ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

Rep. Hartzler Wants Military To Have Its Own DOMA To ‘Protect Family Stability’

By Zack Ford on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Add a fourth anti-gay amendment to the pile today. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), who has proven to be one of Congress’s biggest opponents of LGBT equality, has offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would essentially create a separate Defense of Marriage Act just for the Department of Defense. Here’s the full text of her amendment (PDF):

Congress finds that the unique conditions of military service create a heightened need to protect marital and family stability, which are promoted by the adoption of this section. In determining the meaning of or applying any ruling, policy, regulation, benefit, or benefit program of the Department of Defense applicable to members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the Department of Defense, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

If Congress truly finds that marital and family stability depend upon denying more individuals access to marriage, then Congress did not look very hard. The American Psychological Association concluded years ago that marriage supports the mental health and well-being of not only same-sex couples but also their families.

Hartzler is trying to ensure that even when same-sex couples can finally be open about their relationships, they will still be treated as second-class families in the military. If military preparedness truly benefits when the Department of Defense treats some families as superior to others, Hartzler should consider advocating for reintroducing segregation as well.

Alyssa

My Superhero Is Black

By Alyssa Rosenberg on May 10, 2011 at 5:31 pm

By Alyssa Rosenberg

Gene Demby has a true barnburner of a piece in this month’s American Prospect breaking down America’s fears of a black superhero. He writes:

A purple-skinned alien hurtles across the cosmos, bearing a ring that grants its wearer unimaginable power. The alien is mortally wounded, and the ring is seeking its next wearer — the Green Lantern, Earth’s champion — by finding the planet’s most courageous inhabitant. In a world with billions of people, what are the chances that the ring’s next owner is a white American dude?Pretty high, apparently…In the early days, whiteness was so pervasive in comics that it could actually span the universe: a Kryptonian Superman could crash-land in Kansas and pass as an ordinary white farm boy.

You really should read the whole thing. It’s a critical reminder of how resistant our popular culture can be to images of black power. And if we want different kinds of superhero stories, focusing on different heroes, whether they’re protecting their countries from colonization, trying to balance their duties as crimefighters with their day job as Secretary of Education, or working in superheroically under-served communities (not to mention pioneering new areas of legal practice—I want my She-Hulk movie), is the quickest way to find ones worth telling. There are only so many ways to portray yet another white dude trying to come to terms with his newfound specialness.

Politics

Rep. Jeff Duncan Denies He Voted For Big Oil Subsidies, Then Gets Flustered Trying To Justify The Money

By Lee Fang on May 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm

Although Republicans hinted for months that they may reverse course and end billions in subsidies to big oil companies, they voted in lockstep last week to protect them.

Before the Silver Elephant Dinner last week in Columbia, SC, ThinkProgress spoke to freshman Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) about the vote. At first, Duncan claimed that he “did not” vote to preserve billions in subsidies to oil companies. Second later, he backtracked and told us that he opposed an amendment, offered by Democrats, which would have killed the subsidies. Finally, after some prodding, Duncan told us he stands by companies like Exxon and BP, but had “no comment” on why they deserve special subsidies:

FANG: What do you think about oil subsidies? I know Democrats have brought this up this week and there was a vote on Thursday or maybe Wednesday on ending billions of dollars in tax subsidies to very profitable oil companies like Exxon, Shell, Chevron, etc. Do you think it’s necessary that the government borrows money to give to already very profitable oil companies?

DUNCAN: Well look at all the money we borrow to give to countries that hate us in foreign aid. I think we gotta look at every bit of expenditure, every tax line, and really work on reining in government spending more.

FANG: Did you vote to extend those subsidies?

DUNCAN: I did not.

FANG: Okay.

DUNCAN: Or I didn’t vote for the Democrat amendment that you were talking about. I support American energy production, and it will be produced by companies, Exxon, BP, Shell, and continue to support American energy.

FANG: Even if they made $35 billion in the last quarter, you think that it’s still necessary that the taxpayer subsidize them?

DUNCAN: I’m not going to comment on that.

Watch it:

Taxpayers will be forced to hand over some $70 billion in oil subsidies over the next ten years, unless Congress repeals them. This money, however, is not making gas prices cheaper. Rather, the subsidies are padding the profits of executives at Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other major oil companies, which collectively made $35 billion in profits in just the first quarter of 2011.

Many Republican lawmakers have been unable to square their loyal dedication to giving taxpayer money to big oil companies with their larger message of spending cuts. Some lawmakers, like Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), have tried to deny the existence of such subsidies. Others have tried to tell town hall meetings that they will vote to end oil subsidies, before traveling back to DC and voting to preserve them.

Security

Pawlenty: Let’s Pull A Bin Laden On Qaddafi

By Ben Armbruster on May 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm

The past week and a half has been tough for right-wing critics of President Obama’s foreign policy. Aside from the fact that the President’s decision to get Osama bin Laden pretty much put an end to the absurd neocon mockery of “leading from behind,” when it comes to killing the world’s most wanted terrorist leader, there’s really not much substantively one can get worked up over.

So how does a neocon criticize Obama now? There’s been some torture promotion and grumbling about the White House’s decision to not release dead bin Laden photos. But a pattern appears to be emerging on the right: chatter among the neocons that getting bin Laden means that this is perhaps time for the U.S. to go out guns blazing in the Middle East. Enter Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer last night on Fox News:

KRISTOL: I really hope the Obama administration sort of takes advantage of the moment and takes advantage of the momentum and really goes strong against our enemies. We could have a good few months in the Middle East despite places like Pakistan not being solved overnight. [...]

KRAUTHAMMER: [Obama] can make an argument and I think he will that this success shows how we’re winning and we can reduce our foot print. It’s a very stark choice — use it to accelerate and to increase the pressure on the enemies, our enemies.

Watch:

So Kristol and Krauthammer suggest that killing bin Laden presents a great opportunity for the U.S. to project its military might in the region. But potential GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty took this line of thinking a bit further last weekend. Seeming to have the bin Laden raid on the mind, Pawlenty attacked Obama for not doing the same thing with Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi:

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is exploring a run for president, said he would have used U.S. forces to remove Moammar Gadhafi rather than just bomb Libya as President Obama has done.

“I would tell Gadhafi he’s got X number of days to get his affairs in order and go or we’re going to go get him,” Pawlenty said in an interview with the Tribune-Review on Friday.

Now that Obama got bin Laden, it seems all conservatives really have on the President is that he’s not killing more people.

Yglesias

The House Republican Budget Privatizes Medicare, It Doesn’t Means-Test It

By Matthew Yglesias on May 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm

At House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s weekly briefing, Brian Beutler asked him about the idea of means-testing Medicare and Hoyer said he’s open to it, but he can’t really say “until we look at specific proposals.”

That seems correct to me, but part of the importance of specifics is underscored by Speaker John Boehner’s earlier remarks about means-testing wherein he described a very radical agenda that would totally eliminate Medicare as if it’s a fee increase on rich seniors:

“Pete [Peterson], I love you to death, but I don’t think the taxpayers ought to be paying your Medicare premium. And under Paul Ryan’s plan, what it says is, let’s allow the American people to decide which health care plan fits their needs. And if you’re middle-income, lower income, we are going to pay, just like we do today, for the cost of those premiums. But for people of means, there’s no reason why we should subsidize Pete Peterson’s premium. I’m sorry. He ought to pay the full cost of his premium to be in Medicare.”

The idea that someone as rich as Peterson ought to pay the full cost of his Medicare premium is worth considering (I have some affection for this idea). But “Paul Ryan’s plan”—which is also Boehner’s plan since the Boehner-led House voted for it—wouldn’t lead to Peterson paying the full cost of his Medicare premium. For one thing, Peterson was born in 1926 and part of the political sales job of the plan is to say that people Peterson’s age won’t be affected at all by the cuts and privatization. And then of course there’s the small matter of the privatization!

For the people who would be directly impacted by the House GOP plan, there would be no more Medicare premiums for anyone to pay. Anyone under the age of 55 would be permanently ineligible for the publicly administered single-payer health care plan that we currently call “Medicare” and that presumably would continue to be called “Medicare” for folks like Peterson and Boehner who’d be eligible for it. What people my age would get would be a partial rebate of the private sector health insurance we go buy on the individual market. The value of the rebate would steadily diminish over time, and higher-income seniors would get lower-value rebates than lower-income seniors. Peterson and Boehner, meanwhile, would continue paying the exact same premium schedule but over time would find that more and more health care providers refuse to treat Medicare patients.

Climate Progress

IPCC special report finds renewables could meet over three quarters (75%) of global energy needs in 2050

By Stephen Lacey on May 10, 2011 at 4:37 pm

Combined policies of R&D and deployment will be needed to break through institutional and cost barriers

Of the approximate 300 GW of new electricity generating capacity added globally over the two year period from 2008 to 2009, 140 GW came from RE [Renewable Energy] additions

According to a new Special Report from the IPCC looking at over 160 scenarios, we could get 77% of our global energy from renewables by 2050, thus reducing carbon emissions by 560 gigatons and putting us on a path to stabilize emissions at 450 ppm.  The finding isn’t really new, but carries considerable weight coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC report documents the rapid rise of renewable energy in recent years — and makes clear that the future is even brighter if we combine the right set of policies.  That means we mustn’t make the mistake of thinking that research and development alone can get us down the cost curve and into the marketplace fast enough to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to avert multiple simultaneous catastrophes.

As the report concludes (emphasis in original):

Read more

Economy

CHART: The United States Has The Worst Income Inequality In The OECD-24 (UPDATED)

By Pat Garofalo on May 10, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Last week, my colleague Zaid Jilani pointed out that America’s income inequality is worse than that in places like Pakistan and Ethoipia and roughly equivalent to that in Uganda and the Ivory Coast. Before its revolution, Egypt’s income inequality — which played a role in sparking the uprising against former President Mubarak’s regime — was actually better than that in the U.S.

This is some dubious company. And as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted today, America has the worst income inequality amongst 24 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (known as the OECD-24):

This chart measures inequality after taxes and all other government benefits, showing that the U.S. is doing a miserable job dealing with inequality through government policy.

Income inequality in the U.S. is currently the worst its been since the 1920s. Just the richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of Americans combined, and the richest 10 percent of Americans control two-thirds of the country’s net worth. Currently, the top one percent of households make nearly 25 percent of the total income in the country, after they made less than 10 percent in the 1970s. Between 1980 and 2005, “more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans’ income went to the top 1 percent.”

One of the manifestations of this inequality is hedge fund managers making as much in two minutes as Navy SEALs make in a year. Yet, Republicans in Congress are still content to whine about the unfairness of returning tax rates on the wealthy to the level at which they were under President Bill Clinton. And of course they consider new tax brackets for millionaires — like those proposed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — to be entirely out of the question.

Update

The CBPP study only looked at 24 countries in the OCED, not the full complement of 34. The post has been updated accordingly.

Politics

Florida Bill Will Come ‘Between Doctors And Patients’ By Prohibiting Pediatricians From Asking About Guns

By Marie Diamond on May 10, 2011 at 4:20 pm

Governor Rick Scott (R-FL) has been one of the country’s fiercest critics of health care reform, frequently deriding the Affordable Care Act for supposedly coming “between doctors and patients.”

But now Scott is expected to soon sign a first-of-its-kind bill that does just that by forbidding doctors from asking their patients if they own guns. To prevent accidental injuries, pediatricians routinely ask new parents if they have guns at home and if they are stored safely. But the NRA and its allies in the Florida legislature see something more sinister at work — a radical agenda to curb the rights of gun owners.

“For decades,” the American Academy of Pediatrics has encouraged its members to ask patients about guns and how they’re stored. In an interview with NPR, Dr. Louis St. Petery explains that doctors have a responsibility to ask parents about everything from car seats to bike helmets to help them keep their kids safe:

“If you have a pool, let’s talk about pool safety so we don’t have accidental drownings,” he says. “And if you have firearms, let’s talk about gun safety so that they’re stored properly — you know, the gun needs to be locked up, the ammunition stored separate from the gun, etc., so that children don’t have access to them.”

But Marion Hammer, the National Rifle Association’s lobbyist in Tallahassee, FL, considers such questions an unacceptable encroachment on Second Amendment rights:

“We take our children to pediatricians for medical care — not moral judgment, not privacy intrusions,” she says. [...]

“This bill is about helping families who are complaining about being questioned about gun ownership, and the growing anti-gun political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and staffs,” Hammer says.

Florida’s Senate and House both agreed with the NRA and voted to approve the bill. But several health care professions have voiced concern that restricting what doctors can or cannot say to their patients will jeopardize public safety. Dr. St. Petery spelled out the alarming consequences if Scott signs the bill into law:

“What I think is going to happen is there’ll be more children injured and killed from firearms in the home that are not properly stored.”

Florida has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the nation with 12.5 gun deaths for every 100,000 people. Similar measures are now being considered in other states, including North Carolina and Alabama.

Yglesias

What It Looks Like When You Run Out Of Money

By Matthew Yglesias on May 10, 2011 at 4:14 pm

This short Planet Money item on Iceland running out of foreign currency is excellent, both on its own term and also because it’s a useful illustration of exactly why the US isn’t “going broke”:

The problem the hedge fund guys had spotted was in fact, the joke that John Cleese commercial: Iceland is a very small country. It’s the smallest in the world to have its own currency. And it had borrowed huge amounts of foreign currency. Normally that wasn’t a problem. Icelandic banks could always change their domestic currency, the krona, for dollars or euros on the world market. But now the world was worried. And no one wanted krona. In a bigger country, banks might get some foreign currency from their own central bank. But Iceland’s central bank also ran out of dollars and euros.

“The central bank used all it had in a desperate attempt to save one of the banks,” the economist Gylfi Magnússon says. “But that only kept the bank afloat for another couple of days.”

The point here is that while we frequently use words like “money” and “yen” interchangeably, these are different things. The krona is a kind of money, but while Iceland can’t run out of krona it can run out of dollars and yen and euros. And since Iceland is tiny this is a huge problem. Small countries can’t host large banks.

The United States is very different. Global demand for dollars appears to be in some kind of longish term decline related to the rise of China’s export machine, but in periods of crisis demand for dollars goes up:

Lucky for us! That’s why it’s nice to be a big country with a stable political system and deep and liquid financial markets.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up