Time is running out on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  Set to expire at the end of December, VAWA might become the second social-legislation casualty of a lame-duck session in which Republicans seem hell bent on sending a final-hour poke in the eye to women, minorities, and the disabled. And what is it they’re trying to tell us?  First, that they don’t give a damn about the majority who clearly expressed broad-based opposition to Republican governance by returning President Obama to the White House and increasing the Democratic majority in the Senate. Second, that in the House they’ll fight to the last to prevent expansion of programs and protections against domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking to communities whose lifestyles they reject or prefer to ignore.

(Not to be outdone by the stonewalling of their colleagues in the lower chamber, Senate Republicans shamed themselves and damaged American leadership on human rights by recently voting down ratification of a U.N. treaty that would have expanded the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to nations and individuals around the world.)

Bipartisanship gets left behind

Historically VAWA has not been controversial. Originally drafted by Senator Joe Biden and passed into law in 1994 with bipartisan support, the bill easily passed reauthorization with little or no opposition in 2000 and 2006.

This past April reauthorization of the bill, including an expansion of provisions covering the LGBT community, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants, passed the Senate, again with broad, bipartisan support.  Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, best summed up the case for benefit expansion: “Where a person lives, who they love, or what their citizenship status may be should not determine whether or not their perpetrators are brought to justice.” By the time the 68-to-31 tally was complete, every Republican female senator had the decency to vote her conscience and joined Democrats in assuring all victims of abuse and violence that they will receive the legal support and services they need.

The story couldn’t be more different in the House. On a near party-line vote, the Senate’s expanded version of the Violence Against Women Act failed to gain reauthorization. What is it that’s ruffling the feathers of Republican male members of the House?  What is comes down to is that Republicans have decided to defend their right to exclude LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants, and Native Americans from legal protections and support services that have proven effective for countless women and men.

 Worse yet, House Republicans chose to ignore the more than three hundred national organizations, including faith-based groups and others spanning the political and ideological spectrum, which lobbied passionately for passage of the Senate version. In May, the Republican caucus proposed its own version that passed on a near party-line vote. According to reporting in the Huffington Post, the House bill  “discourages undocumented immigrant women from reporting abuse without the threat of being deported.  It also makes it harder for Native American women to seek justice against their abusers, and it leaves out protections for the LGBT community altogether.”

Obama gets tough

The truncated House version prompted a vow by President Obama to veto any bill that excludes expanded coverage. The president knows full well what’s at stake. He and compassionate members of Congress know that we cannot in good conscience ignore the horrifying statistics.  Every twelve seconds –in less time than it takes to read this paragraph—another woman somewhere in this country is physically abused by the man who professes to love her.  Every two minutes, a woman is traumatized by the violence of rape. Every day three women are killed by their abusive husbands or partners.

Once again, House Republicans are playing a high stakes game with other people’s lives. If the Senate and House versions of the Violence Against Women Act cannot be reconciled, continued allocation of taxpayer dollars to set up and support programs and services for those who have suffered abuse will be in jeopardy. Those services include community-based violence-prevention programs, rape crisis centers and hotlines, and legal aid for survivors of violence, as well as funds to enable investigations and prosecutions of violent crimes against women.

Programs that work

To the peril of the abused, House Republicans have chosen to ignore that this is one government program that’s yielded extraordinary results. Since 2000 the outcomes of having programs and services in place have been dramatic. Nonfatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53 percent.  The number of individuals killed by intimate partners has decreased by 34 percent for women and 57 percent for men.

House Republicans justify their opposition by arguing that Native American women and the LGBT community are not experiencing equally high rates of violence and abuse and, therefore, do not require coverage.  This argument is so devoid of statistical confirmation that it seems that what they actually believe is that those communities do not deserve the same protections.

Debunking myths about Native Americans and the LGBT community

Senator Max Baucus of Montana is one senator who knows first-hand the speciousness of these Republican talking points.  Baucus tried nobly to educate his  colleagues about the epidemic of violence and abuse of Native American women and their desperate need for expanded protections and services in his state and across Native American lands.

This year’s reauthorization strengthens the legislation by specifically addressing the crisis of violence against women in tribal communities who  face extremely high rates of domestic violence and sexual assault.  It fixes the patchwork of criminal jurisdiction over those who assault Indian spouses  and dating partners in Indian Country, toughens up assault statutes,   improves grant programs, and clarifies jurisdiction for civil protection orders.

The bill also consolidates 13 existing programs into four.  This helps reduce administrative costs and adds efficiency in getting resources to law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim service providers.

Not surprisingly, another bone in Republicans’ throats is the provision for providing effective services to the LGBT community.  Contrary to Republican claims, the facts show that the LGBT community experiences domestic and sexual violence and stalking and dating violence at approximately the same rate as non–LGBT victims.  Most disturbingly, LGBT victims often are denied services altogether.  According to a 2010 survey, nearly fifty-five percent of LGBT individuals who sought protection orders were denied. Where services are made available, many providers lack the training and resources to assist effectively with the unique needs of LGBT victims.

For those of us who long for the safety of ourselves, our daughters, our mothers, our sisters, and our friends (both male and female), we share the exasperation of now–Vice President Joe Biden. Joe doesn’t mince words nor does he hide his disdain for the shameful indifference and political charade of Republicans.  Joe certainly speaks for us when he says, “the idea that we’re still fighting about this [VAWA] in the Congress, that this is even a debatable issue, is truly sad.”

The post Lame duck imperative: Violence Against Women Act set to expire at end of December appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The dust barely settled after the victory party in Chicago when the number crunchers turned into worker bees with a mission.  As announced in a conference call to Obama volunteers across the country this week, the election was just the beginning of the work we all have to do.  Unlike the post-2008 victory, the Obama for America campaign has quickly morphed into an action alert rapid response message machine.  And we have our first alert this week.  As you know, President Obama has wasted no time challenging Congress to keep the Bush tax cuts for income under $250,000 a year and letting them expire for income over that.  (Note: the first $250,000 of income will still be taxed at the lower rate.  It is only income OVER $250,000 that will go back to the older, higher tax rate. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that.)

So our mission this week and next is to keep reminding our members of Congress that we need them to pass something during this lame duck session so the Bush tax cuts don’t expire for ALL income groups.  The current members of Congress, not the new ones who will be seated in January, are the ones we have to contact, like it or not.  I’ll be the first one to admit that calling Sen. Blunt and my Congressman, Blaine Leutkemeyer, is like sticking my head in the oven.  But I’ll do it.  And I hope you will too.  Below is the first clarion call from The Action and the website where you can sign up to receive action alerts.  I’ve heard several commentators say that the only way President Obama is going to get Congress to cooperate is if we, the people, demand it.  Call your members of Congress and let them know we can make plans for the holidays and keep an eye on them at the same time just in case they think we’re not looking.

The election is over and it’s time to make it count. Grassroots power is not just for elections.
Congress has until December 31^st to make a critical and historic choice. They can ask the richest 2% of Americans to pay their fair share, or they can put more money in wealthy pockets at the expense of the struggling middle class.

The Action is a grassroots movement that demands we face this crisis. There is too much money and power in too few hands and the system is rigged to keep it that way. It’s time to level the playing field. It’s time to make things right.

The first step is telling Congress, loud and clear: Don’t give more tax breaks to the people who need them least. http://www.theaction.org/

The post Lame duck alert: Don’t give more tax breaks to the people who need them least appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s not just the much-vaunted Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of 2012. Federal emergency unemployment benefits are also facing their expiration date at the end of the year, and that prospect could hasten a “fiscal cliff” for in the personal finances of many Americans. In addition, on a broader scale, if this year’s lame-duck Congress fails to extend the program, the U.S. economy will lose about 400,000 jobs, says a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

The Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, signed into law at the beginning of the Great Recession in 2008, provides assistance to long-term unemployed workers who have exhausted their state-level unemployment assistance eligibility.

According to Think Progress:

More than five million Americans have been unemployed for longer than six months, and more than two million will lose access to federal unemployment insurance if the program lapses in December. Another million would lose benefits in April if no extension is passed.

Congress last passed an extension early this year, though it cut the number of weeks of eligibility. As a result, 500,000 unemployed workers lost access to the program between the beginning of 2012 and July. Republicans have often opposed EUC’s extension, arguing that it fosters laziness and dependency and prevents the unemployed from searching for jobs, even though EUC requires recipients to conduct job searches and studies have shown that people who receive unemployment insurance work harder and faster to find employment than those who don’t.

EPI found that the unemployment extension would provide a bigger boost to economic growth and create more jobs than an extension of the high-income Bush tax rates:

Spending $30 billion on unemployment insurance extensions in 2013 would increase consumer spending and expand GDP by an estimated $48 billion, raising our $15.8 trillion GDP by roughly 0.3 percent. This increase in economic activity would translate into roughly 400,000 jobs. In comparison, continuing the upper-income Bush-era tax cuts in 2013 would cost $52 billion—nearly 75 percent more than continuing the UI extensions—and generate just 102,000 jobs, nearly 75 percent fewer jobs than the number created by continuing the UI extensions.

Extending unemployment benefits should be an easy call for the 2012 lame duck Congress. Let’s watch to be sure that they act reasonably and responsibly on this one.

The post Lame duck to-do list: Extend unemployment benefits appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Congress’ 2012 lame-duck session offers an opportunity to do something positive for the America justice system: Unclog the logjam of President Obama’s judicial appointments held up by obstructionist Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

That’s exactly what The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is calling for–the Senate to confirm as many qualified judicial nominees as possible during the upcoming 2012 lame-duck session.

According to The Leadership Conference:

A poll released in October for The Leadership Conference, People For the American Way and the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign found that 63 percent of voters said the issue of who will serve on the Supreme Court was an important consideration in their vote for president. And by a five-point margin, voters trusted President Obama over Mitt Romney to select good federal judges and Supreme Court justices.

The voters have spoken, says the Leadership Conference, which represents 200 member organizations that promote civil and human rights.

In re-electing President Obama, the American people have also cast their vote for appointing and confirming well-qualified and fair-minded judges best represented by the president’s two first-term appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Voters know that one of the president’s most important jobs is to make appointments to the federal bench, from the high court to the trial courts where most judicial decisions are actually made.

The current Senate’s record of judicial obstruction is the worst in recent history. Although President Obama has appointed the same number of Circuit Court judges as Clinton (and a comparable number as did Bush) at this same point in their respective first terms, the President lags considerably when it comes to district court nominees (169 for Clinton, 164 for Bush, and 128 for Obama). Nineteen of President Obama’s nominees, already approved by the Judiciary Committee, are still awaiting a final decision on confirmation. Another six have had their confirmation hearings and could be considered during the lame duck session.

The Leadership Council notes that this deliberate slowdown of approvals is adversely affecting our national justice system.

With more than 100 trial and appellate court vacancies across the nation – including 33 categorized as judicial emergencies – the country cannot afford a continuation of the obstructionist tactics that undermined the confirmation process and caused long delays in the consideration of well-qualified nominees.

Instead of blocking the president’s nominees, it’s time for the Senate to resume its traditional role of providing ‘advise and consent’ that is free from abject partisanship. The health of our judiciary and our ability to dispense justice in a timely matter depend on it.”

The post 2012 lame duck to-do list: Stop blocking, start confirming judges appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As we approach the lame duck session of the 111^th Congress, we can learn a lot from how previous Congresses dealt with this challenging task.  In an earlier post we discussed lame duck history sessions from 1940 – 1970. It’s important to look at more recent ones, particularly with the challenges that face the current Congress.  The biggest issue facing the 111^th is the so-called “fiscal cliff” or “driveway slope” that challenges members of the present Congress to address a previous deal,  in which they delayed addressing the national debt.  If nothing new is done, the Bush tax cuts will be rescinded for all, including those for the middle class, and there will be another two trillion dollar cut from expenditures, including half from the military budget.

Here’s what happened in some recent lame-duck sessions:

Post-impeachment, 1974

Going back thirty-eight years, the 1974 lame duck was unique because, over the previous two years, both the House and the Senate had been consumed with impeachment charges against President Richard M. Nixon.  The most important measure was to confirm new President Gerald R. Ford’s nomination of Nelson Rockefeller to replace him as Vice-President.  That went smoothly but only a few of the ten other proposals that Ford submitted were passed.

Filibuster, gridlock

It was eight years, 1982, until the next lame duck session.  President Ronald Reagan expressed concern that only three of 13 appropriation bills had been cleared for his signature.  Congress promised to pass nine of the ten, but in reality only four passed for FY 1983.  With serious concern about a recession, five bills were delayed to be dealt with the second year of the Congress in 1984.  The lame duck session was particularly acrimonious, because the Senate held many filibusters.  We now call this tactic gridlock.

Impeachment, again

In the 104^thCongress,  impeachment once again consumed Congress.  This time the target was President Bill Clinton. While there were no charges for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, it was Clinton’s unwillingness to tell the truth and his proclivity to obstruct justice that caused Congress to have another lame duck session. Two charges against President Clinton passed by margins of 228-206 and 228-190.  This lead to a Senate trial on the impeachment charges in the second session of the 104^th Congress. Clinton was acquitted.

Expanding the power of the executive branch

The issue of unfunded appropriations once again came to the fore in the 107^th Congress, 2nd Session in 2002.  President George W. Bush had an agenda that included establishing the Department of Homeland Security. This plan was quite controversial, because it involved a major consolidation of separate bureaus, including the F.B.I., C.I.A, National Security Council, and FEMA.  Finally, both the House and the Senate agreed to the proposal on November 22.  The result was that Bush expanded the power of the executive branch,  in the wake of the terrorist attack on the United States on 9-11-2001.

Be careful what you wish for

Two years later the 108^th Congress, 2^nd Session, had a lame duck session because the uncertainty of the 2004 election resulted in many appropriation bills left unfunded.  Once Bush had won reelection, Congress agreed to most of his proposals.  Congress also followed up its approval of the Department of Homeland Security with the establishment of a September 11 Commission that had the power to thoroughly investigate the causes of and the follow up to the 9-11 attack.  This became a commission that was quite critical of the Bush administration, but the administration was able to block most of the recommendations.

2010, not very lame at all

The most recent and memorable lame duck session was two years ago, in 2010.  The battle royale between President Obama and the Congress, in which Republicans had the power to filibuster in the Senate, resulted in a strange set of fiscal and monetary policies.

President Obama wanted the Bush taxes for the wealthy (net income over $250,000) to expire, but Republicans argued that these cuts were essential to stimulating the economy.  Previous tax cuts for the wealthy amounted to mere 10%, from 39.6% to 36%.  If the cuts for the wealthy were to be rescinded, the result would have been billions of dollars for the federal government. To address the middle class, the payroll tax was reduced by 2%.  This move provided more disposable money all workers who were paying the payroll tax, but it also reduced revenue for the underfunded Social Security and Medicare programs.  Some felt that President Obama conceded on this issue too easily, without a strong push from Republicans to do so.Congress passed a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” measure that banned openly gay and lesbian soldiers in the military.  Now there would be no discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed forces.

Congress also passed a bill to provide medical treatment and compensation to first responders of the September 11 attack.  However there was a major omission in the bill because it did not cover most forms of cancer, one of the primary maladies suffered by the first responders.

Congress also passed an extension of the START (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) with Russia.  Several Republican Senators joined with all Democrats to make this possible.

Perpetual can-kicking

The second session of the 110^th Congress will go down in history as refusing to finish appropriation bills submitted by President Obama and an unwillingness to reform the tax code, particularly with regard to the taxes levied on the wealthy.

Most of these issues have been delayed for two years until the upcoming lame duck session.  House Speaker John Boehner has already indicated that he won’t compromise on restoring the income tax on the wealthy to their Clinton levels. It’s possible that, once again,even as the  so-called “fiscal cliff” approaches, Congress will delay again.  Whether it’s a lame duck or a regular session of Congress, this is a deplorable way for our primary legislative body to operate.

The post Lame-duck history, Part 2: 1974 – 2012 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

With the presidential election over and quite satisfying results for most progressives, the next step in our political process is for the present (111^th) Congress to address a multitude of issues. Only a fraction of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget has been approved. The most important issue emanates from Congress’ decision to set an “over the cliff” date for both revenue and expenditure cuts. It’s essentially a 50-50 deal in which revenue would be enhanced approximately two trillion dollars and spending would be cut by a similar amount. The revenue enhancement would come from repealing the Bush tax cuts, ones that not only effected the wealthy but virtually all tax payers. The expenditure cuts would be evenly split between domestic programs and military projects.

What will undoubtedly happen is a lame duck session of the 111^th Congress. A lame duck session is one that comes after a semiannual election (held in even number years) and before the swearing in of all members of Congress for the next session (held on January 3 of odd numbered years). The natural time period for lame duck sessions is in November and December. Since 1940, there have been sixteen lame duck sessions of Congress.

Some sessions have not been particularly productive, doing nothing more than postponing legislation until the next Congress begins. Others have been quite fruitful, particularly in times of national emergency. By necessity, this year’s lame duck session will require strong action to keep the federal government running properly. or at least in a way that makes it safe to kick the can further down the road.

A do-nothing lame-duck session

After the first session of the 76^th Congress in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called Congress into an extraordinary session before the election, in September, to deal with the threat of war in Europe. The Congress declined to send major new proposals such as aid to Britain, to raise new taxes, and to increase the debt limit. This was a clear example of a “do nothing” lame duck session. Even with his power and strong political support, FDR was not able to get Congress off dead center.

Getting ready for a post-War world

In 1944, Congress dealt with some pretty heavy issues including questions of peacetime universal military training extension. They saw World War II coming to an end and wanted to be prepared for any future wars.  This was the genesis of compulsory military registration for males at the age of 18. At first it was just a nuisance, and then during the Vietnam War it became a hot political issue. The 76^th Congress also agreed to increase Social Security taxes, something that would seem to be close to impossible now, even though Social Security and Medicare are in much more need of revenue enhancement than was the case in the 1940.

Contemplating nuclear war

It was six years until the next Lame Duck session. The Korean War caused Congress to reconvene. In 1950, one of the main topics of discussion was the possibility of using nuclear weapons, especially since Chinese troops had become involved in the conflict. Congress did not take any action on this proposal, one that properly was in the hands of the executive branch and President Truman. He had already addressed this issue to end World War II in the Pacific theater. However, Congress did approve supplemental appropriations for defense and atomic energy. President Truman asked the Congress to take action on statehood for Alaska and Hawaii, but neither territory was admitted as a state to the union until the Eisenhower years.

Dealing with Joseph McCarthy

1954 was one of the most important lame duck sessions, particularly for the Senate. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had been terrorizing the Senate and numerous individuals (named and unnamed) with accusations of being Communists. In almost all cases he was wrong. The Senate select committee submitted its censure resolution on November 9, 1954. By December 2, the final action was completed. This “long national nightmare” was over as McCarthy and his charges were over as he was stripped of his committee chairmanship. It lifted a tremendous burden off hundreds of people who were under accusation as well as millions of Americans who considered McCarthy’s actions to be a serious threat to their basic human and civil rights.

One step forward, two steps back

There was a twenty year hiatus of lame duck sessions until 1970. Seven key issues were brought before the Congress: electoral reform (as we can now tell, little was done), occupational safety and health, equal rights for women, manpower training, funds for the supersonic transport plane (which still has not been built in the United States), and the Clean Air Act (which Congress passed). Congress did complete work on two of the seven proposals. In all, President Nixon vetoed four measures that were passed during the lame duck. Congress did not override any of these measures. Even though this seemed to be the “liberal, or at least moderate and reasonable, Nixon was not able to generate the kind of support that he sought from the lame duck Congress.

Delay, kick, repeat

Through 1970, Congress has done very little in lame duck sessions except when emergencies forced them to do so. The question is whether the “over the cliff crisis” that we will face between now and December 31, 2012 will be considered a serious enough threat to the country that it will demand action. At this point, a new (but really old) solution is being proposed: kick the can further down the road. The present policies on revenue enhancement and expenditure cuts could be delayed another year “to give Congress more time to consider the options.” In fact that may be the best idea because a 2012 lame duck session may be too short for a thoughtful solution to be developed. Of course, if action is postponed long enough, the issue may become one that the next lame duck session will have to consider in 2014.

The post Lame-duck history, Part 1: 1940-1970 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There’s still time to push the progressive agenda forward in Congress before the big Republican majority takes over in January 2011, and that’s what Senate Democrats should do. This is not a time for caving in, giving up or doing nothing. At the very least, during the lame-duck session of Congress, the outgoing Democratic leadership could force a showdown on issues that matter, clarify the Democratic message of empathy for disadvantaged people, and make Republicans say “No” again and again.

It won’t be easy. Several US Senate seats will change hands for the fall session, as their new occupants—voted in via special elections to fill vacant seats—will be sworn in immediately. One of those seats belongs to Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois, a party-switch that adds a 42^nd Republican to the minority. This change means that Democrats will need at least two Republicans and every Democratic senator to stop a filibuster.

The odds are stacked against the liberal agenda, but that’s not a good enough reason to stop trying. Here’s the to-do list that liberal/progressive advocates want Congress to tackle before the January changeover.

Pass the DREAM Act

This bill would give young immigrants who join the military or attend college a path to legalization. It’s currently a provision in the defense authorization bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who survived a close-call re-election, made a campaign pledge—on the Spanish-language Univision broadcasting network—that he would bring it up for a lame-duck vote. Do it, Harry.

Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

President Obama has said, repeatedly, that he favors repealing this law, which bars gays and lesbians from serving in the military. The provision is part of the defense authorization bill. Republican leaders have loudly protested that attaching DADT to the larger—and more popular—bill is a sneaky tactic.  Perhaps the Democrats could bring up DADT as a stand-alone bill and force a clean, up-or-down vote, calling the Republicans’ bluff.

“We have the votes, including Republican votes, to repeal DADT if the bill can just get on the floor,” says Fred Sanz, vice-president of the Human Rights Campaign, which has been a leading advocate for repeal. DADT has already passed the House of Representatives.

Extend unemployment benefits

In July, the Senate approved a fourth extension of unemployment insurance benefits, but that extension runs out at the end of November. Republicans tried hard to stop the extension, and they have promised to oppose another one. [Do their constituents know that they voted against something so clearly beneficial to so many suffering people?] Allowing jobless benefits to expire could be tragic for millions of people. And extending unemployment benefits is an idea favored by Americans who want to do the right thing. Democrats may find that they don’t have the votes to get this job done, but a legislative demonstration of support for unemployed people would be a principled stand that would underscore the difference between the Democratic and Republican agendas.

Save the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class

President Obama is on record as wanting to “decouple” tax cuts for the wealthy from tax cuts for the middle class [families with combined incomes of less than $250,000]. He even has offered to compromise on the upper income limit. But newly emboldened Republicans now say that compromise and “decoupling” are off the table. This is another issue that shows the enormous gap between Democratic and Republican philosophies. It’s an issue that, framed effectively, could help people understand and realize the worth of the progressive agenda. [It has been suggested, for example, that President Obama and the Democrats recast the “Bush” tax cuts as President Obama’s “tax fairness” agenda.] But however it’s labeled, standing up for middle-class tax cuts—and insisting that the wealthy pay their fair share—even  in the face of inevitable defeat—would be a valuable “messaging” opportunity.

If, beginning in January, we’re going to have to suffer through a Congress whose Republicans believe they have a “mandate” to repeal every iota of progress that has been achieved in the past two years, can we at least count on Democrats to take a stand on principle and let America know what the progressive agenda is really about?

The post A progressive “to-do” list for lame-duck Congress appeared first on Occasional Planet.