Taking A Good Concept And Making It Unacceptable

We have all been hearing a lot lately about the Republican’s ‘war on women.’ I wondered about that since I am a Republican and I wasn’t aware of any war against me. Well, as usual, it is about an attempt by the current administration to run for re-election on any issue other than their record.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday that helped me understand some of the issues. Hopefully it will be helpful to all of us. Please follow the link to read the entire article– I have just posted a few examples of what is going on.

Mr. Hinderaker states that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was supported by both political parties when it was introduced in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and 2006. So what changed? A few poison pills were added to change to bill to make it unacceptable so that it could be used as a political issue.

The article reports:

Last year, when the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill, it contained controversial provisions that were never included in earlier versions of the bill. It also lacked much needed fraud protection provisions regarding grant funds and immigration. …

Senator Grassley introduced an amendment that authorized aid for victims and also protected against fraud and misuse of funds. The Democrats refused to work with Republicans to write a bill that could enjoy bipartisan support in Committee.

…The Leahy bill creates 5K more U-visas annually, but lacks needed provisions to ensure that the purpose of the visa is fulfilled. The Democrats refused to support such provisions.

The Grassley amendment contained provisions that will ensure that the available 10K visas go to immigrants who actually qualify by:

* Requiring that the crime on which the visa is based be reported within 60 days of its occurrence;
* Requiring that the statute of limitations has not run on the crime, which would prevent prosecution; and
* Requiring that the crime be under active investigation or prosecution.

…Tribal Jurisdiction: In a dramatic break from legal precedent, the Leahy bill gave criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes. A hearing was never held on this provision, so the consequences of such a drastic measure are unknown.

While the bill’s jurisdiction is limited to domestic violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction is established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to other offenses as well. A non-Indian subject to tribal jurisdiction would enjoy few meaningful civil-rights protections. Courts have held, for example, that tribal governments are not bound by the Constitution’s First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.

…Lack of Grant Oversight: The Leahy bill authorized over $600K [sic] for VAWA grant programs. While this was a reduction from the 2006 authorization, the bill lacked much needed oversight provisions for the spending of grant funds. There is overwhelming evidence that without oversight provisions, the funds given to grantees under VAWA may not be used to protect victims of domestic violence.

No, there isn’t a Republican war against women–there’s a Democrat war against voters.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What 2010 Election ?

Tea Party Patriots

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

The 2010 midterm elections were not good news for the Democrat Party. The issues were runaway spending, Obamacare, and the economy in general. The Democrats lost six seats in the Senate, 63 seats in the House of Representatives, and six governorships. The Tea Party played a part in the Republican victories. The Tea Party (and the Republicans) made some mistakes, but overall, the election was a statement by the American people that they wanted less government, less spending, and repeal of Obamacare. Unfortunately, the current administration (and Democrat leadership and much of the Republican leadership) did not get the message.

Reuters is reporting today that the Democrat members of the debt super committee are insisting that the negotiations begin with raising taxes.

The article reports:

During the super committee’s initial closed-door meetings, “Republicans wanted to just talk about spending cuts and Democrats said, ‘No,'” the aide said.

Republicans strongly oppose tax hikes, arguing they will hurt an anemic economic recovery. But they have not ruled out closing some tax loopholes as part of tax reform. Democrats, including President Barack Obama, insist revenue increases must be part of any deficit reduction deal.

Democrats’ calls for increasing taxes on the rich may have been bolstered by a new Congressional Research Service analysis. The September 23 report obtained by Reuters concluded that letting decade-old tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of next year as scheduled “could help reduce budget deficits in the short term without stifling the economic recovery.”

On Thursday, The Hill reported why the Senate has not taken up President Obama’s bill to balance the budget:

“The oil-producing-state senators don’t like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies,” (Dick) Durbin said. “There are some senators who are up for election who say ‘I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people.’ So, we’re not gonna have 100 percent of Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bipartisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”

If the future of America were not at stake, this would be comical.  I agree with Rick Perry’s statement, “I’ll work to try to make DC as inconsequential in your life as I can.” That’s the attitude we need in Washington.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta