Connect with us

As The Lame Duck Congress Ends, Will Equality Elude Gays And Lesbians — Again?

Published

on

With tax cuts, unemployment benefits, the START treaty, the DREAM Act, a Ground Zero workers’ health care bill, continued funding of government operations, not to mention the National Defense Authorization Act spending bill, is there any room left on the calendar for the bill everyone was talking about last week, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban against gay and lesbian service members in the military?

After the Senate Democrats went down to defeat in efforts to extend tax cuts for the middle class over the weekend, President Barack Obama announced he would seek unemployment assistance and other support for the long-term unemployed, as part of a deal with the Senate Republicans on extending tax cuts, during the remaining days of the lame duck session of Congress.

President Obama also made clear last week that getting the START Treaty ratified is a priority for his administration by inviting former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell to the Oval Office, seeking his public endorsement announced in an open press avail.  “Now it’s time to get this done,” Obama said, with Powell at his side.  “It is important for us to make sure that we complete the evaluation process, we finish the debate, and we go ahead and finish this up before the end of the year.”

(Note: There was no mention of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at the presser by either the President or the General, who presided over its adoption in 1993, and has come out publicly against it recently.)

White House officials have claimed ratification of the START Treaty is an emergency because Russian nuclear weapon sites have not been inspected since Dec. 2009 when the treaty expired. But the White House “emergency” on the START Treaty is really about vote counting –when the Senate returns in January, there will be six fewer Democrats in its caucus, making it much more difficult to get the necessary 67 votes needed for ratification.

On Friday afternoon, according to Politico, White House staff from the Office of Public Engagement that included director Tina Tchen, her deputy Brian Bond, and legislative affairs aide Chris Kang, attempted to reassure gay advocacy groups that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell remained a White House priority and there was enough time for debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes the repeal language.

Later during the same afternoon, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the Senate would adjourn on Dec. 17th for the year, but not before he lambasted John McCain for his rigid opposition to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” During Reid’s floor time, he was reminded by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the  Senate Armed Services Committee, to include the bill on the Senate’s agenda (see video).

We believe tax cuts and unemployment assistance are a priority with so many Americans out of work, or under-employed.  But we remain concerned with so little time left–about 12 days (including a weekend) in light of announced White House priorities and the schedule announced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will drop off the agenda without adequate time for Senate debate needed to obtain the 60 votes needed for cloture, enabling a floor vote that assuredly will pass.  Some senate experts have observed that the NDAA and the defense appropriation bills can take up to two weeks, if not longer for amendments, debate and voting, depending upon the hostility of the minority party. Given this scenario it is likely that the NDAA may not even come up for vote, with so few days left for legislation action–this would be a first in 48 years.  The NDAA also includes pay raises for all service members.

As the weekend proceeded several statements made by Republican Senators Richard Lugar, Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader and John Kyl deepened our concern that DADT will fall off the Senate agenda.  A Lugar spokesman issued a statement indicating that “DADT needed more study” before moving forward. By Sunday evening both McConnell and Kyl said that DADT was dead for this Congress and there was not enough time for debate and amendments on NDAA.

A number of commentators have lamented Obama’s and the Senate Democrats’ weak leadership in handling the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, including New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who wrote:  “Once again, the Democrats waited too long to close the deal, the president showed no leadership, and a campaign promise that was seen as a fait accompli now seems a casualty.” A New York Times editorial published on Dec. 4th titled “Inside the Beltway, a Deficit of Purpose,” also pointed out that the White House should not be trading core principles for a deal on tax cuts, although Democrats did not vote on tax cuts before the elections, thus, negotiations were put off to the lame duck session, putting the White House in a weakened position.


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=296907-1&start=9490&end=9752

Here is a list of legislation, besides early mentions, that is likely to be taken up by the Senate in the next 12 days:

The Dream Act, according to the National Immigration Law Center is a bipartisan legislation that addresses the tragedy of young people who grew up in the United States and have graduated from our high schools, but whose future is circumscribed by our current immigration laws. Under current law, these young people generally derive their immigration status solely from their parents, and if their parents are undocumented or in immigration limbo, most have no mechanism to obtain legal residency, even if they have lived most of their lives here in the U.S. The Dream Act would provide such a mechanism for those who are able to meet certain conditions, including serving in the Armed Service or by going to college.  The White House has given the Dream Act regular visibility on its home page, which includes a fact sheet on the bill.

The Zadronga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act would provide $7.4 billion over 10 years for health care and compensation for those whose illnesses are blamed on working at Ground Zero, according to the New York Daily News. Reid has indicated he will try to force the bill to a vote this week amid strong Republican opposition, which only includes one Republican senator, Mark Kirk of Illinois.  Reid needs 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor and for cloture.  All 59 Democrats senators are supporting, including two independents and needs one more Republican. Usual suspects include Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine, who might join with Democrats.

Continuing resolutions to fund government operations, pay salaries i.e., must be adopted by the House and Senate because many appropriation bills remain outstanding.  In the Congress, all funding bills must begin in the House and authorization bills must be adopted first, before appropriations can be processed for a vote.The White House management of the DADT repeal process can be defined as political malpractice.  It has been quite clear from the begining that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been in charge from the moment President Obama turned it over to the Pentagon.  In fact, the Washington Post reported over the weekend that allegedly that Rahm Emanuel, the former chief of staff and Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff, begged Gates to allow the Congress to move on DADT, knowing that losing the House was likely, as early as May, but he refused.

Gates, known to be an adept bureaucrat, seems to have really dropped the ball this time, when it really counts.  His calendar called for the release of the Pentagon’s report after the midterm elections, when most first term presidents lose a minimum of 25 seats.  The Gates time line and calendar undercut the likelihood of passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and now we all see a weakened Democratic majority in the Senate that left too much business to the lame duck session.  Reid’s calendar, unless changed, insures that the repeal of DADT will be pushed off to another day and time sometime in the future.

These actions taken as a whole, reflect the height of incompetence and cynicism on the part of the Obama White House and the Senate’s Democratic leadership.  Clearly, the White House, along with the Senate, have made its priorities known for several days now. They plan to take care of constituencies that will insure their reelections.  What does this say about America’s promise?  We hold ourselves out and open our doors to those from around the world who are political oppressed and to those who are dispossessed, and yet our politicians have apparently decided to leave lesbian and gay servicemembers during a time of two wars on the side of the road.

They will not cast their votes to take us across the bridge to freedom and justice this time and we will not let them forget it.

(image)



Subscribe to
The New Civil Rights Movement

<!–
google_ad_client = “pub-6759057198693805”;
/* 468×60, created 10/21/10 */
google_ad_slot = “8507588931”;
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
//–>

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘New MAGA Slush Fund’ Could Hand Trump Coalition ‘Cut of the Spoils’: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump reportedly may drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in a settlement handing him control of a $1.7 billion “MAGA slush fund” to compensate victims of government abuse, according to The New Republic‘s Greg Sargent, who calls it a “Shakedown.”

Citing an ABC News report, Sargent explains that the proposed settlement “would create a ‘commission’ with ‘total authority’ to settle ‘claims’ brought by those who allege such weaponization. Per ABC, this not only includes the insurrectionists; it could even settle purported claims by ‘entities associated with President Trump himself.’ By all indications it would operate with little-to-no congressional oversight.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told Sargent it is “a shocking new betrayal of the Constitution.”

This “new MAGA slush fund,” Sargent says, would come from an existing Justice Department fund that has strict controls, including transparency requirements. But “Trump would wield quasi-direct control” over the $1.7 billion, including being able to fire commission members “without cause,” and “it wouldn’t be required to disclose its decision-making involving who gets awarded compensation.”

Raskin told Sargent, the “Judgment Fund exists to settle valid judgments against the United States government.”

Raskin said that Trump and his allies are “trying to take money from the Judgment Fund while eliminating any controls and oversight” and put it under Trump’s “direct unilateral control.”

Because Congress did not set up any fund like this it could be unconstitutional.

“Congress never would have passed a $1.7 billion slush fund for his friends—this is completely outside of our constitutional framework,” Raskin said. He called it “an outrageous desecration of congressional power of the purse.”

Raskin also noted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits government from assuming any “obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

So if Trump wants to use the $1.7 billion to compensate the January 6 rioters, he will be “using federal taxpayer dollars to compensate people who participated in insurrection,” according to Raskin.

Trump and his lawyers “are figuring out a way to refund the January 6 militia, presumably to get them ready for the next round of battle,” Raskin said.

“So at bottom,” Sargent concludes, “payments from this fund might ultimately serve as a form of coalition management: They’ll keep large swaths of his coalition persuaded that a win for Trump, no matter how illicit or ill-gotten, is a win for them. That his corruption isn’t just in his own interests, but in theirs, too. Because, after all, they’re getting a cut of the spoils.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

CNN Analyst Stunned Bottom Has ‘Completely Fallen Out’ For Trump

Published

on

CNN analyst Harry Enten is stunned at how far President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen, especially among Latino voters.

“The bottom has completely fallen out when it comes to Donald Trump and Latino voters,” Enten said on Friday.

“What a different world,” he exclaimed. “Oy vey, if I’m the president of the United States, because just take a look here.”

Trump won a “record share” of Latino voters for a “Republican presidential nominee, 46 percent of the vote,” Enten said, “going all the way back since we had the advent of exit polls back in 1972.”

Trump’s job approval rating, in an average of CNN polls, is 28 percent — “an 18 point drop,” Enten explained.

Latino voters from 2024 “have abandoned him with the utmost, just, dislike of what he is doing so far — just 28 percent, a drop of 18 points.”

And with Latino men, Enten said, “Oh, my goodness gracious.”

Trump is at -41 points, a “movement of 51 points, a shift away from the president of the United States.”

“Again, the bottom has just completely fallen out, and, of course, when you look across that political map, there are so many races that will be involving a lot of Latino voters, and when you see numbers like this, I just go, ‘Uh oh,’ if I am a Republican running for Congress,” he said.

Enten also said that one of the reasons Trump had “record performance with Latinos back in 2024, was because the issue of the economy. They trusted Donald Trump by a three-point margin against Kamala Harris.”

But his net approval on the economy now? “Minus 46 points.”

“No wonder the bottom has fallen out with Latino voters and Latino men in particular,” he added.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Alito Refuses to Recuse From Supreme Court Case Despite Stock Ownership in Industry

Published

on

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to recuse himself from a major climate case despite owning stock in several energy companies, although none in the two that are parties in the lawsuit the court will hear next term.

Citing his energy stock ownership, liberal groups have been calling for the conservative justice to recuse, and they have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement, NBC News reports. But the Supreme Court says Alito is not obligated to do so.

“Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” involved in the case, a court spokesperson told NBC News in a statement. The court’s legal counsel advised that “his recusal is not required.”

ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy are fighting to have dismissed a lawsuit involving damages for climate harms, NBC News reports.

Justices are not required to recuse unless they have a direct conflict, such as specific stock ownership, a personal relationship, or a history with the case prior to their appointment to the Supreme Court.

In their letter, the liberal groups say that justices should recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by an “unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances.”

The liberal groups also say they have “deep concerns” about Alito’s “inconsistent history of recusals from cases from which he should be compelled to recuse under long-standing federal law.” They cite “his substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies and other personal ties.”

They point to what they call Alito’s “irregular recusal practice in oil and gas industry-related cases,” saying that it is “undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.”

NBC notes that “in 2023, Alito did recuse himself when the court turned away an appeal from the companies in the Colorado case.” That same day, “the court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Alito also did not participate in those cases.”

But the court’s spokesperson said that Alito was “inadvertently recused” from the Colorado case.

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.