Monday, January 7, 2013

Virginia Governor Quietly Certifies Restrictive Abortion Clinic Regulations

On the Friday between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) quietly approved new, stringent regulations intended to target abortion clinics. Virginia’s Board of Health adopted the new anti-abortion rules in September, and the governor’s certification is the next step toward making the regulations permanent — and potentially forcing many of the state’s 20 abortion clinics to close their doors.

A spokesperson for McDonnell explained the governor advanced the anti-abortion rules because he believes “these common-sense regulations will help ensure that this medical procedure takes place in facilities that are modern, safe and well-regulated, in order to help ensure the safety and well-being of all patients.” But women’s health advocates designate this type of legislation as the “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers” (TRAP) because — rather than doing anything to ensure women’s safety — they actually over-regulate abortion providers as an indirect method of restricting women’s reproductive rights. TRAP laws force many abortion clinics to close when they find themselves unable to comply with complicated, expensive standards.

Even though Virginia’s Board of Health is intended to operate as a nonpartisan medical body, the fight over enacting the new clinic regulations has become intensely political — a growing trend among state-level boards, which anti-abortion advocates are increasingly using to advance their anti-choice agendas.

When the Board considered the new rules before their final vote, protesters and women’s health advocates were barred from speaking during the hearing, and only a limited number of people were even permitted to enter the room. And it turned out State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) was essentially threatening Virginia’s Board — which ended up approving the TRAP laws by a 13-2 vote — by warning members they could be denied state-funded legal services if they voted to relax the clinic regulations. In October, Virginia health commissioner Dr. Karen Remley resigned from her position on the Board in protest of the regulations, citing her disapproval of the proposed TRAP laws as the primary reason she could no longer serve “in good faith.”

Now that McDonnell has approved the regulations, they will be sent back through the process of review by the Board of Health following a 60-day public comment period. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the permanent regulations are expected to be adopted by this summer.


View the original article here

GOP State Senator: Kwanzaa Is A Leftist Plot ‘To Destroy’ America

While outrage about the so-called war on Christmas has died down for another year, Wisconsin state Senator Glenn Grothman (R) has launched a new war on Kwanzaa, claiming it is a fake holiday invented by racist radicals who want to “divide America.”

In a press release entitled “Why Must We Still Hear About Kwanzaa,” Grothman ranted that Kwanzaa is a holiday celebrated by “left wing nuts” because “they don’t like America and seek to destroy it.” Grothman is comforted by his belief that “almost all black people ignore” Kwanzaa, but is deeply troubled by the fact that schools are teaching the holiday:

Irresponsible public school districts such as Green Bay and Madison (and who knows how many others…) try to tell a new generation that blacks have a separate holiday than Christians…But why do they do it? They don’t like America and seek to destroy it by pretending that its values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, don’t apply to everyone. Mainstream Americans must be more outspoken on this issue. It’s time it’s slapped down once and for all…Be on the lookout if a K-12 or college teacher tries to tell your children or grandchildren it’s a real holiday.

Kwanzaa, which occurs from December 26 to January 1, was created in 1966 as a way for African Americans to connect to their heritage and culture. It has been widely accepted as a legitimate holiday. While Grothman believes the holiday divides America, Kwanzaa centers around the seven principles of unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith. Its founder, Ron Karenga, whom Grothman calls a “violent nut,” explained, “People may celebrate either or all of the year-end holidays” as Kwanzaa is a cultural holiday focusing on sharing a “special cultural truth” with the world. Former President George W. Bush praised the holiday as “an opportunity to focus of family, community, and history.”


View the original article here

More cliff-diving to come

The leadership has now averted the much-talked-about fiscal cliff , which was never the threat that it was purported to be. Rather, it provided a wonderful opportunity for the do-nothing Senate to craft legislation that supports the president's agenda of wealth redistribution.

An honest analysis of the bill makes it clear that it really doesn't address the fundamental problems of massive federal deficits as far as the eye can see. In fact, over the next 10 years it increases the national debt by $4 trillion.

Everyone has become so numb to the concept of debt that they no longer care, which is exactly what happened in Greece. What will it take to awaken us from our slumber and quickly recognize that we can't continue spending like drunk sailors with no consequences?

The GOP can't simply blame the Democrats, because they have the ability to assist on passing meaningful legislation that would cut the deficit and they didn't do so. Furthermore, Congress will never tackle this problem for the simple fact that they are more concerned about who will be blamed, rather than finally addressing the serious problem. Only an outcry by we the people will give them the courage to act forcefully and substantively.

View Comments

View the original article here

LaTourette: GOP got ‘whooped’ in tax deal

Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) on Wednesday said Republicans had been “whooped” in negotiations to avert the “fiscal cliff.”

The centrist Ohio lawmaker, who is leaving Congress after this term, said GOP lawmakers who backed the tax bill, which passed the House and Senate on New Year's Day, had no choice but to vote for the measure.

“If there was no deal, taxes would have gone up on every American and the Speaker’s stated objective was always to spare as many people in the country as he could from the tax increase,” said LaTourette, explaining his vote in favor, during an interview on CBS's "This Morning." “At the end of the day, we got whooped.” The bill passed on Jan. 1 by both chambers extends the expiring Bush-era tax rates for individuals earning up to $400,000 and households earning up to $450,000. The deal also postpones the across-the-board sequester cuts until March. 

One-hundred and fifty-one House Republicans voted against the bill, with 85 voting for the measure. Conservative Republicans revolted against the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said would add $4 trillion to the deficit, arguing that it failed to address spending cuts.

LaTourette said he was dismayed that the White House and lawmakers had once again punted on the tough choices needed to rein in the deficit.

“It’s outrageous and it’s because no one will make the difficult decisions necessary to get this thing done. It is a problem that requires a $4 [trillion] to $6 trillion fix. Quite frankly, the president won’t show the leadership to get it done on the entitlement side; we’ve been slow to the dance on the revenue side,” he said.

“We all knew the president was going to get his way. He campaigned on raising taxes, he wanted to raise taxes, he wins,” LaTourette continued. “But now it’s time for people to face up to the fact that it’s not just on the revenue side, you really have to cut some of these programs that have been around since the Great Depression and figure out how to make them viable and sustainable.”

LaTourette jokingly added of the late vote in the Senate on Wednesday morning that “nothing good happens after midnight on New Year’s Eve.”

Asked if Republicans would have been better off accepting the president’s initial offer, which included deficit cuts, earlier in negotiations, LaTourette said no.

"The president was never serious about spending cuts,” he said. “This required a big deal on taxes and spending and everybody was afraid to make the deal."

View Comments

View the original article here

Congress In Contempt, Part 1: The Fiscal Cliff Is Only One Example Of Congressional Failure

by Bill Becker

There was a moment when the Founding Fathers considered putting a provision in the Constitution that would allow citizens to recall members of Congress. The proposal failed.  As a result, only members of Congress can remove other members of Congress from office.

It’s a pity.  As the 112th Congress passes into an ignominious history and a not-much-different 113th Congress takes over, one wishes the citizenry had the right to kick members out of office not just during an election year, but any time they don’t do their jobs.  Clearly, members of Congress are not doing their jobs today. By one measure, 95% of Americans think lawmakers are doing a lousy job.  One suspects the other 5% are the members of Congress themselves, along with their staffs and families.

The fiscal cliff debacle is merely the latest case in which our derelict and dysfunctional Congress has put the nation’s families, businesses and the overall economy at risk.  Even though Congress reached a last-minute agreement on the fiscal cliff last night,  significant damage already has been done by the politics of brinkmanship. From failing to fund Superstorm Sandy relief to outright denial of climate change, Congress has proved itself particularly inept.

Consider: While Congress went home for Christmas without reaching an agreement on taxes and spending, some 12 million Americans spent the holiday jobless. Two million of them lost their unemployment compensation when the crystal ball in Times Square hit bottom at the cusp of the New Year.

The health of America’s small businesses was a significant campaign issue in 2012, but it doesn’t seem to be a concern on Capitol Hill now that the election is over. The prospect of higher taxes and deep cuts in government programs caused consumer confidence to plummet six points in December, the most important time of year for business earnings, even more important this year as the economy continues climbing out of the pit created by the recession.

Think back over the last two years.  The genesis of the fiscal cliff was Congress’s standoff on raising the national debt ceiling in 2011. Legislation finally was approved only hours before the federal government defaulted on its debts.  Citing this “political brinksmanship” as a sign that Congress is “less able, less effective and less predictable” in managing the nation’s fiscal affairs, Standard & Poor’s took the unprecedented step of lowering America’s credit rating.

After last November’s election, in which voters seemed to signal they wanted an end to block-headed partisanship, congressional leaders expressed optimism they’d reach a deal  on taxes and spending before the end of the year. The fiscal cliff debacle indicates, however, that Congress didn’t get the message from voters or from Standard & Poor’s.  And another big cliff is just ahead: The need to raise the debt ceiling again in the next few weeks. The possible consequences of another standoff have been described by Jonathan Masters of the Council on Foreign Relations:

Many analysts say congressional gridlock over the debt limit will likely sow significant uncertainty in the bond markets and place upward pressure on interest rates. Rate increases would not only hike future borrowing costs of the federal government, but would also raise capital costs for struggling U.S. businesses and cash-strapped homebuyers. In addition, rising rates could divert future taxpayer money away from much-needed federal investments in such areas as infrastructure, education, and health care…Speaking to the Economic Club of New York in November 2012, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that congressional inaction with regard to the fiscal cliff, the raising of the debt ceiling, and the longer-term budget situation was creating uncertainty that “appears already to be affecting private spending and investment decisions and may be contributing to an increased sense of caution in financial markets, with adverse effects on the economy.”

Masters points out that for all the rhetoric about economic stability and fiscal discipline, the debt ceiling standoff in 2011 actually added to government waste and the economy’s jitters:

A 2012 study by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office estimated that delays in raising the debt ceiling in 2011 cost taxpayers approximately $1.3 billion for FY 2011. BPC (the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington D.C.) estimated the ten-year costs of the prolonged fight at roughly $19 billion.

The stock market also was thrown into frenzy in the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2011 debt limit debate, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunging roughly 2,000 points from the final days of July through the first days of August. Indeed, the Dow recorded one of its worst single-day drops in history on August 8, the day after the S&P downgrade, tumbling 635 points.

Lawmakers in the modern era have been inept at timely decisions on spending in general.  American families found something new in their stockings this Christmas: The threat that milk prices would double after Jan. 1 because Congress failed to reauthorize the nation’s farm program when it expired earlier in the year.  Worse, farm experts warned the nation’s agricultural sector would be thrown into turmoil. As the year ended, lawmakers extended the program temporarily for one year, pushing the milk can down the road.

Last June, Congress finally approved a national transportation bill three years after the old bill expired, but only after 130 mayors from 36 states petitioned congressional leaders to finally get the job done.

Congressional cowardice is on full display when it’s time to approve the federal government’s annual budgets. Members avoided making tough budget decisions just before the November election by failing to approve a new budget when old one expired on Oct. 1. Congress finally approved a temporary budget bill just a week before the federal government would have been forced to shut down.  The temporary budget – still in effect today — essentially puts federal agencies on hold until at least next March, after the 113th Congress has been seated and when the next election is still 20 months away.

Stop-gap budgets have become a tradition in Congress.  As Brendan Greeley reports on Bloomberg Businessweek:

Since 1952, according to the Congressional Research Service, Congress has completed its spending bills by its own deadlines only four times—in 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997. Year after year, lawmakers enact continuing resolutions to tide agencies over until appropriations bills pass. Fiscal year 2011—all 365 days of it—was paid for this way. Though a hyperpartisan year on Capitol Hill, it was by no means exceptional.  According to the CRS, 178 days every year, on average, have been funded through continuing resolutions since 1977. Basically, half the time there is no budget.

What are the consequences? More wasted money and government inefficiency. Greeley continues:

The uncertainty creates all kinds of inefficiencies,..(F)ederal contractors build a risk premium into their fees, charging back to taxpayers the extra uncertainty of potential funding disruptions. Agency leaders also have trouble staffing for new projects when there’s no budget. They have to resort to signing contracts on a monthly rather than an annual basis. Because every contract costs money to close, more contracts mean greater administrative and legal costs…

And the inefficiencies don’t end when the appropriations finally come through. Contractors or hires with critical skills may already have found other work. Agencies have trouble spending what they then receive before the end of the fiscal year.

Congress doesn’t tell us how much its tardy budgeting costs taxpayers, but it sometimes can’t hide the costs of partisan grandstanding.  For example, with important legislative work languishing, House Republicans held 33 votes to repeal Obamacare by July of last year, even though it was clear the Senate would never agree.  As Huffington Post reported:

While Republicans lambast the cost of implementing health care reform, a new report shows that their efforts to repeal the law have come at a major cost to taxpayers — to the tune of nearly $50 million…Republicans’ many fruitless attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act have taken up at least 80 hours of time on the House floor since 2010, amounting to two full work weeks. As the House, according to the Congressional Research Service, costs taxpayers $24 million a week to operate, those two weeks amounted to a total cost of approximately $48 million.

In large part because of delays in the Senate’s confirmation of President Obama’s appointments, Chief Justice John Roberts reported on Dec. 31 that “judicial emergencies” have developed in 27 jurisdictions where judicial vacancies have not been filled.   “The pattern throughout (President Obama’s) tenure has been uncontroversial judicial nominees…going nowhere on the Senate floor,” according to Jennifer Bendery’s analysis of last year’s Senate confirmation process on Huffington Post.

While extreme weather caused unprecedented levels of damage to communities across the United States in 2012, the 112th Congress avoided discussing, let alone acting on, global climate change. It failed to pass the Violence Against Women Act. Red and blue states have lost thousands of jobs in the emerging wind energy industry because Congress stalled on passing the Production Tax Credit for utility-scale wind development by year’s end.  And while bargaining to cut spending on programs such as Medicare and Social Security, lawmakers refused to touch sacred cows like the billions of dollars of unnecessary taxpayer subsidies Congress gives the oil industry.

Last November’s election was an opportunity for voters to discipline Congress for all of this. But even with public approval of Congress at one of the lowest levels ever,  91% of the members up for reelection in November were returned to office.

We appear to be a masochistic electorate and Congress appears to count on it and to holds us in contempt.  That’s not likely to change until we impose the discipline on it that it’s unwilling to impose upon itself.  How? I’ll offer some suggestions in Part 2.

Bill Becker is the Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project. For more specific information about the Soldiers Grove experience and its lessons for other disaster-affected communities, see Becker’s report,  “Rebuilding for the Future”.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

‘Django Unchained,’ ‘Lincoln,’ Dr. King Schultz and Thaddeus Stevens, And The Value of Moderation


There’s a lot to chew over in Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino’s bloody slavery epic, and the second in a planned trilogy of revenge movies, the third of which will be about black World War II fighter pilots. There’s the movie’s worship of cool masculinity, even as, like Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln it marginalizes the role black women played in the fight for their own liberation. There’s the reaction to a black man, first killing white people for money, and then to eradicate the forces that have consistently brutalized his family and denied him his humanity, something that’s been rightly demolished by other critics. But as I’ve thought about the movie in the weeks since I’ve seen it—and I needed that time to really consider Django Unchained—it strikes me that it’s as interesting a movie about whiteness, solidarity, and how best to achieve social progress, as it is on any of these other questions.

And it’s impossible to consider that element of the movie without thinking about it in context of Lincoln. Like long-term abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens’ decision, on the floor of the House, to moderate his stated views on the equality of black Americans to win support for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in Spielberg’s film, a crucial moment in Django Unchained comes when German bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a newer advocate of equality, is offered an opportunity to avoid violence and advance the cause of equality with social moderation—except that in this case, he chooses purity, radicalism, violence, and ultimately his own death.

Where Stevens is a long-standing participant in the struggle for black liberation, Schultz is a newcomer to radical action against slavery, and a rather accidental one at that. Though he initially approaches Django, when the other man is imprisoned as a member of a slave-trading caravan, in a tone that makes the white men transporting uncomfortable enough to tell Schultz to “stop talking to him like that,” by which he means as if Django is a man possessed of agency and opinions, he treats Django as an equal only as in so far as he treats him like someone who can be of use to Schultz. Schultz clearly thinks slavery is wrong—he tells the other member of Django’s caravan that they should “Make your way to a more Enlightened area of the country. Oh, and if there are any astronomy aficionados among you, the North Star is that way.” But at least at the beginning of the film, he appears to view the institution as a particular American backwardness rather than a moral abomination that requires urgent opposition, and Schultz is willing to hold Django’s freedom over him until he gets what he needs from the other man. “On the one hand, I despise slavery,” he explains to Django. “On the other hand, I need your help…In the mean time, I’m going to make this slavery malarkey work for me.”

Schultz’s radicalism comes from his increasing ability to place Django, the first slave he’s ever known personally, into the tropes that for him seem to define humanity. “Do most slaves believe in marriage?” he asks Django when he finds out his traveling companion is married. “Me and my wife do,” Django tells him. And when he discovers that Django’s wife (Kerry Washington) is named Broomhilda, Schultz is able to fit Django into a cultural framework that he understands, seeing him as the legendary hero Siegfried. “I’ve never given anyone his freedom before,” Schultz explains to Django when he decides to stick around and assist in Django’s quest to rescue his wife. “And now that I have, I feel vaguely responsible for you. And for a German to meet a real-life Siegfried, that’s a big deal.”

Where Schultz feels vaguely responsible to a specific slave, of course, Stevens feels very specifically responsible to black Americans both particular and general. As Stevens and Lincoln discuss in the kitchen during Mrs. Lincoln’s party, Stevens has a vision for the reintegration of the seceded states back into the Union that will reorder the nation’s economy to give the people who once were property in it a foothold they can lever into independence. At the end of Lincoln, the movie suggests that there’s a specific woman of color who motivates Stevens’ vision, the housekeeper he can’t bring to the White House, Lydia Smith (S. Epatha Merkerson). But in both cases, Stevens wants to reshape the world so he can live in it in a fashion more to his liking, with the woman he loves in particular, and in what he believes to be the true state of nature beyond his domestic affairs.

Schultz has the fire of a recent convert, but not the experience of America’s past and the things to gain from its reformed future that animate Stevens. And so when, after securing the freedom of Django and Broomhilda during a tense dinner with Broomhilda’s brutal owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), Schultz has a chance to end the interaction in the kind of tense show of comity Stevens engages in for the greater good, Schultz takes the purer, but more dramatic path. After pointing out that Alexandre Dumas, an author Candie admires enough to collect, and to use as inspiration for naming one of his fighting slaves, D’Artagnan, after the hero of The Three Musketeers, was black, Schultz refuses to shake Candie’s hand. And then he shoots the other white man, explaining to Django, “I’m sorry. I couldn’t resist.” That act of self-indulgent purity sets off an orgy of violence that endangers Django and Broomhilda’s ability to escape: it’s the act of a crusader who is more concerned with his own ability to get and stay right than with whether or not he achieves the freedom of the people he initially intended to help. I’m not sure whether Tarantino intended to make that point, or if Schultz’s indulgence is merely a way to set off a spasm of cool that gives Django the opportunity to free himself and to claim the mantle of a badass rather than having Schultz do that work and get that credit for him.

There’s no question that Hollywood could do more to let people of color be the heroes of their own stories, but I don’t think any of us would deny that it would be better if they didn’t end up in peril because white people made self-regarding decisions that placed them in great danger and difficulty. Stevens’ willingness to compromise may mean he gets credit that is not available to black characters in Lincoln. But he also doesn’t endanger the people he claims to represent and care about for the sake of his own pride.

In Tarantino’s world, it’s possible to have both, the shootout and the triumphant escape, to put Broomhilda through the tortures of slavery, while also preserving her radiant beauty as an inspiration to Django, to portray a weirdly sanitized vision of plantations full of well-clothed slaves working in immaculate fields, while still condemning the institution as an affront to human decency. But while Lincoln eschews Django Unchained‘s fondness for gouged eyes and gouts of blood in favor of a single, muddy battle scene and wars of words, it’s Spielberg who ultimately has the tougher vision of what it takes to achieve substantive social progress. Revenge may be more fun than reform. But it’s ultimately more self-indulgent.


View the original article here

Justiceline: January 2, 2013

Welcome to Justiceline, ThinkProgress Justice’s morning round-up of the latest legal news and developments. Remember to follow us on Twitter at @TPJustice


View the original article here

Trump: 'Republicans may be the worst negotiators in history!'

By Alicia M. Cohn - 01/02/13 10:08 AM ET

Donald Trump thinks "Republicans may be the worst negotiators in history."

The real estate mogul and reality TV show host is also an outspoken Republican who played a vocal role in the recent presidential election. But 2013 launched with Trump critical of his party, due to negotiations in Congress to avoid the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and trigger of automatic spending cuts at the end of 2012.

Trump, whose own negotiation style has inspired "how-to" books, on Wednesday wanted to know whether "any" Republicans know the art.

Trump is not the only Republican feeling critical of the party after passage of a tax bill to prevent the fall from the so-called "fiscal cliff." The Senate passed the bill on New Year's Day, and the House late Tuesday.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), one of five Senate Republicans who voted against the bill, called the tax bill a "failure" in a tweet on Wednesday morning.

The measure indefinitely extends the expiring Bush-era tax rates on annual family income up to $450,000, and for individuals up to a $400,000 cutoff. It also lifts the top capital gains and dividends rates to 20 percent, extends unemployment benefits for a year, and delays for two months the automatic spending cuts triggered by the sequestering process.

Trump tweeted that the bill is "a terrible deal for the country and an embarrassment for Republicans!"

View Comments

View the original article here

Econ 101: January 2, 2013

Welcome to ThinkProgress Economy’s morning link roundup. This is what we’re reading. Have you seen any interesting news? Let us know in the comments section. You can also follow ThinkProgress Economy on Twitter.


View the original article here

House Republicans stab Hurricane Sandy victims and Chris Christie in the back

In the annals of the most immoral disgraces in the history of the American Congress, the action of House Republicans to kill assistance to victims of Hurricane Sandy is among the most disgraceful and revolting, a testament to why Republicans have lost three of the last four national elections, and a deliberate insult to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as well as Americans in all affected states.

Christie cares deeply about his constituents and might consider leaving the Republicans and joining the only national party that shares his passion for serving and protecting the people of New Jersey: the Democratic Party.
View Comments

View the original article here