Friday Mashup Part Two (6/18/10)

(Part one is here – by the way, there may not be much posting for most of next week, maybe towards Thursday and Friday a bit, and definitely no posting on Tuesday.)

Not much to note in last week’s Area Votes in Congress writeup from the Inquirer (here)…

House

FHA mortgage insurance. Voting 406-4, the House sent the Senate a bill (HR 5072) nearly tripling the cap on Federal Housing Administration insurance premiums for single-family mortgages. The bill would raise the top annual premium from 0.55 percent to 1.55 percent of the loan balance, with the average borrower expected to pay nearly 0.9 percent. In return, the FHA is expected but not required to lower its one-time, up-front premium from 2.25 percent to 1 percent of the loan amount.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

FHA down payments. Voting 131-289, the House defeated an amendment to HR 5072 (above) that sought to increase the minimum down payment for FHA-insured home loans from 3.5 percent to 5 percent. Such an increase would lead to fewer defaults on FHA-backed loans while excluding many moderate- and low-income borrowers from home ownership.

A yes vote was to raise down-payment requirements.

Voting yes: Dent and Pitts.

Voting no: Adler, Andrews, Brady, Castle, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.

Concerning the FHA down payments vote, this may be anathema for a liberal to think or believe, but even though the down payment percentage on an FHA loan hasn’t been cited by any news outlet I consider reputable as a cause of the housing meltdown (and certainly not the Community Reinvestment Act either), I’m wondering just how bad a thing it is to raise that percentage. I know getting more people into more houses is good for the economy, but this just makes me wonder, that’s all (though finding myself out on the proverbial limb with Joe Pitts and Charlie Dent, of all people, is not a place I want to be, I’ll admit).

Also, the Inky tells us the following…

U.S. debt and security. Voting 38-61, the Senate failed to table (kill) an amendment to HR 4213 concerning the effect of U.S. debt on national security. This preserved language requiring quarterly presidential reports to Congress on the extent to which foreign holdings of U.S. debt imperil U.S. security.

A yes vote was to kill the amendment.

Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, and Menendez.

Voting no: Specter.

Snarlin’ Arlen showing his true colors as the clock winds down (and to help Admiral Joe against Wingnut Pat Toomey, click here).

This story in the New York Times today tells us the following (here)…

In addition to the fishermen and hoteliers whose livelihoods have been devastated by BP’s hemorrhaging undersea oil well, another group of Gulf Coast residents is beginning to suffer: the tens of thousands of workers like Ronald Brown who run the equipment or serve in support roles on deepwater oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Brown, known as Rusty to his friends, is a “shakerhand.” In the rugged vernacular of offshore drilling, that means he monitors the mud flowing back from the drill hole thousands of feet below.

He works aboard the Ocean Monarch, which was idled along with 32 other oil rigs when the Obama administration ordered a six-month moratorium on all deepwater drilling after the April 20 Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Uh, for the record, the Times also told us the following a couple of weeks ago (here)…

WASHINGTON — In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.

The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Asked about the permits and waivers, officials at the Department of the Interior and the Minerals Management Service, which regulates drilling, pointed to public statements by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, reiterating that the agency had no intention of stopping all new oil and gas production in the gulf.

I don’t mean to be unsympathetic to individuals such as Ronald Brown, whose lives and livelihoods have been turned upside down, but I just think we should be clear about that, that’s all.

And in a similar vein, the answer to Byron York’s question, by the way (here), was provided by former Bushco flak Dana Perino (here).

Update 6/19/10: Looks like the old gray lady "screwed the pooch" again here.

Also, Repug U.S. House Rep Todd Akin tells us the following (here)…

On May 27, 2010, in the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) offered an amendment to the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act to strike Section 1093(b) of Title 10. The amendment, which passed by a vote of 15-12, will permit the performance of abortions in both domestic and overseas military facilities.

Under current law, the U.S. Military will not pay for an abortion and abortions may not be performed at military health care facilities – except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I firmly believe that military treatment centers -- which are dedicated to healing and caring for life -- should not facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life: a child in the womb.

You know, I never cease to feel my gag reflex seize up when I read self-righteous claptrap such as this from “pro-life” zealots like Akin (of course, as noted here, “pro life” only for those with whom Akin agrees).

In response, I give you the following (here)…

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) introduced an amendment which would repeal the current discriminatory law that bans abortion in military facilities even if a woman pays for the abortion with her own private money. Burris’s amendment passed by a vote of 16 to 10 and will now be included in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act as it moves to the Senate floor for a vote in the coming weeks.

We need this amendment for the safety and welfare of our brave servicewomen stationed overseas. Unable to access abortion services in military facilities, our servicewomen serving abroad are forced to seek health care in foreign hospitals despite language barriers and the risk of inadequate care. If abortion is illegal in the country where she is stationed or if she is serving in a warzone, a servicewoman is left in a bind, unable to exercise her constitutional right to an abortion. Without access to comprehensive reproductive health care, servicewomen are exposed to grave health risks, and some have even sought unsafe abortions or attempted to self-induce an abortion.

Out of respect for the health, safety and welfare of the brave military women who have committed their lives to our country, we hope that Congress will include Senator Burris’s Amendment in the final National Defense Authorization Act for 2011. It is about time we repeal this unjust ban and show our servicewomen the respect and justice they deserve.

We ask the women in our military to defend this country even if that requires sacrificing their lives. Why is it (according to Akin, anyway) too much to ask that we allow them to control their own bodies as well (especially when they're paying for the coverage themselves)?

Finally, Christine Flowers of The Daily News inflicted the following assault on common sense here…

This week, in federal court, the Boy Scouts are trying to prove that the city is unfairly targeting them because of their refusal to accept openly gay members or troop leaders.

They argue that they're being discriminated against because of a politically unpopular "viewpoint," something that the Constitution and a bunch of Supreme Court justices specifically prohibited. And to prove it, they're providing evidence that while the city is bent on evicting the Scouts from city-owned property, it's willing to turn a blind eye to other organizations that do the same thing.

It's not necessary to list all of the groups that have sweetheart deals with the city. Suffice it to say that the only one that seems to have run afoul of City Hall is the one that provides a safe haven for boys and young men, that teaches them the meaning of both independence and interdependence, that gives them valuable skills, lifelong friendships and, in many cases, the only adult male role models they'll ever have.

In a town that's forced to close pools and libraries, the Scouts are a lifeline.

But that's not enough for some people. The reason this organization has raised the hackles of the city lawyers is that it has the audacity to presume that sexual orientation is irrelevant, and that little boys don't need to trumpet their preference (or have it shoved in their faces by other Scouts, or their leaders).

The truth is that the Boy Scouts don't force kids or troop leaders to submit to a "sexual orientation" test before they can join. They don't ask if they prefer Liza Minnelli to G.I. Joe. They don't ask - but they also don't expect anyone to tell.

Isn’t it hilarious the way Flowers so easily resorts to caricature when she realizes that she’s standing on thin ice?

As noted in this prior post, the Boys Scouts’ headquarters are currently located in some nice digs in Logan Square, not far from the Art Museum and the Franklin Institute. The Scouts enjoyed a rather substantial rent discount. However, the city could no longer keep giving the discount because of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases holding that taxpayer money cannot be used to support private groups that knowingly discriminate.

So the city told the Scouts to either stop hating teh gay or pay fair-market rent, on the order of about $200 grand a year.

Well, the Scouts chose another option, and that was to sue the city. And that is where we currently stand (Flowers does manage to provide the meaningful detail that the suit is being heard in federal court this week).

That is the issue in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with “a politically unpopular viewpoint," “the political will of a group that cares only about its own narrow interests and not the welfare of 8-year-old boys,” or the fact that Philadelphia has closed pools and libraries.

It is a legal matter. And at this point, the Scouts are on the wrong side, because they discriminate.

For a lawyer, Flowers has a steadfast ability to ignore a legal principle if it means advancing her own doctrinaire point of view.

If I were in need of representation before a judge, she isn’t even the last person I would call. I wouldn’t trust her to represent me for so much as a parking ticket.