In today's AJC, the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer writes: "I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama. Consider what he has already achieved."
Perhaps this is a good way for us liberal-progressives to evaluate Obama's achievements, by looking at what the opposition is upset about. Krauthammer lists these, and I put his comments in quotes:
1. Health care reform. "This alone makes his presidency historic." (And that's even without the public option or the single payer plans that we really wanted.)
2. Major financial reform. "It will give the government unprecedented power in the financial marketplace." (And we were disappointed it didn't go further.)
3. Nearly $1 trillion stimulus. "The largest spending bill in U.S. history." (And we thought the stimulus was way too small.)
4. But, K. says, "Obama's most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U. S. budget" -- by which he means that all this money going out will mean raising taxes (right, letting the Bush tax cuts expire). And K. is wringing his hands in despair at the budget deficit, which didn't seem to upset these folks at all when Bush pushed through the huge tax cuts and started wars -- without paying for either.
No, it's very clear that the admittedly huge budget deficit has been caused by three things: (1) the tax cuts for the wealthy; (2) the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; and (3) the financial collapse. And those all began when George W. Bush was president.
K. goes further and warns what Obama might accomplish in a second term, if Republicans don't stop him at the polls: (1) massive regulation of the energy economy; (2) federalizing higher education; and (3) comprehensive immigration reform.
So, Mr. Krauthammer, thank you for doing my homework for me. All I have to do is take your negatives and flip them into positives to assess the Obama achievements thus far and predictions for future accomplishments. They may not be all we want, but they are huge accomplishments and would be a credit to any president even in peacetime with no financial crisis and a cooperative Congress. I'm glad old sourpuss Krauthammer has so much faith in our president's ability.
Ralph
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Two small victories
Two small victories join the large one in Argentina.
1. A judge on the U. S. District Court for Massachusetts declared that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts couples under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.
The laws in conflict are that it's legal to be married in MA; but a federal law (DOMA) says they can't have the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples (including survivors being able to collect social security benefits as do surviving spouses of heterosexual marriages). A suit in MA challenged this, and it seems clear on the face of it that legally married gay couples in those states are discriminated against by the federal law.
True, there can be legal arguments about which law trumps the other one. DOMA is a federal law and marriage is a state law. Some would say the federal law prevails. But the argument here is that one federal law violates another federal law -- equal protection.
Now a district court judge has said that at least this aspect of DOMA violates the Constitution. It will undoubtedly be appealed, but it is a major setback for Maggie Gallagher and her National Organization for Marriage. Maggie is sort of the Carrie Nation of the fight against gay rights. She doesn't go around taking an axe to saloons, but Maggie is fired up to stop gay marriage. She's got a national tour going right now, and they're headed for Atlanta. Her column used to be carried by the AJC. I always thought she was kind of silly, as well as being uninformed and prejudiced.
2. The recent law permitting same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia has been upheld by the DC Court of Appeals. It denied ballot access to a group that wanted to put same-sex marriage to a popular vote by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Denial was based on the fact that it would "strip same-sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriages currently recognized in the District" and would "authorize discrimination" and violate the Human Rights Act.
This is similar to the situation in California but with the opposite outcome. The CA legislature and the DC council each legalized same-sex marriage. In CA, they did put a ballot initiative to overturn it, which was Proposition 8; and with huge money flowing in from out of state Catholic and Mormon religious groups, the initiative won. It was upheld by the CA Supreme Court in a case that essentially framed it as whether the people have a right to revoke a law by the ballot initiative process.
In DC, in contrast, the court has denied them similar ballot access, saying it would institute discrimination.
So in California, the state court said the people's vote trumps the prohibition of discrimination. In DC, their court said the anti-discrimination law trumps a voter initiative.
What a fascinating story this is going to be some day when someone writes the history of how attitudes and laws changed about gay marriage, and all the rocky bumps in the road to getting there.
Ralph
1. A judge on the U. S. District Court for Massachusetts declared that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts couples under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.
The laws in conflict are that it's legal to be married in MA; but a federal law (DOMA) says they can't have the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples (including survivors being able to collect social security benefits as do surviving spouses of heterosexual marriages). A suit in MA challenged this, and it seems clear on the face of it that legally married gay couples in those states are discriminated against by the federal law.
True, there can be legal arguments about which law trumps the other one. DOMA is a federal law and marriage is a state law. Some would say the federal law prevails. But the argument here is that one federal law violates another federal law -- equal protection.
Now a district court judge has said that at least this aspect of DOMA violates the Constitution. It will undoubtedly be appealed, but it is a major setback for Maggie Gallagher and her National Organization for Marriage. Maggie is sort of the Carrie Nation of the fight against gay rights. She doesn't go around taking an axe to saloons, but Maggie is fired up to stop gay marriage. She's got a national tour going right now, and they're headed for Atlanta. Her column used to be carried by the AJC. I always thought she was kind of silly, as well as being uninformed and prejudiced.
2. The recent law permitting same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia has been upheld by the DC Court of Appeals. It denied ballot access to a group that wanted to put same-sex marriage to a popular vote by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Denial was based on the fact that it would "strip same-sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriages currently recognized in the District" and would "authorize discrimination" and violate the Human Rights Act.
This is similar to the situation in California but with the opposite outcome. The CA legislature and the DC council each legalized same-sex marriage. In CA, they did put a ballot initiative to overturn it, which was Proposition 8; and with huge money flowing in from out of state Catholic and Mormon religious groups, the initiative won. It was upheld by the CA Supreme Court in a case that essentially framed it as whether the people have a right to revoke a law by the ballot initiative process.
In DC, in contrast, the court has denied them similar ballot access, saying it would institute discrimination.
So in California, the state court said the people's vote trumps the prohibition of discrimination. In DC, their court said the anti-discrimination law trumps a voter initiative.
What a fascinating story this is going to be some day when someone writes the history of how attitudes and laws changed about gay marriage, and all the rocky bumps in the road to getting there.
Ralph
Argentina adopts gay marriage
In 1997, at a meeting of the International Psychoanalytic Association in Barcelona, I was invited to be one of the speakers on a panel on homosexuality. During my discussion, I identified myself as a gay psychoanalyst. The other two panelists considered homosexuality to be a disorder, as did many in the audience.
After the meeting, a young man nervously sought me out and asked if he could talk with me -- but not there, because he didn't want anyone from his home country to see him with me. We found a quiet place to sit down, away from the crowd, and he told me that he was a psychologist and very much wanted to become a psychoanalyst; but he could not apply to the institute in his country, because homosexuality was considered a pathology, and in addition to being rejected he would then be stigmatized by those he had revealed this to. He was hoping he could get the training he needed by commuting to the U.S. A few years later, a gay-friendly straight psychoanalyst from that same country told me how discouraged he was about the continued opposition and slow pace of change.
That country? Argentina.
Thirteen years later -- last night -- the Argentine senate voted 33 to 27, with 3 abstentions, to legalize same-sex marriage. The House of Delegates had already passed it, and the president has been a strong supporter. So Argentina now joins 9 other countries where gays can get married (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Portugal), as well as other countries that grant all or most of the rights in a civil union. Added to those countries are state and city laws in other countries. Mexico City led the way in Latin American, although Argentina is the first country as a whole. In the U.S., five states (MA, CT, IA, VT, NH) and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while CA has it's on-again, off-again ambivalence about it. (A legal challenge to Prop8 is working its way up to the Supreme Court).
On the other hand, there are still countries -- mostly in Africa and the Islamic world -- where punitive measures, including the death penalty, still exist. It's only in looking back and seeing where we have come from that we can realize how much has changed and, in the grand sweep of history, how rapid the progress has been.
Argentina's vote last night reminded me of that brief meeting with the young psychologist from Buenos Aires. I've often wondered what happened to him.
Ralph
After the meeting, a young man nervously sought me out and asked if he could talk with me -- but not there, because he didn't want anyone from his home country to see him with me. We found a quiet place to sit down, away from the crowd, and he told me that he was a psychologist and very much wanted to become a psychoanalyst; but he could not apply to the institute in his country, because homosexuality was considered a pathology, and in addition to being rejected he would then be stigmatized by those he had revealed this to. He was hoping he could get the training he needed by commuting to the U.S. A few years later, a gay-friendly straight psychoanalyst from that same country told me how discouraged he was about the continued opposition and slow pace of change.
That country? Argentina.
Thirteen years later -- last night -- the Argentine senate voted 33 to 27, with 3 abstentions, to legalize same-sex marriage. The House of Delegates had already passed it, and the president has been a strong supporter. So Argentina now joins 9 other countries where gays can get married (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Portugal), as well as other countries that grant all or most of the rights in a civil union. Added to those countries are state and city laws in other countries. Mexico City led the way in Latin American, although Argentina is the first country as a whole. In the U.S., five states (MA, CT, IA, VT, NH) and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while CA has it's on-again, off-again ambivalence about it. (A legal challenge to Prop8 is working its way up to the Supreme Court).
On the other hand, there are still countries -- mostly in Africa and the Islamic world -- where punitive measures, including the death penalty, still exist. It's only in looking back and seeing where we have come from that we can realize how much has changed and, in the grand sweep of history, how rapid the progress has been.
Argentina's vote last night reminded me of that brief meeting with the young psychologist from Buenos Aires. I've often wondered what happened to him.
Ralph
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
A couple of observations about politicians
1. Newt Gingrich is the energizer bunny that just won't stop running around trying to drum up support for a draft-me-for-president rally. The silence seems pretty telling to me, but every few months reliable Newt floats his 'running' balloon out there again to see if there is the groundswell he craves.
This time, he really really means it. He announced yesterday that he was "seriously considering" running, and then for good measure added, "I've never been this serious before." Newt plans to spend the fall campaigning for those running for congress, and then in January or February he will decide whether to run for president.
I sense a great big "ho-hum" from the people and the media. It seemed he was "really serious" about it early in the 2008 race, until his financial advisers told him he would have to give up his PAC position and funds. Wonder what will ultimately "prevent" him from running this time, when he doesn't see the parade forming for him to jump in front of?
2. I just watched a video clip of Rand Paul and Jack Conway, his Democrat opponent in the Kentucky senate race, in their joint appearance before a meeting of Kentucky judges. I think you would have to be a die hard Paul supporter to think he even came close to matching Conway in an impressive performance.
Conway is a tall, good-looking, articulate, well-informed Attorney General. Political philosophies aside (which I of course would side with Conway on), Conway is so much more impressive. Paul is small by comparison in every way. Conway has an easy way of putting him on the defensive without seeming aggressive in doing it. He's affable, while also seeming firm and confident.
During his speech, Conway had said that on his first day in office he would introduce a bill to eliminate the ban on Medicare's ability to negotiate for lower prices of medications for seniors, which he says could save $200 million. In his rebuttal, Paul tried to blame that ban on the Democrats. Then when Conway had a turn again, he just calmly pointed out that that give-away to the pharmaceutical industry had been passed when George W. Bush was president.
He is quick witted, composed, articulate -- Paul had to play catch-up and tended to whine. At the end, he sat, shrunk into himself and looking dejected -- and couldn't even bother to stifle a yawn as the audience was applauding them.
It may be that Kentucky wouldn't elect a Democrat, no matter how impressive. But then they have already elected this particular Democrat to state wide office, and he's been pretty impressive in that office. So -- I wouldn't place bets on Paul just yet.
Ralph
This time, he really really means it. He announced yesterday that he was "seriously considering" running, and then for good measure added, "I've never been this serious before." Newt plans to spend the fall campaigning for those running for congress, and then in January or February he will decide whether to run for president.
I sense a great big "ho-hum" from the people and the media. It seemed he was "really serious" about it early in the 2008 race, until his financial advisers told him he would have to give up his PAC position and funds. Wonder what will ultimately "prevent" him from running this time, when he doesn't see the parade forming for him to jump in front of?
2. I just watched a video clip of Rand Paul and Jack Conway, his Democrat opponent in the Kentucky senate race, in their joint appearance before a meeting of Kentucky judges. I think you would have to be a die hard Paul supporter to think he even came close to matching Conway in an impressive performance.
Conway is a tall, good-looking, articulate, well-informed Attorney General. Political philosophies aside (which I of course would side with Conway on), Conway is so much more impressive. Paul is small by comparison in every way. Conway has an easy way of putting him on the defensive without seeming aggressive in doing it. He's affable, while also seeming firm and confident.
During his speech, Conway had said that on his first day in office he would introduce a bill to eliminate the ban on Medicare's ability to negotiate for lower prices of medications for seniors, which he says could save $200 million. In his rebuttal, Paul tried to blame that ban on the Democrats. Then when Conway had a turn again, he just calmly pointed out that that give-away to the pharmaceutical industry had been passed when George W. Bush was president.
He is quick witted, composed, articulate -- Paul had to play catch-up and tended to whine. At the end, he sat, shrunk into himself and looking dejected -- and couldn't even bother to stifle a yawn as the audience was applauding them.
It may be that Kentucky wouldn't elect a Democrat, no matter how impressive. But then they have already elected this particular Democrat to state wide office, and he's been pretty impressive in that office. So -- I wouldn't place bets on Paul just yet.
Ralph
Monday, July 12, 2010
Message to GOP: Keep digging . . . please.
You know the old adage: "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
I for one hope the Republicans keep on digging. Nothing could benefit us more at the polls in November than for them to keep insisting on the same policies that got us into this mess when they were in control of government. As Huffington Post political reporter Sam Stein reports:
Now if the Democrats can't take political advantage of such a gift and turn it into campaign fodder that people will get, then we really have no hope of every holding on to the reins of government.Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns. . . .
In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.
"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. . . .
And yet, Kyl is now suggesting that the same budget rules shouldn't apply with respect to tax cuts for the wealthy, which are set to expire unless Congress acts to renew them. As Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly notes:
It's quite a message to Americans: Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don't even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
