ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

DADT STUDY LEAK: Repeal Will Not Undermine Military During Time Of War

By Igor Volsky on Nov 10, 2010 at 9:51 pm

Last month, NBC’s Richard Engel reported that the Pentagon’s Working Group study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had found that a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers, suggesting that repeal wouldn’t be nearly as disruptive as some conservative critics have suggested.

Now, two sources who have seen a copy of the survey — which is scheduled for release on December 1 — are telling the Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe and Greg Jaffe that repeal will not disrupt the military during a time of war:

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them. [...]

The document totals about 370 pages and is divided into two sections. The first section explores whether repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would harm unit readiness or morale. It cites the findings of a survey sent over the summer to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, a separate questionnaire sent to about 150,000 military spouses, the responses submitted to an anonymous online dropbox seeking comments, and responses from focus-group participants.

The second part of the report presents a plan for ending enforcement of the ban. It is not meant to serve as the military’s official instruction manual on the issue but could be used if military leaders agreed, one of the sources said.

The report, which the service chiefs received last week, also notes that while a majority of service members have signaled “no strong objections, a significant minority is opposed to serving alongside openly gay troops,” “40 percent of the Marine Corps is concerned about lifting the ban, according to one of the people familiar with the report.” On Saturday, Gen. James Amos, the new commandant of the Marine Corps, echoed this sentiment, telling reporters that repeal carried “risk.” Amos has also previously stated that the Marines’ sense of “discipline” and “leadership” are “going to carry the day for us should the law get changed” — despite any opposition from the ranks.

According to the Posts’ sources, “[t]he report also concludes that gay troops should not be put into a special class for equal employment or discrimination purposes” and “recommends few, if any, changes to policy covering military housing and benefits, because the military must abide by the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.”

The report does not anticipate “a large ‘coming out’ by gay men and lesbians serving in uniform” once the policy is repealed.

Education

Outgoing New York City Schools Chancellor Left His Mark By Holding Principals Accountable

By Guest Blogger on Nov 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm

Our guest blogger is Robin Chait, Associate Director for Teacher Quality at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Outgoing New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein

As Chancellor Joel Klein leaves New York City Public Schools to become an executive vice president with News Corp., the media company founded by Rupert Murdoch, many are debating his record. Some have criticized his authoritarian style and failure to involve parents and community members in his reform efforts.

However, he clearly has achieved dramatic reforms, fostering a culture of innovation in the district. And student achievement has increased as a result.

One of his unique contributions was the attention he focused on the principalship as a key lever for school reform. Klein empowered principals by giving them more control over their school budgets and the ability to hire teachers and select vendors for academic programs. He then held them accountable for their results with a more rigorous evaluation process. In New York City, principals are evaluated based on a school’s growth in academic performance, a principal’s goals and objectives, compliance with district mandates, and a comprehensive, two-three day school quality review.

This attention to the principalship is smart and strategic, because while effective teachers are incredibly important to students’ learning, principals are responsible for recruiting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. According to Steve Tozer, the program coordinator for the Urban Education Leadership program at the University of Illinois at Chicago, “the principalship is simply the most cost effective lever for improving schools.”

Tozer made this comment at an event today that CAP co-sponsored with the Rainwater Foundation and the Fordham Institute that focused on rethinking principal recruitment and preparation to prepare principals that can dramatically improve learning and close the achievement gap. The event was informed by a new report, prepared by the Rainwater Leadership Alliance (RLA) entitled “A New Approach to Principal Preparation.” Read more

Security

Rumsfeld Attacks Defense Cuts, Which Garner Support From Tea Party-Progressive Coalition

By Zaid Jilani on Nov 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm

The chairmen of President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission released a report outlining their recommendations to reduce the budget deficit today. The report — which outlines billions of dollars in defense cuts, in addition to other cuts — is sure to spark a furious debate over what measures should be taken to reduce U.S. debt.

Former Bush Secretary of Defense made his recommendations for deficit reduction yesterday through his Twitter account, @RumsfeldOffice. He tweeted, “Tough fiscal choices ahead: Reforming entitlements should top the list – cutting the defense budget should not“:

The position that Rumsfeld is advocating for — reducing spending on “entitlements” like Medicare and Social Security while declaring military spending off-limits from waste trimming — is exactly the opposite of what polling shows the American people want. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted just days before last week’s election, a plurality of voters said that their top priority for cuts in government spending was “national security.” Cuts in Social Security and Medicare were ranked second to last in popularity (cuts to education spending were least popular, with only 8 percent of Americans in favor).

Additionally, Rumsfeld is placing himself in opposition to a growing movement of both Tea Party-backed conservatives and progressives who are coming together to call for cuts in the defense budget. Numerous U.S. Senators, including several Tea Party-backed Republicans, have demanded that defense cuts be on the table:

– Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): Isakson, who has been a featured speaker at Capitol Hill Tea Party rallies, told a local news station last month that deficit reduction “begins with the Department of Defense.”

– Sen.-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA): Toomey, who has in the past called the Tea Party a “very constructive movement for positive change,” criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want” during a debate with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA).

– Sen.-elect Mark Kirk (R-IL): The week before Toomey’s statement, Kirk, who has received backing from the tea party movement, said that we need “across-the-board” reductions in defense spending during a debate with his Democratic opponent Alexi Giannoulias.

– Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): Corker has gone out of his way to accrue Tea Party support. “We embraced the tea party spirit when it was in its infancy last August,” said Todd Wom­ack, his chief of staff. Three weeks ago, Corker said on CNBC that defense cuts have to be “on the table” because there’s “a lot of waste there.”

– Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-KY): Tea Party “darling” told PBS’s Gwen Ifil during the campaign that that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” Paul reiterated his call for reducing the military budget this weekend while appearing on ABC’s This Week. He tweaked Republicans for “never” saying “they’ll cut anything out of military. … There’s still waste in the military budget. You have to make it smaller.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): Tea Party-backed ultra-conservative Coburn used the op-ed pages of The Washington Examiner last weeks to praise Paul’s “courage” in calling for a smaller military budget and said he looks forward to “working with him” toward that goal. “Republicans should resist pressure to take all defense spending off the table. … Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows,” he concluded.

– Progressive Sens. Pat Leahy (D-VT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT): These four stalwart progressive senators joined with 55 members of Congress, including conservative Republican Reps. Ron Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC), to send a letter to the President’s Deficit Commission urging it to “subject military spending to the same rigorous scrutiny that non-military spending will receive. … We strongly believe that any deficit reduction package must contain significant cuts to the military budget.”

In opposing cuts to the defense budget and instead taking aim at entitlements, Rumsfeld is facing off with both the American people and a rising Tea Party-progressive coalition in the halls of Congress. While defenders of the status quo will likely pull out all the stops in order to defend a bloated defense budget that fails to properly serve America in the 21st century, this rising coalition has defense contractors worried. At a “closed door meeting” last month between Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn and Wall Street analysts, one senior defense industry executive said that he expects “real pressure” from Congress over defense spending. “The grim reality is that the midterm elections are going to have a significant impact in terms of accelerating the contraction in defense funding,” Jim McAleese, a Virginia-based defense consultant, told Reuters.

Update

For more on the growing trans-ideological coalition pushing for defense cuts, see today’s Progress Report, “Tea Party-Progressive Coalition For Defense Cuts.”

Health

Democrats Sharpen Message Against Health Repeal In Anticipation Of GOP Onslaught

By Igor Volsky on Nov 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell prepares to double down on the GOP’s commitment to repeal health care reform — going so far as to file an amicus brief in the ongoing multi-state lawsuit challenging the law — Democrats are sharpening their strategy to defend it.

Yesterday, during an address at the GTC BIO Conference, House and Energy Committee Charmian Henry Waxman (D-CA) highlighted the most popular consumer protections in the law, while framing the GOP strategy as an effort to take away those benefits and hand the health care system back to the insurance companies:

WAXMAN: Republicans always pose the question in terms of: Do you want to repeal “Obamacare?” They never pose these questions:

Do you want to repeal the requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions? That we forbid insurers from dropping coverage when you get sick? That we end lifetime limits on coverage? That we end the ability for your children to get coverage on your insurance policies through the age of 26?

And they never ask seniors:

Do you support ending the $250 subsidy those of you in the donut hole received this year, or the new 50% discount for brand name drugs you will get next year?
Do you support closing the donut hole altogether in 2020?

No, the Republicans don’t pose the questions on repeal in this manner – because they know the answers they will get from the American people.

Earlier in the speech, Waxman warned, “Last year, the Institute of Medicine issued a landmark report on the consequences of uninsurance. The report documents in exhaustive detail that a lack of health insurance coverage results in needless illness, suffering, and even death.” The comments may be part of a new offensive highlighting the costs and consequences of repeal. As The Hill’s Julian Pecquet reports, Democrats are sending around “a new report showing that 59.1 million Americans went without health insurance for at least part of the first three months of 2010 — a 400,000 increase over last year’s count from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” “While GOP leaders are fighting to protect insurance companies,” the Senate Democratic Communications Center argues, “the Democrats will continue to fight to protect American families who deserve quality health care.”

Incidentally, as Ezra Klein highlighted in two charts yesterday, the individual elements of reform are in fact extremely popular and could represent the best chance for advocates to fend of the coming repeal campaign.

Update

< a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50649748-76/backs-brief-buy-federal.html.csp">Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is joining McConnell’s brief.

LGBT

GOP Abandoning Defense Bill Out Of Fear That Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Will Be Included

By Igor Volsky on Nov 10, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Last night, Roll Call’s Jessica Brady reported that Republicans are abandoning the ongoing pre-conference meetings about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) out of fear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will insert a provision repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell even if the Senate doesn’t include it in its version of the bill. In other words, the Republicans are sacrificing any opportunity to pass the NDAA and all of the pay increases and critical authorizations that with it because they’re are afraid of a provision that the Secretary of Defense has fully endorsed:

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) are in talks about how to move a defense authorization bill to the floor in the coming weeks. House Armed Services staff members, including Simmons, were also part of staff-level discussions to smooth out differences between the House and Senate bills in an effort to speed conference negotiations, McKeon spokesman Josh Holly said.
But without assurances from Pelosi’s office that the Speaker would not add repeal language back into the measure, House Republican staffers have fled those talks. [...]

According to Simmons’ e-mail, House Republicans fear Pelosi would still find a way to push the DADT repeal and abortion language even if the House considers a Senate-passed bill that is void of such language.
“The Speaker could simply create either a self-executing rule and re-attach DADT and abortion,” Simmons wrote to top staffers for Levin, McCain and House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.). “Since the majority had the votes before, it is safe to assume this would again pass in the House. Thus the House would send it back to the Senate where it would likely pass with DADT repeal and abortions included.”

None of this of course bodes very well for passing the NDAA in the lame duck (with or without the repeal amendment). But what’s stunning is that the GOP — the very same party that just a couple of years ago demonized Democrats for not supporting the troops and placing social policy ahead of the needs of the military — is now ignoring the calls of the Secretary of Defense in order to avoid the possibility that gay people would serve openly and proudly in the military.

Politics

Three Good Ideas And Three Not So Good Ideas From The Chairmen Of The Debt Commission

By Guest Blogger on Nov 10, 2010 at 5:45 pm

Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Debt commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson

Earlier today, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission released their draft proposal (a.k.a. chairmen’s mark) to reduce the deficit. This is not the final report of the fiscal commission, but it is likely going to be the starting point for the remainder of the panel’s discussions. There’s a lot in there, but let’s highlight three good ideas and three bad ideas. Here are the good ideas:

– Defense Cuts: The chairmen’s mark includes about $100 billion in what they call “illustrative” cuts to military spending. These cuts would be used to meet an overall discretionary target of about $174 billon in savings compared to the president’s budget. Their suggested cuts are similar to the Center for American Progress’ own suggestions, and it’s nice to see them take seriously the fact that defense cuts have to be a part of the solution.

– Agriculture Subsidy Reductions: The proposal includes about $3 billion a year in cuts to agriculture subsidies. This is a big step in the right direction. Experts from across the political spectrum have repeatedly called for these subsidies to be substantially reduced. Even President Bush thought so. If we’re going to cut wasteful or unnecessary spending, this is the place to start.

– Revenue: The chairmen’s mark has revenue going to 19.3 percent of GDP in 2015 and then eventually up to 21 percent of GDP. Again, this is an important step in the right direction. The president’s budget plan calls for 19 percent of GDP in 2015, and that assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the richest two percent, along with a host of other revenue raisers. That the chairmen’s proposal results in slightly higher revenues for 2015 is, at the least, an admission that revenue must be part of the solution. I think they’re still a little low on the revenue side of things, but it’s a start.

As for the bad ones:

– Draconian Cuts To Services And Programs: The plan seems to suggest about one dollar in non-defense discretionary cuts for every dollar in defense cuts. I can understand the political logic of this, but substantively it’s a really bad idea. Non-defense discretionary dollars go to pay for some very crucial things like veteran’s health care, education, science and health research, consumer product, food and drug safety, and law enforcement. $100 billion in cuts represents a greater than 15 percent reduction on all these things. Unlike the defense cuts – which could be implemented without harming national security – this level of reduction to such a wide array of public services would really hurt.

– Raising The Social Security Retirement Age: This is a popular idea in certain Washington circles, but as ThinkProgress’ Matthew Yglesias says, it is “basically the very most regressive way to reduce entitlement spending.” There are better ways to bring Social Security into 75 year actuarial balance than asking people to work longer.

– Revenue: It’s good that the chairmen recognize the need for more revenue. It’s bad that they don’t really tell us how they plan to get it. Instead they say they’ll get $80 billion from tax reform, and then offer three visions of what that reform might look like. Now this is just their initial proposal, and I’m sure it’ll get fleshed out more in the coming weeks, but for now, while their spending cuts are pretty specific, their revenue plan is frustratingly muddied.

Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.

Yglesias

US Trade Deficit is Half Oil

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm

A government official emphasized to me today what should be clear to anyone who follows Calculated Risk’s charts, namely that a huge element of our trade deficit has nothing to do with China or manufacturing but is instead driven by oil:

Now it’s not unusual that the US is a net oil importer. Most countries are. But America is a much more oil-dependent country than other places are. We have more anti-density regulations, more subsidization of big houses, less taxation of gasoline, less investment in mass transit, etc. than most developed countries. This isn’t really a coincidence. The United States was a net oil exporter in the late-1940s. So we had a postwar industrial policy paradigm built around suburbanization and powerful firms in the oil and automobile sectors. The problem is that we’re not a net oil exporter anymore by a long shot. But we still have a policy paradigm build around encouraging lavish consumption of gasoline. Under the circumstances, we’d have to run a really enormous surplus in goods and services to cover the oil gap.

Economy

Three Good Ideas And Three Not So Good Ideas From The Chairmen Of The Debt Commission

By Guest Blogger on Nov 10, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Debt commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson

Earlier today, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission released their draft proposal (a.k.a. chairmen’s mark) to reduce the deficit. This is not the final report of the fiscal commission, but it is likely going to be the starting point for the remainder of the panel’s discussions. There’s a lot in there, but let’s highlight three good ideas and three bad ideas. Here are the good ideas:

– Defense Cuts: The chairmen’s mark includes about $100 billion in what they call “illustrative” cuts to military spending. These cuts would be used to meet an overall discretionary target of about $174 billon in savings compared to the president’s budget. Their suggested cuts are similar to the Center for American Progress’ own suggestions, and it’s nice to see them take seriously the fact that defense cuts have to be a part of the solution.

– Agriculture Subsidy Reductions: The proposal includes about $3 billion a year in cuts to agriculture subsidies. This is a big step in the right direction. Experts from across the political spectrum have repeatedly called for these subsidies to be substantially reduced. Even President Bush thought so. If we’re going to cut wasteful or unnecessary spending, this is the place to start.

– Revenue: The chairmen’s mark has revenue going to 19.3 percent of GDP in 2015 and then eventually up to 21 percent of GDP. Again, this is an important step in the right direction. The president’s budget plan calls for 19 percent of GDP in 2015, and that assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the richest two percent, along with a host of other revenue raisers. That the chairmen’s proposal results in slightly higher revenues for 2015 is, at the least, an admission that revenue must be part of the solution. I think they’re still a little low on the revenue side of things, but it’s a start.

As for the bad ones:

– Draconian Cuts To Services And Programs: The plan seems to suggest about one dollar in non-defense discretionary cuts for every dollar in defense cuts. I can understand the political logic of this, but substantively it’s a really bad idea. Non-defense discretionary dollars go to pay for some very crucial things like veteran’s health care, education, science and health research, consumer product, food and drug safety, and law enforcement. $100 billion in cuts represents a greater than 15 percent reduction on all these things. Unlike the defense cuts – which could be implemented without harming national security – this level of reduction to such a wide array of public services would really hurt.

– Raising The Social Security Retirement Age: This is a popular idea in certain Washington circles, but as Matthew Yglesias says, it is “basically the very most regressive way to reduce entitlement spending.” There are better ways to bring Social Security into 75 year actuarial balance than asking people to work longer.

– Revenue: It’s good that the chairmen recognize the need for more revenue. It’s bad that they don’t really tell us how they plan to get it. Instead they say they’ll get $80 billion from tax reform, and then offer three visions of what that reform might look like. Now this is just their initial proposal, and I’m sure it’ll get fleshed out more in the coming weeks, but for now, while their spending cuts are pretty specific, their revenue plan is frustratingly muddied.

Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up