Sequester Cuts and Killing Unemployment Benefit Extensions: When GOP Values Make no Sense

by Nomad

This week the Republicans appeared to be sticking to its tried and true conservative principles by blocking a vote on extending unemployment benefits. 

Add to that the impact of sequester cuts to state jobs training programs and you have a campaign issue nightmare. The question is: can any party get elected by hurting its most vulnerable voters? 
Not once but twice?

Two days ago, Republican conservatives used the power of the filibuster to block a Democratic bill to restore unemployment benefits to over a million Americans, hit hard by the recession. According to an announcement of this decision, the lawmakers declared they were standing on conservative principle.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) stated:

"People, if you pay 'em for years and years, they won't look for a job." 

Who is the "'em" and who are the "they"? What happened to "us" and "we"? 

Extending unemployment benefits, he added, creates no jobs. At a cost of $6.4 billion, the cost of the extension could not be justified, according to the Republicans. Shelby told an interviewer,

"That is a huge expenditure. What we need to do is spend that money on retraining these people that are unemployed -- help them for a few months and get them retrained and get them back in the job market. That's the problem."

As we shall see, there is a major problem with that idea. 

Other Republicans cited their conservative principles to support the filibuster. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said:

"I certainly ran because we're mortgaging our children's future. We're bankrupting this nation."

It's not hard to imagine the possible fallout from this decision come election time. With more than.1.3 million people Americans left without any kind of safety net nationwide, it could make a difference who controls the houses of Congress.

Oklahoma Federal Judge Delivers Yet Another Blow against Same-Sex Marriage Bans

by Nomad

Across the nation, state-by-state same-sex marriage bans are being overturned by federal justices. Yesterday it was Oklahoma's turn. The governor of that state has invested a lot of political capital in attempting to stop marriage equality for gay Oklahoma couples. Has Conservative governor Mary Fallin's crusade finally come to the end? 

In what campaigners for marriage equality will see as a victory a federal judge ruled on Tuesday that an Oklahoma law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge ruled that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the basis for most civil rights legislation since it provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (This is, incidentally, the basis for corporate personhood.)

Oklahoma now joins California, Connecticut, Iowa Massachusetts), New Jersey, Utah and New Mexico where courts have ruled against same-sex marriage bans. A further 8 states have voted for recognition by legislative action and 3 more by popular vote.

By any measure, it has been a political disaster for conservatives. 

And a costly one for political groups. Millions of dollars have been spent by conservative Christian organizations like The Arlington Group to pass same-sex marriage bans in 13 states. Today there are 17 states that legally recognize same-sex marriages and that number will undoubtedly continue to rise.

Oklahoma Governor Fallin: Flailing and Failing 

This will come as a blow to many conservatives in the state who have politicized the issue. For example, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin had taken an active role in the matter since taking office. As if Oklahoma has absolutely nothing else to worry about.

In November, in order to stop same-sex couples from receiving benefits, she ordered the Oklahoma National Guard to stop processing benefits for all service members regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. She told reporters that the reason for this was purely legislative. 

Recess Appointments and Partisan Obstructionism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

by Nomad

This week the Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court's decision which declared unconstitutional President Obama's use of recess appointments.

The ramifications of a Supreme Court decision upholding the lower decision could be disastrous for Obama. Why? Should the Senate fall into the hands of the obstructionist Republicans, Obama's chances of getting any nominations may be impossible. How the justices decide in this case could play a crucial factor not only in the remainder of this administration but in future presidencies.

Recess Appointments

Like a lot of cases before the Supreme Court, the actual importance and impact are buried beneath mounds of mundane details. Such is the case of the constitutionality of recess appointments. For instance, strictly speaking, the case is straightforward. It revolves around the president's ability to make appointments while the Senate is at recess. What are the limits to this presidential power according to the constitution? 

There is no reason question whether the US constitution gives Presidents the right to fill a vacant position if the Senate is in recess. Wikipedia describes recess appointments this way:

The U.S. Constitution requires that the most senior federal officers must be confirmed by the Senate before assuming office, but while the Senate is in recess the President may act alone by making a recess appointment to fill "Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate."   

In a happier world in which all of the branches of government work together and make nice to one another, this could be seen as merely a way to smooth the confirmation process along. But of course, that's not the world in which we live and Washington has never a happy place for long. 

Waiting for America's Bhopal: How Budget Cuts and De-Regulation Are Making the Unimaginable Inevitable

by Nomad

Last year's West, Texas explosion and this week's West Virginia chemical leak could just be a wake up call to the nation. De-regulation and budget cutting may make us more competitive but at what cost?

A single environmental disaster could affect the lives of millions of people, cost the state billions and make entire areas uninhabitable. And that  could make the discussion of de-regulation and budget-cuts completely null and void.

Not long ago I read the book Five Past Midnight in Bhopal: The Epic Story of the World's Deadliest Industrial Disaster. It's the kind of book that you know you should read but dread to begin. It's an exceedingly thoroughly-researched book and at times, slow going. In spite of that,  in these days when environmental regulations are under attack by the conservative Republicans, it should be on every American's reading list.

Most people, I suppose, have heard of the industrial disaster at Bhopal but here's a little refresher.

The Bhopal Event

In the early hours of December 3, 1984, in the town of Bhopal, India, a nearby Union Carbide plant, which manufactured insecticides, accidentally released a heavy toxic cloud of chemicals into the surrounding residential area. The heavy cloud hovered over the area, which was comprised mostly of crowded slums. It literally fumigated the unsuspecting village, mercilessly killing the people that lived there.

Within hours, things quickly collapsed. Panic and confusion spread and any kind of coordinated response was impossible. The local government was totally ill-equipped to handle the emergency. (The very idea that it could happen at all seems never to have crossed their minds.)

The Shocking Truth about Freedom Fries, the French Boycott and Fox News

by Nomad

An exclusive look back at the Conservative revenge against the French for not joining its coalition of the willing: the crusade of Freedom Fries and a boycott of French products, promoted by Fox News.

The French Warning

On February 14, 2003, Dominique de Villepin, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed the UN to state his nation's opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention today be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?

His tone was that of an old friend giving advice to a headstrong impulsive youth:

This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. An old country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind.

The response from the member nations was unprecedented. His speech received an ovation from the normally circumspect crowd.
Villepin's remarks came on the heels of speeches by chief UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei who had both cautioned against taking a fatal misstep. Instead, they called for a "steady as she goes" policy with regards to the inspections.

The Bush administration was, to put it mildly, less than pleased. It was a critical time in the coalition forming and the prospects of forming any kind of international consensus were growing dim. This was not your daddy's coalition, critics might have told George Bush. 

Government officials were already well aware of the European opposition to any military action against Saddam Hussein. Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with the opposition as high as 90% in Spain and Italy, and also widespread in Eastern Europe. Key allies like France and Germany both advocated a continuation of the inspections.

The Bush officials and the conservatives in Washington saw all this as nothing short of a European betrayal, led by the weak-willed French.