Repudiation: Republican Bigotry, Thinly Disguised

As the 2012 Republican contenders heat up their debates, I was expecting to hear Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum sound different on the topic of marriage equality.  The following clip from Think Progress.

Each of them, the former Governor and the former Senator, says, effectively, "I do not discriminate."  The details of their words, including in the pledge they each signed against equality for the Family Leader, belies the facade.  Is there a big difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum, the two front runners coming out of Iowa?

Each of them failed in their most recent attempts at federal office.  Each of them is wealthy from Washington and Wall Street.  While Mr. Romney is better known for his flip-flops, Mr. Santorum's history is nearly as rich (if you will pardon the pun).

Either way, if either man is elected, get ready for big social government and austerity for those who can least afford to tighten their belts.

Repudiation: AP Misleads on Cost of OWS

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an estimate that the municipal cost of the Occupy movement is at $13 million and climbing.

During the first two months of the nationwide Occupy protests, the movement that is demanding more out of the wealthiest Americans cost local taxpayers at least $13 million in police overtime and other municipal services, according to a survey by The Associated Press.

The heaviest financial burden has fallen upon law enforcement agencies tasked with monitoring marches and evicting protesters from outdoor camps. And the steepest costs by far piled up in New York City and Oakland, Calif., where police clashed with protesters on several occasions.

There is an important breakdown for these figures that is missing from the article.  The most expensive parts are said to be monitoring, which one can argue is an important service for both the protesters and the cities, and the evictions, which one can argue is an unnecessary cost.  Allegations of violence on the part of the protesters can be found on various Fox News articles and assorted right-wing blogs, but not so much in the mainstream news.  The same event (about a week ago) in the British news focused on police brutality.

The spending comes as cash-strapped police departments have cut overtime budgets, travel and training to respond to the recession. Nonetheless, city officials say they have no choice but to bring in extra officers or hold officers past their shifts to handle gatherings and marches in a way that protects free speech rights and public safety. In some cities, officials say the spending is eating into their overtime budgets and leaving less money for other public services.

Protesters blame excessive police presence for the high costs in some places. And they note the cost has been minimal in other cities, and worth the spending because they have raised awareness about what they call corporate greed and the growing inequality between rich and poor.

Cities and their police departments are cash-strapped largely because of an economy devastated by the unregulated misdeeds of what the Occupy movements calls the 1%.  An article on Think Progress today puts the numbers into some perspective.

$13 million for policing of ongoing protests all over the country for two months is not a particularly large sum. For example, the 2004 Republican National Committee protests, which lasted for a single week and took place in a single location, cost $50 million to secure. A small tea party rally in November 2010 that attracted only a few dozen people cost $14,000, paid for by official congressional money.

The cost of securing these protests against economic inequality and political corruption also pales in comparison to one large figure: the wealth destroyed by Wall Street’s recession. The recession caused by Wall Street’s misdeeds destroyed $50 trillion of wealth globally by 2009, $20 trillion of that wealth in the United States alone. ThinkProgress has assembled the following chart to visualize these comparative costs:

Additionally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $13 million every 40 minutes this year, and the multibillionaire magnate Koch Brothers increase their wealth by $13 million every eleven hours.

The chart is slightly misleading.  Think Progress was unable to depict the left column as smaller than one pixel in height.  If you grossly round up the left column to $20 million dollars, then it is easy to compare $20 million to $20 trillion.  The left column should be less than 0.0001% the height of the middle column.  A much larger chart would not be convenient for a computer screen, but the columns currently look closer than the really are.  Considering how many months and how many cities and how many people have been involved, $13 million dollars seems pretty inexpensive.

Some of these costs, monitoring citizens expression of their right to assembly and right of free speech, are reasonable.  Most of the police have done a good job in working for the benefit of their cities and their citizens.  Some, spraying a chemical weapon in the faces of those who were not engaging in violence,  was a violation of decency and an unreasonable waste of taxpayer dollars.

 Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Repudiation: Speaker Boehner defends DOMA

I had written earlier about President Obama's decision to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the administration believes to be unconstitutional.  The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, early this year authorized the expenditure of up to half a million dollars in defense of DOMA.  Later, that amount was tripled.  It may now be going up again.

The Speaker is using the so-called Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a panel consisting of the Speaker and the leader and whip of each party, as the means of defending DOMA in the courts.  I say "so-called" because the BLAG is split along party lines.  This is not bipartisan, what is happening is entirely Republican.

In August, Paul Clement, the attorney hired by BLAG, filed briefs on why Edie Windsor's marriage should not be recognized by the federal government when her partner of 44 years, Thea Spyer, died and she was laden with much higher estate taxes than married couples pay when one dies.  The couple had wed in Toronto and resided in New York.  Think Progress had an excellent article on Mr. Clement's briefs at the time.

It isn't over.  A similar case is now in Pennsylvania, except that this time it is a suit between family members.  As reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

David and Joan Farley, the parents of the late Sarah Ellyn Farley, are fighting with Ms. Farley's wife, Jennifer Tobits, about who should get the $41,000 or so left from Ms. Farley's profit-sharing plan with Cozen O'Connor. The parents argue the ERISA-qualified plan implicates federal law, meaning DOMA would not allow the term "spouse" in the plan to be considered a person of the same sex.

Ms. Tobits argues that because ERISA doesn't define the term "spouse," the parties need only look to the plan itself and don't have to reach whether DOMA applies.

As written in the Legal Intelligencer

The case has picked up steam since first filed, with both the Farleys and Tobits changing counsel midstream. The Farleys are now represented by Chicago-based Thomas More Society and Tobits is represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The House advisory group said Cozen O'Connor and the Farleys told the group they did not oppose its motion to intervene and Tobits said she would take no position on the matter. The DOJ also said it would take no position on the motion, according to the group's filing.

In its memorandum in support of its motion to intervene, the advisory group said the DOJ would not be intervening to defend DOMA, but rather to "attack the statute," as it has done in a number of other cases. As part of the DOJ's policy shift moving away from defending DOMA, it has been advising the House of cases where the constitutionality of the law is at issue in case the House wanted to defend the law. The DOJ alerted the House to Cozen O'Connor on Sept. 23.

Because the DOJ will almost certainly look to attack the statute rather than defend it, the group said, the legislative body should be given the opportunity to step in to defend the law. The group also argued that the Farleys do not have the expertise to defend DOMA like the House does.

How many more taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted in attacking widows?  DOMA is blatant discrimination.  It is to for full equality and recognition of the love and commitment in every marriage.