Jump to content

U.S. Politics, 7


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

oh hi there mr president, good to have you back, where were you the last 20 months?

I ran for President because for much of the last decade, a very specific governing philosophy had reigned about how America should work:

Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires. Cut regulations for special interests. Cut trade deals even if they didn't benefit our workers. Cut back on investments in our people and our future - in education and clean energy; in research and technology. The idea was that if we had blind faith in the market; if we let corporations play by their own rules; if we left everyone else to fend for themselves, America would grow and prosper.

For a time, this idea gave us the illusion of prosperity. We saw financial firms and CEOs take in record profits and record bonuses. We saw a housing boom that led to new homeowners and new jobs in construction. Consumers bought more condos and bigger cars and better televisions.

But while all this was happening, the broader economy was becoming weaker. Job growth between 2000 and 2008 was slower than it had been in any economic expansion since World War II - even slower than it's been over the past year. The wages and incomes of middle-class families kept falling while the cost of everything from tuition to health care kept rising. Folks were forced to put more debt on their credit cards and borrow against homes that many couldn't afford in the first place. Meanwhile, a failure to pay for two wars and two tax cuts for the wealthy helped turn a record surplus into a record deficit.

I ran for President because I believed that this kind of economy was unsustainable - for the middle-class and for our nation's future. I ran because I had a different idea about how America was built - an idea rooted in my own family's story.

...

Yes, our families believed in the American values of self-reliance and individual responsibility, and they instilled those values in their children. But they also believed in a country that rewards responsibility. A country that rewards hard work. A country built upon the promise of opportunity and upward mobility.

They believed in an America that gave my grandfather the chance to go to college because of the GI Bill. An America that gave my grandparents the chance to buy a home because of the Federal Housing Authority. An America that gave their children and grandchildren the chance to fulfill our dreams thanks to college loans and college scholarships.

It was an America where you didn't buy things you couldn't afford; where we didn't just think about today - we thought about tomorrow. An America that took pride in the goods it made, not just in the things it consumed. An America where a rising tide really did lift all boats, from the company CEO to the guy on the assembly line.

That's the America I believe in.

...

Now, much has happened since that election. The flawed policies and economic weaknesses of the previous decade culminated in the worst recession of our lifetimes. My hope was that the crisis would cause everyone, Democrats and Republicans, to pull together and tackle our problems in a practical way. But as we all know, things didn't work out that way.

Some Republican leaders figured it was smart politics to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats solve the mess. Others believed on principle that government shouldn't meddle in the markets, even when the markets were broken. But with the nation losing nearly 800,000 jobs the month I was sworn in, my most urgent task was to stop a financial meltdown and prevent this recession from becoming a second depression.

We've done that. The economy is growing again. The financial markets have stabilized. The private sector has created jobs for the last eight months in a row. And there are roughly three million Americans who are working today because of the economic plan we put in place.

But the truth is, progress has been painfully slow. Millions of jobs were lost before our policies even had a chance to take effect - a hole so deep that even though we've added jobs again, millions of Americans remain unemployed. Hundreds of thousands of families have lost their homes; millions more can barely pay the bills or make the mortgage. The middle-class is still treading water, while those aspiring to reach the middle class are doing everything they can to keep from drowning.

Meanwhile, some of the very steps that were necessary to save the economy - like temporarily supporting the banks and the auto industry - fed the perception that Washington is still ignoring the middle class in favor of special interests.

And so people are frustrated and angry and anxious about the future. I understand that. I also understand that in a political campaign, the easiest thing for the other side to do is ride this fear and anger all the way to Election Day.

That's what's happening right now. A few weeks ago, the Republican leader of the House came here to Cleveland and offered his party's answer to our economic challenges. Now, it would be one thing if he admitted his party's mistakes during the eight years they were in power, and was offering a credible new approach to solving our country's problems.

But that's not what happened. There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade - the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations. Instead of coming together like past generations did to build a better country for our children and grandchildren, their argument is that we should let insurance companies go back to denying care to folks who are sick, and let credit card companies go back to raising rates without any reason. Instead of setting our sights higher, they're asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness, and a shrinking middle class.

Cleveland - that is not the America I know. That is not the America we believe in. A lot has changed since I came here in those final days of the last election, but what hasn't is the choice facing this country. It's still fear versus hope; the past versus the future. It's still a choice between sliding backward and moving forward. That's what this election is about. That's the choice you'll face in November.

...

Let me give you a few specific examples of our different approaches. This week, I proposed some additional steps to grow the economy and help businesses spur hiring. One of the keys to job creation is to encourage companies to invest more in the United States. But for years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries.

I want to change that. Instead of tax loopholes that incentivize investment in overseas jobs, I'm proposing a more generous, permanent extension of the tax credit that goes to companies for all the research and innovation they do right here in America. And I'm proposing that all American businesses should be allowed to write off all the investment they do in 2011. This will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in places like Cleveland and Toledo and Dayton.

To most of you, this is just common sense. But not to Mr. Boehner and his allies. For years, Republicans have fought to keep these corporate loopholes open. In fact, when Mr. Boehner was here in Cleveland he attacked us for closing a few of these loopholes - and using the money to help states like Ohio keep hundreds of thousands of teachers and cops and firefighters on the job. He dismissed these jobs - teaching our kids, patrolling our streets, rushing into burning buildings - as quote "government jobs" - jobs that I guess he thought just weren't worth saving.

I couldn't disagree more. I think teachers and police officers and firefighters are part of what keep America strong. And I think if we're going to give tax breaks to companies, they should go to companies that create jobs in America -- not those that create jobs overseas. That's one difference between the Republican vision and the Democratic vision. And that's what this election is all about.

Let me give you another example. We want to put more Americans back to work rebuilding America - our roads, railways, and runways. When the housing sector collapsed and the recession hit, one in every four jobs lost were in the construction industry. That's partly why our economic plan has invested in badly needed infrastructure projects over the last nineteen months - not just roads and bridges, but high-speed railroads and expanded broadband access. Altogether, these are projects that have led to thousands of good, private sector jobs, especially for those in the trades.

Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail. Though I should say that didn't stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and trying to take credit. That's always a sight to see.

Now, there are still thousands of miles of roads, railways, and runways left to repair and improve. And engineers, economists, governors and mayors of every political stripe believe that if we want to compete, we need to rebuild this vital infrastructure. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains or the most modern airports - we want to put people to work building them right here in America. So this week, I've proposed a six year infrastructure plan that would start putting Americans to work right away. But despite the fact that this has traditionally been an issue with bipartisan support, Mr. Boehner has so far said no to infrastructure. That's bad for America - and that too is what this election is about.

I'll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that's on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flatline over the last decade -- and they deserve a break. And because they are more likely to spend on basic necessities, this will strengthen the economy as a whole.

But the Republican leader of the House doesn't want to stop there. Make no mistake: he and his party believe we should also give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest two percent of Americans. With all the other budgetary pressures we have - with all the Republicans' talk about wanting to shrink the deficit - they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next ten years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 to folks who are already millionaires. These are among the only folks who saw their incomes rise when Republicans were in charge. And these are folks who are less likely to spend the money, which is why economists don't think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy.

So let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer. We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less. For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton. This isn't to punish folks who are better off - it's because we can't afford the $700 billion price tag. And for those who claim that this is bad for growth and bad for small businesses, let me remind you that with those tax rates in place, this country created 22 million jobs, raised incomes, and had the largest surplus in history.

In fact, if the Republican leadership in Congress really wants to help small businesses, they'll stop using legislative maneuvers to block an up-or-down vote on a small business jobs bill that's before the Senate right now. This is a bill that would do two things: cut taxes for small businesses and make loans more available for small businesses. It is fully paid for, and it was written by Democrats and Republicans. And yet, the other party continues to block this jobs bill - a delay that small business owners have said is actually leading them to put off hiring.

Look, I recognize that most of the Republicans in Congress have said no to just about every policy I've proposed since taking office. And on some issues, I realize it's because there are genuine philosophical differences. But on issues like this one, the only reason they're holding this up is politics, pure and simple. They're making the same calculation they made just before the inauguration: if I fail, they win. Well, they might think this will get them where they need to go in November, but it won't get our country where it needs to go in the long run.

So that's the choice, Ohio. Do we return to the same failed policies that ran our economy into a ditch, or do we keep moving forward with policies that are slowly pulling us out? Do we settle for a slow decline, or do we reach for an America with a growing economy and a thriving middle-class?

...

Now, let me spend a minute on this issue, because we've heard a lot of moralizing on the other side about it. Along with tax cuts for the wealthy, the other party's main economic proposal is that they'll stop government spending.

...

But let's look at the facts. When these same Republicans - including Mr. Boehner - were in charge, the number of earmarks and pet projects went up, not down. These same Republicans turned a record surplus that Bill Clinton left into a record deficit. Just this year, these same Republicans voted against a bipartisan fiscal commission that they themselves proposed. And when you ask them what programs they'd actually cut, they usually don't have an answer.

That's not fiscal responsibility. That's not a serious plan to govern.

I'll be honest - I refuse to cut back on those investments that will grow our economy in the future - investments in areas like education and clean energy and technology. That's because economic growth is the single best way to bring down the deficit - and we need these investments to grow. But I am absolutely committed to fiscal responsibility, which is why I've already proposed freezing all discretionary spending unrelated to national security for the next three years. And once the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work, I will spend the next year making the tough choices necessary to further reduce our deficit and lower our debt.

Of course, reducing the deficit won't be easy. Making up for the 8 million lost jobs caused by this recession won't happen overnight. Not everything we've done over the last two years has worked as quickly as we had hoped, and I am keenly aware that not all our policies have been popular.

So no, our job is not easy. But you didn't elect me to do what's easy. You didn't elect me to just read the polls and figure out how to keep myself in office. You didn't elect me to avoid big problems. You elected me to do what's right. And as long as I'm President, that's exactly what I'll do.

This country is emerging from an incredibly difficult period in its history - an era of irresponsibility that stretched from Wall Street to Washington and had a devastating effect on a lot of people. We have started turning the corner on that era, but part of moving forward is returning to the time-honored values that built this country: hard work and self-reliance; responsibility for ourselves, but also responsibility for one another. It's about moving from an attitude that said "What's in it for me" to one that asks, "What's best for America? What's best for all our workers? What's best for all our businesses? What's best for our children?"

These values aren't Democratic or Republican. They aren't conservative or liberal values. They're American values. As Democrats, we take pride in what our party has accomplished over the last century: Social Security and the minimum wage; the GI Bill and Medicare; Civil Rights and worker's rights and women's rights. But we also recognize that throughout history, there has been a noble Republican vision as well, of what this country can be. It was the vision of Abraham Lincoln, who set up the first land grant colleges and launched the transcontinental railroad; the vision of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the power of government to break up monopolies; the vision of Dwight Eisenhower, who helped build the Interstate Highway System. And yes, the vision of Ronald Reagan, who despite his aversion to government, was willing to help save Social Security for future generations.

These were serious leaders for serious times. They were great politicians, but they didn't spend all their time playing games or scoring points. They didn't always prey on people's fears and anxieties. They made mistakes, but they did what they thought was in the best interest of their country and its people.

That's what the American people expect of us today - Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. That's the debate they deserve. That's the leadership we owe them.

...

That's who we are. That is our legacy. And I'm convinced that if we're willing to summon those values today; if we're willing again to choose hope over fear; to choose the future over the past; to come together once more around the great project of national renewal, then we will restore our economy; rebuild our middle-class; and reclaim the American Dream for the next generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But extending the Bush tax cuts won't reduce the deficit, period. At least with the health care reform that is debatable. So how do Republicans square that circle?

I'm all for spending cuts to offset any tax cuts.

You cut taxes to grow the economy, which will generate the revenues to achieve a surplus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for spending cuts to offset any tax cuts.

You cut taxes to grow the economy, which will generate the revenues to achieve a surplus.

That's so fucking stupid and ignorant.

it only worked for JFK because the top rates were at 95%.

Tax rates have to be more than 73% because 73% is the point where tax rate maximizes. In other words, it only works to grow the economy enough to generate the revenues to achieve a surplus if the tax rate is above 73%

"The tax rate t maximizing revenue is: t=1/(1+a*e) where a is the Pareto parameter of the income distribution (= 1.5 in the U.S. and easy to measure), and e the elasticity of reported income with respect to 1-t which captures supply side effects. The most reasonable estimates for e vary from 0.12 to 0.40 (see conclusion page 47) so e=.25 seems like a reasonable estimate. Then t=1/(1+1.5*0.25)=73% which means a top federal income tax rate of 69% (when taking into account the extra tax rates created by Medicare payroll taxes, state income tax rates, and sales taxes) much higher than the current 35% or 39.6% currently discussed."

And as for your spending cuts, what do you want to do? Fire the military? Sell surplus military equipment after firing everyone? Fire teachers? Close public primary schools? Fire police officers? Close police stations? Fire Firefighters? Sell firefighting equipment and rent it on a need basis? Should we cut medicare and medicaid? Should we cut social security? Should we eliminate the coast guard and the department of homeland security? Should we eliminate the CIA? The CDC? The FDA? Should we close all our public universities and fire all the staff there? should we cut the national parks, fire all staff and sell the land to private developers? Should we stop all investment and research in new technology and new medicine? Should we stop redistributing tax wealth from California and New York to Alabama and Alaska? That last one would effectively cut massive amounts of federal spending in the welfare states.

If we institute enough spending cuts, you're going to hemorage millions of public sector jobs and that will only make the economy far, far worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cut taxes to grow the economy, which will generate the revenues to achieve a surplus.

See? Philosophy. You can look up any number of economists who will tell you that tax cuts don't necessarily facilitate economic growth, and you can also find numerous examples of booming economies under higher-than-current tax rates. But conservative philosophy requires that taxes are bad; ergo tax cuts always help "grow the economy."

I think worldviews are helpful guides to life, but those worldviews need to be responsive to and shaped by reality, and that's where I think conservatives fail. Their premises are unchanged by facts or by context, and the philosophy they form is applied pretty blindly to every single circumstance. But as has been said before, if all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to build on the above quote, if you take a full range of e you get tax rates of 62.5% and 84.75% so the range at which tax revenue maximizes is within those tax rates. So in order for Commodore's claim to be true (that cutting taxes is a net plus) At a bare minimum you have to have an initial tax rate of more than 62.5% of income and it needs to be cut below that level for a net positive gain to occur.

Therefore in our current reality of extremely low tax rates (historically) it is mathematically impossible for tax cuts to generate a net positive in revenue.

and I forgot the link in the last post, twas posted in last months USP thread, here it is: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

and 62.5 is the lower limit, which is statistically rather unlikely to be the actual revenue maximizing point, it is probably closer to 73% as was professionally speculated.

This also makes it clear we should tax capital gains as income rather than giving them a poverty level tax rate as we currently do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the CBO certified that ACA is deficit-reducing, but honestly, I'm on board even if it isn't. We just could not continue with the health insurance system as it existed before this year, and if we have to pay more to join the rest of the First World, so be it. The reform is worth it.

No, the CBO said that if all the assumptions in the bill are true, and if all the promised cuts are made, and ignoring all the costs that can't be quantified because they're not specified in the bill are ignored, then it'll reduce the deficit.

Oh, and now the Office of the Actuary for Medicaid and Medicare have said that health care costs are going to rise faster because of the "reform" than they would have without it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-09/new-u-s-health-law-won-t-curb-growth-in-spending-this-decade.html

As to your generalization, go ahead! I just generalized big-time upthread, and in fact your generalization supports mine. I am a liberal, and I think government spending is only "too much" when we can empirically demonstrate that it's harmful or wasteful. I have no philosophical connection to government spending, nor any philosophical resistance to curtailing it. If it works, do it; if not, try something else. That's how I roll.

I was going to comment on your post above that conservatives are more "philosophical" and therefore more likely to act on principle rather than pragmatism, but I'll just mix that in here. At the outset, I think the point is inaccurate because while it may be true of some Republicans, a great many do not follow those "conservative" principles lockstep. You saw lockstep opposition to health care, but there was also a legitimate disagreement that it would even work pragmatically.

But more importantly, I think Democrats are just as guilty of clinging to a philosophy as Republicans, and far more dogmatically to boot. You just don't see it that way because the philosophical belief at issue is something you consider settled. Most Democrats, including you, have a philosophical belief that society is not sufficiently equal economically, that it has a responsibility to provide an ever-increasing range of social services to the poor, etc. So Democrats constantly push for that, with the baseline assumption that it is the way things "should" be. Which is really no different in terms of being a "philosophy" than the conservative belief that is not the way things should be. At bottom, those are both moral positions based in philosophy.

And I say you guys are much better at holding fast to your philosophical position than we are because if you look at the political history of this country, you have to look long and hard to find any examples of social programs being significantly reduced. The only thing that comes to mind is welfare reform in the mid-90's. But other than that, Democrats have been very successful in creating a ratchet effect for social programs, because they absolutely refuse to accept significant cuts. Back in the 80's, President Reagan tried to cut programs, Democrats refused, the government shutdown, and the President ended up caving to some extent. In the 90's, the situation was reverse but the Democrats won again. When it comes to playing "chicken", it is Republicans that tend to cave, and Democrats that don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But more importantly, I think Democrats are just as guilty of clinging to a philosophy as Republicans, and far more dogmatically to boot. You just don't see it that way because the philosophical belief at issue is something you consider settled. Most Democrats, including you, have a philosophical belief that society is not sufficiently equal economically, that it has a responsibility to provide an ever-increasing range of social services to the poor, etc. So Democrats constantly push for that, with the baseline assumption that it is the way things "should" be. Which is really no different in terms of being a "philosophy" than the conservative belief that is not the way things should be. At bottom, those are both moral positions based in philosophy.

My belief that society is not economically equal is not philosophy; it's fact. And I don't believe I ever said government has a responsibility to provide an "ever-increasing range of social services to the poor", although I do believe that some of those services are beneficial to Americans of every economic level and are therefore wise from a pragmatic point of view. However, even if I copped to both those charges, that's not pure philosophy if you can show material benefits that outweigh the costs.

And I say you guys are much better at holding fast to your philosophical position than we are because if you look at the political history of this country, you have to look long and hard to find any examples of social programs being significantly reduced. The only thing that comes to mind is welfare reform in the mid-90's. But other than that, Democrats have been very successful in creating a ratchet effect for social programs, because they absolutely refuse to accept significant cuts. Back in the 80's, President Reagan tried to cut programs, Democrats refused, the government shutdown, and the President ended up caving to some extent. In the 90's, the situation was reverse but the Democrats won again. When it comes to playing "chicken", it is Republicans that tend to cave, and Democrats that don't.

Some might say that's a sign that these social programs to which you refer were saved because they are popular with Americans, and not because Democrats support them. I think it's pretty clear Social Security is widely popular; when Bush tried to privatize it he was stopped not by a filibuster but by public opinion, which turned against his plan the more he promoted it. I thought you conservatives were big on the majority getting its way? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully expect that that's the way Republicans, including FLOW, see it. But if they are truly that concerned about a supposed out-of-control deficit, then the logical answer would be to defer renewing such tax cuts until such time as that nasty deficit has been brought under control.

This is absolutely false, at least regarding anyone who is honestly a fiscal conservative. They would cut spending to reduce a deficit. Fiscal conservatism doesn't even allow for deficit spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely false, at least regarding anyone who is honestly a fiscal conservative. They would cut spending to reduce a deficit. Fiscal conservatism doesn't even allow for deficit spending.

And so when the government does have a deficit, we do..... what? Close shop and say "Be back when we got some money?"

Or does the world of fiscal conservatism disallows the possibility of a deficit and so we don't have to even worry about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so when the government does have a deficit, we do..... what? Close shop and say "Be back when we got some money?"

Or does the world of fiscal conservatism disallows the possibility of a deficit and so we don't have to even worry about it?

Balanced budget baby. If I had my way, the next amendment to the constitution would read something like:

"The budget for the Federal Government in any given year can not exceed the revenue of the prior year. This can only be overridden during a time of war, as declared by the congress. In the event of a year-over-year decline in revenue resulting in a budgetary deficit, Congress is directed to reduce spending as it sees fit until all expenditures are covered by existing revenue. All expenditures of the Federal Government are required to be present on the budget."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balanced budget baby. If I had my way, the next amendment to the constitution would read something like:

"The budget for the Federal Government in any given year can not exceed the revenue of the prior year. This can only be overridden during a time of war, as declared by the congress. In the event of a year-over-year decline in revenue resulting in a budgetary deficit, Congress is directed to reduce spending as it sees fit until all expenditures are covered by existing revenue. All expenditures of the Federal Government are required to be present on the budget."

Ah, so it's like I said, then:

"Or does the world of fiscal conservatism disallows the possibility of a deficit and so we don't have to even worry about it?"

Man, this fiscal conservatism thing is awesome. Can I buy some? I don't have cash on me, though. Hey TN, can you pay for this first? I'll pay you later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely false, at least regarding anyone who is honestly a fiscal conservative. They would cut spending to reduce a deficit. Fiscal conservatism doesn't even allow for deficit spending.

Deficit spending is a neccessity. Simply because you can't have that kind of prescience. It simply does not work that way.

Lowering the national debt is a laudable goal, but any kind of attempt at preventing deficit spending entirely would be a disaster. Any sufficiently complex entity is going to have irregularities in it's revenue flow, and you can't just shut down your activities while waiting for the sheet to re-balance itself.

It might, just might, be possible to have some kind of long-term balance-requirement (say, over ten years) but the practicalities of even that would be ridicilous.

Not even such a completely anemic state like say, any 17th century one of your choice, could retain that kind of revenue flow. Some years are going to be bad years, and governments simply cannot stop every time one such rolls around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's going to increase by 6.3 instead of 6.1% while adding coverage for 32.5 million people? If that is indeed what happens, it's a no-brainer for me.

But that's moving the goal post.

You can certainly make a credible moral argument that UHC is worth the additional costs, but that isn't the argument that was being made that started this discussion.

The argument being made was 'It'll be better AND cheaper!!! What kind of idiot would oppose it!?!?!?!?'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument being made was 'It'll be better AND cheaper!!! What kind of idiot would oppose it!?!?!?!?'.

By whom? I've personally seen and heard a lot more of the "it's worth the extra cost" argument than "it'll be better and cheaper."

I also believe there could have been a way to make it cheaper, but the Democrats are just as compromised by their corporate masters as the Republicans are, so any bill would inevitably turn into some degree of a taxpayer-funded giveaway to the health insurance industry. People seemed to get more worked up about this kind of corporate welfare, which is actually supposed to help people, than they do about corn subsidies or bloated defense contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's moving the goal post.

You can certainly make a credible moral argument that UHC is worth the additional costs, but that isn't the argument that was being made that started this discussion.

The argument being made was 'It'll be better AND cheaper!!! What kind of idiot would oppose it!?!?!?!?'.

Those 2 arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/federal-judge-declares-us-military-ban-on-openly-gay-service-members-unconstitutional-.html

A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don't ask, don't tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.

Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.

The ruling comes just over a month after a federal judge in San Francisco tossed out California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, providing back-to-back victories for gay rights advocates seeking policy changes in the courts that have eluded them in Congress and at the ballot box. The case was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest political organization for gays in the GOP, in 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...