Pedantic Political Ponderings

21 February 2012

Praise: Ben & Jerry's Get the Dough Out

The Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United opened up nearly unlimited corporate funds with only quarterly sunshine into American politics. This was a bad result, but I do not stand with most progressives on how to fix the problem.

The fix for the problem is two-fold: First, I believe in people. Corporations, despite what Mr. Romney says, are not people. People should be empowered, including whatever money they want to donate. That's right, I favor unlimited money in politics from people.

Second, I believe that we need immediate sunlight. That is, when a candidate accepts money, there must be full disclosure within twenty-four hours.

In other words, get corporations out of this equation. If the CEO of a corporation wants to donate lots of money, she or he should be entitled to do so from her or his own pocketbook. And that person's name must be made public.

This puts the financial decisions directly in the hands of the political candidates. They can decide whose money is acceptable and exactly how to spend that money. We should know exactly who has bought and paid for our politicians.

The first step is to overturn Citizens United. Ben & Jerry's has teamed up with Free Speech for People and Business for Democracy to create Get the Dough Out, a petition to create a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision. Please consider exploring these links and signing on.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

20 February 2012

20 February 2012: Marriage News Watch

19 February 2012

Praise: A.G. Eric Holder To Not Enforce DOMA on Military

Talking Points Memo has the story and a copy of Attorney General Holder's letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that states that the Obama Administration will not defend DOMA in the context of military benefits. In particular, the Department of Justice will not defend DOMA in the case of McLaughlin v. Panetta, where eight military same-gender couples filed suit in October 2011 for equal military benefits to opposite-gender couples. As reported by the Washington Times.

It’s “a threat to national security” when the military is unable to promise legally married same-sex service members that their families will be provided for in their absence, Army Maj. Shannon McLaughlin and 15 other plaintiffs argued in their complaint. They are represented by lawyers with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Chadbourne & Parke LLP in New York City.

The service members want to be counted as married for such military purposes as medical and dental coverage, housing allowances, travel and transportation allowances, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefits and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries.

The lawsuit names Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki as defendants.

The decision to not defend DOMA in McLaughlin v. Panetta does not mean that Major McLaughlin and her co-plaintiffs have won. The case still needs to play out, first before Massachusetts District Court Judge Richard Stearns. I would expect that Mr. Boenher will waste more taxpayer dollars defending that which is clearly unconstitutional. This has the potential to be a landmark case, like the Proposition 8 case out of California, that may be headed for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Thanks to the Stars and Stripes for the heads up.

18 February 2012

FollowUp 13: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has a lot of problems. One of them is the state's finances. Despite the claims of It's Working Wisconsin, a Koch Brother's funded branch of Americans For Prosperity, breaking the back of the unions has not solved Wisconsin's fiscal woes. The latest move to cut $123,000,000 from state agencies, including $46,000,000 from the state university system, still leaves the state more than $140,000,000 in arrears.

At the same time, President Obama's administration reached a $26,000,000,000 deal with five banks to reimburse homeowners for improper foreclosures and offset refinancing costs. The portion that is allocated for Wisconsin homeowners is approximately $140,000,000. A number that conveniently matches the amount Mr. Walker needs. The homeowners funds will be administered by the states.

As Senate candidate and current Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin explains to Rachel Maddow, the Governor may have figured out how to steal much of this funding from reimbursements to homeowners from banks that cheated them before.

Ms. Baldwin discusses this and asks for Wisconsinites to add their voices to a petition at her website. More details about the more than $25,000,000 that the Governor intends to steal from homeowners who were previously cheated by the banks is at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Wisconsin will use a chunk of its $140 million share of a national settlement over foreclosure and mortgage-servicing abuses to help the state budget rather than assist troubled homeowners, Gov. Scott Walker and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said Thursday.

Walker and Van Hollen said the majority of the settlement amount earmarked to Wisconsin under a $25 billion proposed nationwide agreement announced Thursday still would go to aid consumers in Milwaukee and other communities struggling with the specter of home foreclosure.

But of a $31.6 million payment coming directly to the state government, most of that money - $25.6 million - will go to help close a budget shortfall revealed in newly released state projections. Van Hollen, whose office said he has the legal authority over the money, made the decision in consultation with Walker.

"Just like communities and individuals have been affected, the foreclosure crisis has had an effect on the state of Wisconsin, in terms of unemployment. . . . This will offset that damage done to the state of Wisconsin," Walker said.

Had there not been huge tax breaks for businesses,

Walker asked for $82 million in tax cuts, including an expanded exclusion for capital gains realized on investments made in Wisconsin-based businesses. The Legislature previously approved more than $117 million in Walker-backed tax cuts that take effect later this year.

then it could perhaps be justified. As it stands, this looks like a robbery to me.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.

22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

FollowUp 9: Republican Denial of Climate Change

In the seventh follow up of this series, I discussed how the Wall Street Journal had published an error-filled denial of climate change by sixteen scientists, an article that was called "dismal science" by two hundred and fifty-five scientists who are in the field of climate change. Science Magazine published the truth when the Wall Street Journal, a subsidiary of News Corp., refused to do so.

Yesterday another subsidiary of News Corp., Fox News, published an Opinion piece by Matt Patterson, a commentator for the anti-environment Competitive Enterprise Institute, that relies on the discredited article from the Wall Street Journal.

[R]ecently in the Wall Street Journal 16 prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, came forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing:

“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’”

So why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? The scientists offer their own view in the Journal:

“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.”

Fortunately this strange fever is breaking, and voters are becoming ever more suspicious of government-mandated schemes to control their “carbon emissions,” which is just a bureaucrat’s way of curbing productivity, and therefore liberty.

In centuries hence the global warming boogeyman will be seen for exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally ridiculous.

The more times a lie is told, the more it is likely to be believed. News Corp. keeps telling this lie. The Republican contenders for President have all picked up the lie and run with it. The proof is readily available, including from scientists who once doubted whether climate change was real.

1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.

2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.

FollowUp 9: NJ Democrats Call for Marriage Equality

It was a very busy week. As I noted previously, on Monday 13 February the New Jersey Senate passed marriage equality by a vote of 24 - 16. That was good but it would take 27 votes to override a veto. Then on Thursday 16 February the New Jersey Assembly passed marriage equality by a vote of 42 - 33. As with the NJ Senate, this was good but it would take 54 votes to override a veto. The bill was delivered to Governor Chris Christie Friday morning. The veto was signed the same afternoon.

There are a few interesting twists that accompanied the veto. First, there are attached protections for LGBTQ citizens of New Jersey, from the Washington Blade:

Christie’s veto of the bill was conditional. It included the creation of what he called an ombudsman for civil unions that he said would “carry on New Jersey’s strong tradition of tolerance and fairness.”

Christie maintained in his statement that he’s been “adamant” that same-sex couples in civil unions, which are legal in New Jersey, deserves the same rights and benefits as married couples.

“Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen’s right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied,” Christie said.

The same article also noted the ongoing litigation for marriage equality by Lambda Legal of New Jersey.

Litigation is also underway in New Jersey state courts to win marriage rights for couples in New Jersey. In June, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit arguing that barring same-sex couples from marriage and relegating them to civil union status violates the New Jersey Constitution.

Hayley Gorenberg, Lambda’s deputy legal director, said her organization is “disappointed” with Christie, but will keep on the fight to win marriage equality with the tools at hand.

“We’ll continue to make our case for equality with our plaintiffs in court,” Gorenberg said. “We also stand by our colleagues at Garden State Equality, working to gain support for a veto override in the legislature.”

In November, Lambda defeated defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case, and the judge ruled it could proceed. A trial is expected early in 2013.

From a press release November 2011, Lambda Legal:

In 2002, Lambda Legal filed a historic case, Lewis v. Harris, seeking marriage equality on behalf of seven New Jersey couples. The case reached the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2006. The high court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples must be provided all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, although it declined at that time to mandate that marriage was specifically required, and gave the state legislature 180 days to provide equality. The legislature hastily passed a civil union law in December 2006, and began issuing civil union licenses to lesbian and gay couples in February 2007.

In December 2008 the Civil Union Review Commission, appointed by the legislature pursuant to the Civil Union Act itself, issued its unanimous report documenting how civil unions fall short of providing the court-mandated equality for same-sex couples. In January 2010, days before the legislative session ended, the New Jersey Senate voted on and failed to pass a marriage equality law. On March 18, 2010, Lambda Legal filed a motion in aid of litigants' rights asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to intercede and order marriage to secure compliance with its original mandate of equality for the Lewis v. Harris plaintiffs, but in July 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied the motion, requiring further proceedings to develop a record in Superior Court.

Given the steep challenge of convincing legislators to change their votes, my guess is that the lawsuit has a greater chance of resulting in marriage equality than the legislature has of overriding Governor Christie's veto. Either way, New Jersey marriages of same gender couples will be no more real than those in Massachusetts and five other states until the Federal government is no longer under DOMA and gay couples are treated as equal citizens.

9 January 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

25 January 2012, FollowUp 1.

26 January 2012, FollowUp 2.

28 January 2012, FollowUp 3.

30 January 2012, FollowUp 4.

31 January 2012, FollowUp 5.

3 February 2012, FollowUp 6.

10 February 2012, FollowUp 7.

13 February 2012, FollowUp 8.

21 February 2012, FollowUp 10.

Various Direct Links