Today in Washington, D.C. - May 28, 2010 - Democrats Focus on Everything But the Important Issues
The Senate reconvened today. Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to change the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the military. The full Senate is likely to consider the issue in a couple weeks.
Last night, the Senate voted 67-28 to pass the $59 billion fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4899. The bill provides $33 billion for the surge in Afghanistan and $94 million for oil spill recovery efforts. Unfortunately, it is financed with deficit spending. Two amendments offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to pay for the bill through spending cuts were tabled earlier in the day by votes of 53-45 and 50-47.
Prior to passage, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on the bill, rejected a motion from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to allow for a vote on an amendment to complete the border fence, adopted an amendment from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to protect contractors from a new EPA rule, adopted an amendment concerning Filipino veterans from Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI), and rejected one on the same issue from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC).
The House voted (234-194) last night night to repeal the 1993 bill - "don't ask, don't tell" codifying the controversial policy barring openly gay men and lesbians from serving in the military. The legislation includes a provision ensuring that no change would take effect until the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops, due to Congress Dec. 1. It also requires that a policy change would not affect the military's ability to fight wars or recruit soldiers. Democrats pushed ahead on the issue over the objections of some key military leaders, who said Congress should have waited to vote until the study is complete.
The dynamics on this issue are beyond interesting when looking at the facts of law verses Executive Orders and the 1993 Law codifying "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." First, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Federal criminal statue for the military, makes acts of homosexuality a crime. This legal code was not addressed. Therefore, anyone practicing such acts would be subject to Courts Martial and punishment including bad conduct discharge and prison. Second, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was first established by President Clinton as a Presidential Executive Order which could be rescinded by President Obama at any time. The executive order has been in fact been an umbrella of protection for gays and lesbians who wished to serve in the military while not revealing or displaying their sexual behavior publicly. And it allowed for the administrative discharge verses Courts Martial for those who did reveal that they were gay or lesbian. If this executive order is rescinded without the Code of Military Justice being revised, the the very people celebrating this victory will be at risk in a military court. Also, military commanders cannot ignore certain provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, without placing enforcement of all other provisions at risk.
This issue is far from over and Congress should not be voting on an issue they did not have to vote on. First is the responsibility of Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama to decide on leaving or removing the "Don't Ask, Don't tell" policy and then for Congress to react to such an decision. Congress does have the responsibility to leave in-place or to remove or modify the provisions addressing homosexual behavior and/ or acts from the uniform Code of military Justice. Again, this issue has NOT been addressed properly by the President, or Congressional Democrats who appear to be providing cover for the President. Unfortunately, a few Republicans have been co-opted by the process. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have sent letters to Congress asking legislators to hold off on any effort to repeal the 1993 law and policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" until the Pentagon can finalize a review of the matter. However, the House did not listen to the Joint Chiefs. Will the Senate? The Democrats again are focusing on everything but the important issues like excessive federal spending, the expanding National Debt and much more.
In a must-read editorial today, The Wall Street Journal blasts the Health and Human Services Department for its taxpayer-funded mailer touting the supposed benefits for Medicare under Democrats’ new health care law: “In the full-circle department, recall the moment last September when Senator Max Baucus and Medicare went after the insurer Humana for having the nerve to criticize one part of ObamaCare. It turns out those same regulators have different standards for their own political advocacy. This week Medicare sent a flyer to seniors, ostensibly to inform them of what ObamaCare ‘means for you.’ Many elderly Americans are worried—and rightly so—about where they’ll rank in national health care, given that the new entitlement is funded by nearly a half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. They must have been relieved to hear that ‘The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama this year will provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care.’”
Of course, as the Journal points out, most of what’s contained in the mailer is contradicted by a report from Medicare’s own actuary released last month. For example, the mailer says Medicare “benefits won’t change” but the CMS actuary says Medicare cuts in the bill are “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors. It also claims the unpopular health care law makes “improvements to Medicare Advantage.” In fact, the actuary’s report says “The new provisions will generally reduce [Medicare Advantage] rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages.”
The WSJ writes, “That’s also what Humana told its customers, warning that seniors ‘could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage so valuable.’ Medicare threatened the Kentucky-based company with fines and regulatory punishments for ‘misleading and confusing’ beneficiaries, then issued a blanket gag order on Advantage insurers. The agency later backed down, once its Cosa Nostra message had been signed, sealed and delivered.”
This double standard is precisely what Senate Republicans criticized and was detailed by the ARRA News Service yesterday: Letter To Sebelius Demanding Answers On Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare Propaganda.
The WSJ concludes, “The larger issue is the White House’s view of political opposition. It seems to think its assertions will be true if they are repeated often enough, as long as no one is allowed to disagree.”
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Last night, the Senate voted 67-28 to pass the $59 billion fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4899. The bill provides $33 billion for the surge in Afghanistan and $94 million for oil spill recovery efforts. Unfortunately, it is financed with deficit spending. Two amendments offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to pay for the bill through spending cuts were tabled earlier in the day by votes of 53-45 and 50-47.
Prior to passage, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on the bill, rejected a motion from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to allow for a vote on an amendment to complete the border fence, adopted an amendment from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to protect contractors from a new EPA rule, adopted an amendment concerning Filipino veterans from Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI), and rejected one on the same issue from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC).
The House voted (234-194) last night night to repeal the 1993 bill - "don't ask, don't tell" codifying the controversial policy barring openly gay men and lesbians from serving in the military. The legislation includes a provision ensuring that no change would take effect until the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops, due to Congress Dec. 1. It also requires that a policy change would not affect the military's ability to fight wars or recruit soldiers. Democrats pushed ahead on the issue over the objections of some key military leaders, who said Congress should have waited to vote until the study is complete.
The dynamics on this issue are beyond interesting when looking at the facts of law verses Executive Orders and the 1993 Law codifying "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." First, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Federal criminal statue for the military, makes acts of homosexuality a crime. This legal code was not addressed. Therefore, anyone practicing such acts would be subject to Courts Martial and punishment including bad conduct discharge and prison. Second, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was first established by President Clinton as a Presidential Executive Order which could be rescinded by President Obama at any time. The executive order has been in fact been an umbrella of protection for gays and lesbians who wished to serve in the military while not revealing or displaying their sexual behavior publicly. And it allowed for the administrative discharge verses Courts Martial for those who did reveal that they were gay or lesbian. If this executive order is rescinded without the Code of Military Justice being revised, the the very people celebrating this victory will be at risk in a military court. Also, military commanders cannot ignore certain provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, without placing enforcement of all other provisions at risk.
This issue is far from over and Congress should not be voting on an issue they did not have to vote on. First is the responsibility of Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama to decide on leaving or removing the "Don't Ask, Don't tell" policy and then for Congress to react to such an decision. Congress does have the responsibility to leave in-place or to remove or modify the provisions addressing homosexual behavior and/ or acts from the uniform Code of military Justice. Again, this issue has NOT been addressed properly by the President, or Congressional Democrats who appear to be providing cover for the President. Unfortunately, a few Republicans have been co-opted by the process. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have sent letters to Congress asking legislators to hold off on any effort to repeal the 1993 law and policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" until the Pentagon can finalize a review of the matter. However, the House did not listen to the Joint Chiefs. Will the Senate? The Democrats again are focusing on everything but the important issues like excessive federal spending, the expanding National Debt and much more.
In a must-read editorial today, The Wall Street Journal blasts the Health and Human Services Department for its taxpayer-funded mailer touting the supposed benefits for Medicare under Democrats’ new health care law: “In the full-circle department, recall the moment last September when Senator Max Baucus and Medicare went after the insurer Humana for having the nerve to criticize one part of ObamaCare. It turns out those same regulators have different standards for their own political advocacy. This week Medicare sent a flyer to seniors, ostensibly to inform them of what ObamaCare ‘means for you.’ Many elderly Americans are worried—and rightly so—about where they’ll rank in national health care, given that the new entitlement is funded by nearly a half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. They must have been relieved to hear that ‘The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama this year will provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care.’”
Of course, as the Journal points out, most of what’s contained in the mailer is contradicted by a report from Medicare’s own actuary released last month. For example, the mailer says Medicare “benefits won’t change” but the CMS actuary says Medicare cuts in the bill are “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors. It also claims the unpopular health care law makes “improvements to Medicare Advantage.” In fact, the actuary’s report says “The new provisions will generally reduce [Medicare Advantage] rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages.”
The WSJ writes, “That’s also what Humana told its customers, warning that seniors ‘could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage so valuable.’ Medicare threatened the Kentucky-based company with fines and regulatory punishments for ‘misleading and confusing’ beneficiaries, then issued a blanket gag order on Advantage insurers. The agency later backed down, once its Cosa Nostra message had been signed, sealed and delivered.”
This double standard is precisely what Senate Republicans criticized and was detailed by the ARRA News Service yesterday: Letter To Sebelius Demanding Answers On Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare Propaganda.
The WSJ concludes, “The larger issue is the White House’s view of political opposition. It seems to think its assertions will be true if they are repeated often enough, as long as no one is allowed to disagree.”
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 12:39 PM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home