is before the Supremes Boehner and colleagues have announced they will sit this one out. That is great to hear. Haven't heard yet what their base thinks of that.

Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, and... !

The Supremes issued a great piece of news today. They had seven marriage equality cases before them – and denied to review all of them. No explanation was given. I took a look at the order document. It is 89 pages. A good chunk of it – pages 8 to perhaps 60 – is a long list of cases that were not accepted for review. I think I heard 2,000 cases arrive at the Supreme Court every year and they have time to hear maybe 40 of them.

That means the same-sex marriage issue goes back to the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuit Courts and all of them had previously ruled in our favor. They are, at various speeds now removing the stays that prevented same-sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Quite an important non-decision by the Supremes.

The next question is how, or perhaps how soon, does marriage equality come to the other states in those circuits? The affected states are:

4th Circuit: North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia (Maryland already has equality).

5th Circuit: (Illinois already has equality)

10 Circuit: Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming (New Mexico already has equality)

According to Ari Ezra Waldman of Towleroad an additional step is needed to bring equality to these six states. The attorney general or governor of the state could say that since their Circuit Court is about to issue an order, we might as well start allowing same-sex marriages. Or they could wait for the actual order. Or they could be defiant – and as soon as a same-sex couple was denied a license the resulting lawsuit would be resolved swiftly.

Waldman also supplies some meaning to these denials:

* If a majority of the Supremes were against equality they would have taken one of the cases. So the Supremes are saying indirectly they are on our side.

* Since there is no split decisions between circuits there is no need for the Supremes to get involved, so they won't.

* C'mon, 6th Circuit, we dare you to be that dissenting voice! The 6th Circuit equality cases – including Michigan's case – were heard two months ago but no ruling given. Is the 6th Circuit waiting for the Supremes? Well...

The reaction:

Virginia: We're ready to go! The state AG was one who declined to defend the ban in court.

Wisconsin: A couple counties will issue licenses. AG: We made every effort to defend the ban, but we'll support same-sex marriage now. Gov: We'll evaluate the impact and determine next steps. He sounds mighty reluctant.

Oklahoma and Utah: The 10th Circuit has lifted the stays.

The Oklahoma governor is pouting that with this ruling human rights trump states rights.

The Mormon leaders say alright, fine, but God only accepts man-woman marriages.

Indiana: The clerk for Marion County has started issuing licenses. The urgency is over so we won't offer immediate civil ceremonies.

Colorado: We're just waiting for formalities to be resolved and then we'll start issuing licenses.

North Carolina: ACLU is getting ready to ask a federal judge to strike down the state's ban.

South Carolina: AG is defiant: We will fight on to protect marriage until there is an actual ruling against our ban!

Kansas: As in North Carolina, the ACLU will prod things along.

Marriages have indeed begun in all five states named in the lawsuits. And some clerks in Colorado aren't waiting for the formalities.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage has issued his screech and condemnation of the Supremes – if you really need to read it. A leader of the Southern Baptist Convention warns members that even though this doesn't have the "shock and awe" of a ruling, it is still momentous. Is this a white flag?

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is in a snit, complaining of the worst judicial activism. But, Ted, wasn't it only 3 months ago you were praising the Supremes for their Hobby Lobby decision? It seems, though, that he and Utah Senator Mike Lee are the only two GOP senators who had anything to say. The rest of the party is quite silent. Perhaps John Boehner is too busy – he's in San Diego raising money for a gay GOP congressional candidate. As for the rest, perhaps they're disappointed the issue isn't over – there's still 20 states to deal with.

A judge in Missouri ruled last Friday that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Since Missouri borders Iowa, Oklahoma, and Illinois, all now offering same-sex weddings, the AG has decided not to appeal this decision. How soon will the wedding business in Missouri be clamoring for a piece of the action?

Alas, delving into more of the analysis and reaction that's out there will have to wait for another day.

Religious beliefs v. law

There are couple of GOP candidates for the US House, who happen to be gay. Should the party support them? There are a few, such as Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia who essentially say, "Hell no!" He would rather the seat go to a Democrat than a gay Republican. But John Boehner says that if a candidate, gay or straight, wins the nomination the NRCC will support them. One step in the right direction. But don't look for changes in GOP policies towards us.



Almost 18 months ago the owner of a Denver cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. They took the case to court. Today the judge said that religious beliefs are not an acceptable reason to break the law.

Want to watch me make a trillion disappear?

I haven't written much this week not because of the usual press of school work, but because it was my turn to host Thanksgiving. It isn't a huge burden -- my only guests were Mom, Dad, Sis, and Niece. But I did have to figure out how to roast turkey meat (not a whole bird) and make dressing, then actually do it. There was also the company-level cleaning to be done. It was a pleasant meal and afternoon and I'm somewhat back to normal. So on to some of what caught my attention this week.

Last week I summarized an commented on an essay by Terrence Heath about the tradeoff between spending $4 billion on food stamps for the poor or $4 billion on lunch for the rich. Heath now tells us about another tradeoff.

The GOP want to cut $21 billion from the Medicaid expansion part of the Affordable Care Act (no doubt they want to cut funding for the whole thing, but one step at a time). The tradeoff this time is with the Pentagon. The GOP want to give $20 billion to our armed service to cover sequester cuts coming in January (wait, didn't we do that last January? They're back?). Heath sees two things wrong with this trade.

First, the Pentagon has an abysmal record in keeping track of money. There are estimates that there is a half trillion dollars in recent unaudited contracts. I take that to mean a half trillion dollars walked out the door and nobody knows whether the Pentagon actually got a half trillion worth of goods and services. And that's recent contracts. Since 1996 the total is $8.5 trillion that is not accounted for. Which means the Pentagon is in violation of the law because it could not pass an audit.

One guess into whose pockets that $8.5 trillion has disappeared. A very good reason for those with heavier pockets to not want an audit done. And a very good reason why the GOP want to loot more money destined for the poor and put it where it will line more pockets. There is the added bonus of being able to claim our wonderful soldiers (in harm's way) need the money.

Second, the Medicaid expansion is the bright spot in the ACA. It's the part actually working, a big success in getting health insurance to more people, especially poor people. Many people who try to sign up through the new exchanges find they are eligible for Medicaid. That's even true in Red states that didn't expand coverage.

Heath says the GOP hit a new low in their war against the poor. And they don't show signs of stopping.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, has called the ACA "unsalvageable." Yet, Kentucky -- McConnell's home state -- has been quite successful in signing up lots of people for health insurance. Then again, Kentucky is under a Democrat governor who set up a state exchange and took the money for Medicaid expansion.

House Speaker John Boehner tried to hold a publicity stunt. He was going to sign up for insurance under the ACA to show that it was impossible. The stunt failed because his enrollment succeeded. The success took an hour though -- because the representative for the DC exchange called Boehner's office to help and Boehner's staff put the guy on hold for so long he gave up after 35 minutes.

So if the ACA is succeeding in Kentucky, it will eventually succeed everywhere. And likely make a few Democrat converts along the way.

Frivolous? Try callous

The Washington Post delved into state level polls of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). They found that the state with the least support for federal workplace protections for gays and transgenders was Mississippi (no surprise there). But even in Mississippi, support for ENDA was at 63%. The highest support was 81% in Massachusetts. Overall, America approves ENDA by over 70%. That means this bill is not controversial.

Terrence Heath recounts the history of ENDA. It was first submitted to Congress over 20 years ago and has been reintroduced eight times. Heath goes on to tell his personal involvement with ENDA, including protests at Cracker Barrel Restaurants who had fired all their non-straight employees. Work on the bill gave him a chance to meet Sen. Ted Kennedy.

I discussed ENDA with my friend and debate partner earlier this week. I was lacking a few facts at that time. The Washington Post has a guide to explain what ENDA is. It only affects employment -- workers can't be fired for being a sexual minority.

Which left me and my friend wondering about other protections. There is a law named after Matthew Shepard that includes sexual minorities in hate crimes. But, as my work in Royal Oak last weekend showed, there are no federal laws to prevent discrimination of us in public accommodation.

On Thursday the US Senate passed ENDA. All 54 Dems voted for it. And so did 10 GOP. Though given 60% approval for the law in Mississippi one wonders (but only a little bit) why more GOP didn't vote for it.

Alas, there is a big problem with this version of ENDA. There are broad religious exemptions. Church exemptions we expect. But exemptions for religiously affiliated hospitals and universities for jobs with no religious function (billing clerks) only legitimizes the discrimination we are trying to end.

Law professor Ari Ezra Waldman discusses these exemptions in detail. Part of the problem is the gay rights groups pushing ENDA agreed to them without even a hint of protest. The lack of protest now will make our next demand for rights (public accommodation) harder. These exemptions show that religious rights trump gay rights. When a borderline case comes before a judge he will look at that acquiescence along the way to affirming religious rights at our expense.

Then the Senate took one more step. The approved an amendment that says federal funding cannot be reduced if a religiously affiliated organization discriminates against us. Yup, my federal taxes will still go to discriminators. Which gives one pause over wanting to get this version passed.

But I won't wish too hard. Get it passed, then get it fixed. Speaker John Boehner is opposed to ENDA because he feels it would result in too many "frivolous" lawsuits. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, promptly responded through Twitter:

Speaker Boehner opposes ENDA for fear of frivolous lawsuits? He led a frivolous lawsuit defending DOMA that cost taxpayers over $2 million!

A bit later Reid added:

Not only is Speaker Boehner’s claim untrue, it is also callous. It fails to take into account the heartbreak and suffering — not to mention lost wages and productivity — that workplace discrimination causes

Terrence Heath documents several people who lost jobs because they were gay or colleagues thought the were gay. One of Heath's jobs was to collect such stories. He also reports that 42% of gay and lesbian workers have experienced discrimination and 90% of transgender workers have. Hardly "frivolous."

Part of the problem in passing ENDA is shown when Rachel Maddow visits Jimmy Fallon. He, like many ordinary citizens, assumes such protections are already in place. And Boehner is capitalizing on that misguided thought. He says ENDA isn't needed because gays are already protected. Yeah, they are -- in only 21 states.

In another essay Heath looks at what comes after the Senate passed ENDA while the House is opposed. First, Obama could be more supportive. He doesn't need political cover. He can sign an executive order banning discrimination by gov't contractors (which affects nearly a quarter of the civilian workforce). And he can do that at the same time he urges the House to sign the bill. He can even use it to shame Boehner: I've been a leader in protecting all the workers I can. Now you need to be a leader to protect the rest.

Heath shows us what has changed in a decade. Back in 2004 Bush and the GOP effectively used gay marriage as a wedge issue against the Dems (when Michigan and several other states voted in marriage protection amendments). Now the wedge is pointing in the other direction being used to split the GOP.

So we and Obama need to keep the pressure on Boehner and the GOP. ENDA may not pass the House in this Congress. But that pressure will improve the chances of it passing in the next.

Retired gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson slams other denominations, especially the Catholic bishops, for working against ENDA.

For instance, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is vigorously opposing ENDA, asserting that their right to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity is essential to Catholics' religious liberty. Now stop, and just take that in for a moment. A Church, dedicated to following the man known for his outreach and compassion for the marginalized, petitioning the government to be exempted from the fair treatment of marginalized and vulnerable LGBT people. It takes my breath away.

I'll let a cartoon depicting Pope Francis have the last word:

That's all ya got?

Ari Ezra Waldman reviews the briefs given to the Supremes from ProtectMarriage, the anti-gay side of the Calif. gay marriage case, and Speaker Boehner in the Defense of Marriage (DOMA) case, which prevents the federal gov't from recognizing gay marriages. Other interested parties filed briefs, but Waldman didn't include them in this discussion.

One part of his analysis is: That's it? That's all ya got? Missing is the claim that allowing gays to marry will discourage straights from doing so. Missing are references to studies that prove gays are bad parents. All that's left is that straight couples can create children and gay couples (on their own) can't.

And that, Waldman says, isn't logical. How can preventing gays from marrying encourage straights to marry? If we want stable straight households for raising kids, how does banning gay marriage accomplish that?

The ProtectMarriage brief adds a little reminder (though worded much more carefully): Remember that *Roe v. Wade* thing and how the public wasn't ready and we're still dealing with the backlash? This kind of issue is well suited for the "give and take of the democratic process, where individuals may persuade or be persuaded." Just don't look behind the curtain to see how much fearmongering ProtectMarriage and its allies do, how undemocratic its operations are, and that no majority may pass a law that violates the Constitution.

The Boehner brief is just a mess (and they paid a lawyer $2 million for it?). It argues about state's rights and how that needs continued protection by DOMA section 2 -- but the Supremes are reviewing section 3.

That's all ya got?

Black Thursday

My goodness! This is getting so old and so annoying!

The Michigan legislature certainly has been busy during their lame-duck session, though I wonder what their hurry is because in January the state House and Senate will still be GOP controlled and the GOP governor isn't going anywhere. But it was dispiriting to listen to the Michigan news from the NPR station in Ann Arbor on my way home from teaching.

The House passed a Right-to-Work bill this afternoon and the Senate followed this evening. All during the fall campaign while a state amendment requiring union bargaining was on the ballot Gov. Snyder played coy and said he wouldn't give his position on a Right-to-Work bill though he would rather the legislators would not touch something so divisive. But now that the election is over and the lawmakers are in the process of passing it the Gov. is all, "Bring it on! I'll sign it!"

For those who are wondering, the name of the bill is a euphemism. What they mean is "the right to work without being forced to pay union dues." And that translates to gutting unions. What GOP lawmaker isn't for that? This is a bill that benefits only the 1%.

In the comments Howie says it quite well (in part):

"Right to work" = right to low wages.
"Right to work" = right to no benefits.
"Right to work" = right to unsafe workplace environment.
"Right to work" = right to no job security.

I add: Right to work = be lucky you have a freakin job.

It is good to see union people put up a good fight at the Capitol today, though they were working alongside Tea Party people working for what the unions were working against. Huffington Post has pictures of the protestors who have been in the Capitol ever since the GOP leadership announced the bill was on a fast track. The protests were unruly enough that the police closed the building. But the Dems got a judge to reverse that order and the protesters streamed back in.

Oh, the GOP was just getting started.

Also likely to pass (and already through the Senate) is a bill to allow health providers, facilities (hotels?), and insurers to refuse to serve based on religious objections. Any guess on a big target? Yup, gay people. And those who want an abortion.

To make that second part perfectly clear the Senate passed a separate series of bills to prohibit the upcoming health care exchanges of the Affordable Care Act from including coverage of abortion in basic policies, meaning such coverage must be purchased separately. And this is after the same state GOP refused to set up a state-run exchange, telling the feds to run it for us. Yup, they're saying we don't want to run the exchange, but any exchange in Michigan must play by our rules.

And they still aren't done.

Next up is a series of bills on education. Over the last year the state set up a "statewide" school district and took over the 15 worst schools in Detroit. I can see -- sort of -- why this might be necessary. But suddenly the GOP wants to expand that concept, even though it has been functioning only since September and results are unproven. A big problem with the system is that there is no local school board for parents to complain to. There are other bills in the package and I don't understand them all. I'll only say that if the GOP is backing them the intended goal is to gut the quality of education in the state (except for their kids). Gut education? Peasants don't need no stinkin education!

Union busting. Denial of service for religious reasons. Education busting. Busy session indeed.

I wonder if the GOP in Michigan saw the results of the last election (though the state Senate wasn't up for election and the GOP in the House lost seats, but not their majority) and began to panic. Perhaps they are thinking: How much of our agenda can we impose on the state before they boot us from office? And you can be sure what's left of the unions will work hard to make that happen.

On the national scene: Boehner is being blasted for giving away too much in his opening offer to avoid the fiscal bluff.

I just want them to grow up or go away. At least consider someone (anyone!) beyond the 1%. Yeah, I know, not likely, not soon.

And to finish off the day…

A bullied gay teen committed suicide in Fenton, a town I drive past when I visit my parents. School officials say there were no reports of bullying. Commenters say there had to be at least someone on the faculty or administration who knew about it. And did nothing.

Delicate Position

NPR's Weekend Edition this morning had a report on one aspect of why the fiscal bluff might be hard to resolve. David Welna says the House GOP created three rules that will get in the way.

* The Majority of the Majority. No bill will come up for a vote in the House unless a majority of GOP members are in favor of it. This prevents passage of any bill in which Dems might peel off 40 of the over 200 GOP House members.

* Any increase in the Debt Ceiling (which will be hit a couple months after this fiscal bluff mess is sorted out) must be matched by an equal cut in spending.

* The No New Taxes pledge.

That leaves Boehner in a delicate position. He may not be able to cut a deal with Obama without breaking at least one rule. If he breaks a rule his position as Speaker may be in jeopardy.

Milestone

Happy Birthday dear blog!
Happy Birthday dear blog!
Happy Birthday, Happy Birthday!
Happy Birthday dear blog!

Yup, I started blogging five years ago today. In that time I've written more than 1900 posts. On top of that this blog is an extension of the emails I had been sending out to family and friends for four years before I started posting my news notices and musings here.



Nate Silver and his accurate forecasting is replacing pundits pontificating about what their gut feeling is telling them about who will win the election. For me, that's a very good thing -- listening to someone's gut opinion was a waste of time and down at the bottom of things I wanted to know about the candidates. Andrew Romano in Newsweek considers what those pundits might do instead.

First possible topic of conversation is who should win the election. That means an analysis of the candidate's positions and whether this might help or hinder the country. Second possible topic is how is the candidate going about getting elected. The big news this year was the amount the campaigns (especially Obama's) did data mining to finely tune the message aimed at individual voters. Both of these topics would be a lot more interesting and useful for the country than gut feelings about who the victor might be.



David Frum, conservative columnist in Newsweek, discusses how much the GOP is stuck in the past: "Your answers are so old I've forgotten the questions." He then lists all the ways the country and world has changed since 1980, when conservative hero Ronald Reagan was elected. In 1980, USA and allies produced half the world's output. We were threatened by a great military adversary. The gap between rich and poor was at its narrowest for the entire 20th Century. Watergate era laws meant campaigns were publicly financed. The middle class saw economic progress as the norm. The country was overwhelmingly white. Young women were just entering the workforce (rather than young men exiting). Marriage for straights was the norm and for gays unimaginable. The top environmental concern was risk to individuals. 79% of Americans under 65 were covered by employer-provided health insurance.

There was a time when the Dems were stuck doing the same old thing. They needed a solid loss to get some fresh thinking. The recent Dem victory will hopefully jolt the GOP out of their rut to be a responsible voice for conservatism.



As the fiscal bluff battle began Obama said the country elected him because he promoted higher taxes on the rich. John Boehner responded by saying yeah, but they also elected a solid GOP majority in the House. Mother Jones has one word: gerrymandering.

The total vote for all House Dem candidates was 49% and 48.2% for GOP candidates. Yet the new House has the second biggest GOP majority in 60 years (I gather the biggest majority is for the Congress just ending). The GOP sweep in 2010 meant the redistricting in many states was done by the GOP. For example, in Michigan Dem. House candidates drew more votes than their GOP counterparts, yet Dems get 5 of the state's House seats and the GOP get 9. Which means we may have to get used to a GOP House until 2020. Sigh.

I don't remember where I read this next bit: John Boehner is hopefully aware that his party lost the popular vote, even though they hold more seats. That should strengthen Obama's hand in fiscal bluff and other negotiations.



Paul Waldman in an article for Salon and The American Prospect looks at the GOP's overblown response to the deaths of diplomats in Benghazi. Why is the GOP in such a tizzy? Because Obama, who they consider illegitimate, managed to go four whole years without a scandal. Nothing to impeach him on.



I mentioned the many secessionist petitions floating out there with lots of people signing on. I think the Texas petition notes the state has a huge economy and has balanced its books. Krysten Clark of Jack and Jill Politics notes the balanced budget was because Texas took more help from the federal gov't than it sent to the feds in taxes. And the 47% freeloaders? They mostly live in Red states. Yeah, they're free to sign petitions when their guy loses. But we're free to laugh at them.

Incapable of defense

Last week I had written that Obama and the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. Here is a list of all the cases challenging Section 3 along with an explanation of what Obama's announcement might mean.

Part of all that is a discussion of levels of scrutiny and the consequences. In rational basis scrutiny the government only need supply a rational reason for the discrimination. In heightened scrutiny the standards are higher. What Obama's announcement said is in gay rights cases heightened scrutiny must be used. Obama didn't say he doesn't want to defend the law. He said that under this level of scrutiny he is incapable of defending it because there were simply no arguments that would pass the standards.

Since that announcement…

John Boehner will decide by the end of the week whether the House will take over defense of DOMA from the DoJ. Many in his party are calling for it, even if, as he says, it benefits Obama. It is unclear whether the House can act on its own or needs authorization and funding with Senate approval and Obama's signature.

Obama's DoJ will no longer defend the constitutionality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Since the policy isn't actually gone yet, there is a lawsuit proceeding through the courts to force its end. The DoJ is still taking part in it. However, they have asked the judge to change the question being considered. Is DADT unconstitutional, as a lower court has said? The DoJ agrees. Instead, the trial should be about whether the DADT repeal process (the one that requires certification and a 60 day wait) is constitutional. The DoJ will defend that. But it isn't clear the court will allow that kind of switch.

Will you help pay for it?

The massive federal budget landed with a thud, with complaints incoming from all sides. The White House has provided a nifty interactive graphic of where the money goes (in 31 categories). Run your mouse over a box to see its percentage of the total. Yes, Social Security, Health Care (Medicare & Medicaid), National Security, and Income Security are the biggest parts of the budget. It's cool that the White House provided it.

Some commentary:

Ari Ezra Waldman, law professor, notes that all (at least American) federal budgets incentivize -- coerce -- behavior. Even the ones put out by Tea Party members, though they may try to deny it. Yes, the behavior outcomes will be different in each case.

Coercion comes in several forms: Farm supports to plant this crop or that one. Reduced taxes for buying a house. Reduced taxes for marriage. Support for clean energy (or the GOP support for coal).

We've long ago established that the American federal budget can coerce behavior. The questions now before us: Are we incentivizing the right things? Yes, that depends on who you ask. Does the incentive achieve the desired goal at an acceptable cost?

It appears that in this budget Obama is taking that last question seriously, something presidents haven't done before. For example, Obama is funding the Ryan White Act, a drug treatment and HIV/AIDS program that is known to work. He is also getting a lot of change for his buck through the Race to the Top and similar programs. 40 states changed education policies though only 12 states received grants. Similar programs are proposed for electric vehicle infrastructure, juvenile justice, and a host of other goals.

I agree this is a good way to guide the country.

Scott Horsley of NPR reports on studies by the Pew Research Center of American's views of the federal budget. On questions something like, "Do you think the government should do ____?" The answer was frequently yes. On questions like, "Do you think the government should do _____ and you help pay for it?" The answer was much more likely to be no. Which means: We like what the government does for us. We don't want to pay for it. That makes me wonder. Is the public aversion to taxes because the GOP has trumpeted low taxes for the last 25 years? Would the public opinion be different if our leaders preached fiscal responsibility that while these various programs are great we citizens must do our part for the common good and pay taxes to cover these expenses? Was that how it was done before Reagan?

I was annoyed to hear that Obama is proposing to chop programs from the discretionary part of the budget, in particular the home heating credit. It seems the GOP has convinced him that the poor should take the hit for the sake of a balanced budget. Is there a more effective way to do the same thing? Obama hasn't said loud enough for me to hear.

Steve Inskeep of NPR interviewed Alan Simpson, who headed the commission to find ways to reduce the budget. He is also annoyed with Obama's plan. According to the commission's report, cutting the all those discretionary programs that help the poor and keep the government running won't ever be enough to fix the deficit. If the big ones -- Medicare, Medicaid, defense, Social Security -- are addressed, then all those other little programs won't need to be touched (revising them for effectiveness is another matter).

I am pleased to see the GOP in the House agreed with Obama, Sec. Defense Gates, and the Joint Chiefs to kill an expensive alternate engine for a fighter plane. Even better, they did it even though Boehner's district would benefit.

That agenda thing

My comments over the last month (and since I started this blog nearly 3 years ago (!)) should make my view of today's election results obvious. I'll let you find the national results on your own. I'll only ask how could so many millions of people be so completely hoodwinked?

When I get time to read other sources I'll report on the gay specific results. I'm posting now to comment on John Boehner's speech from last night (and if you don't know who he is, lots of press articles will remind you). One phrase caught my attention. "The president sets the agenda."

Well, actually, Congress is quite capable of setting its own agenda and up to perhaps 40-50 years ago, frequently did. I've read studies (alas, no links) saying that when Congress does so the country is frequently better off. Which means…

The GOP has no agenda other than obstructing the president.

Boehner is already laying the groundwork so that when Americans are fed up with inaction (or worse) in Washington the president gets the blame.