Friday Mashup (6/10/11)

Back to the blogging thing – I give you the following (here)…

Voter-photo-ID laws and the like are targeted at those ineligible to vote, regardless of race. If (Dem Congresswoman from Florida Debbie) Wasserman Schultz is concerned that photo-ID requirements have a disparate impact on minorities, she’s bought into a stereotype that minorities are too poor or feeble to obtain photo IDs.

So this person from Irrational Spew Online supports voter ID laws, of course, intended to fight the thoroughly nonexistent scourge of voter fraud in this country. And by focusing on minorities, Peter Kirsanow totally ignores the threat of these laws to younger voters also who vote in large numbers for Democrats, as noted here (ignoring by design I’m sure, and not that his argument towards minorities, such as it is, is credible either…and in that vein, I’m sure the findings from Repug Bucks County DA David Heckler on the Ciervo/Fitzpatrick letter from last year will be forthcoming any day now…any day now).

Also, voter ID laws drive up costs for local governments, as noted here recently in the Concord Monitor…

(New Hampshire) lawmakers yesterday continued to parse the fiscal implications of a proposal to require voters to show photo identification.

The bill would require people without valid photo identification to vote by provisional ballot and return by the third day after the election to verify their identity. The Department of State projects the law would increase state expenses by $80,670 in 2013 and $103,840 in 2015, and the state association of town clerks says the requirement would increase local costs as well.

The state would have to pay the cost of identification cards for people who lack them as well as the cost of hearings for people seeking waivers from the requirement.

And as Media Matters reminds us here, the closer we get to a national election, the louder the clamor you will hear from the wingnutosphere about alleged voter fraud (voter caging and disenfranchisement, not so much, though – Think Progress has much more on this here).

Next, I give you last week’s Area Votes in Congress writeup (here – the Senate was in recess...hey, philly.com, what happened to the comments?)…

House

Debt-limit increase. Voting 97-318, the House defeated a bill (HR 1954) to raise the national-debt limit by $2.406 trillion to $16.7 trillion. The Treasury is expected to soon reach the current limit of $14.294 trillion. Republicans sponsored this bill but voted unanimously against it, saying their purpose was to show that any new borrowing authority must be joined with comparable spending cuts.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.) and Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.).

Voting no: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), John Carney (D., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Jon Runyan (R., N.J.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Not voting: Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.).

In addition to more on this typically ridiculous bit of Repug gamesmanship here, I think the following should also be noted once more from here (Rob Andrews continues to slide in the wrong direction, as does John Carney).

Homeland Security budget. Voting 231-188, the House approved a $40.6 billion Department of Homeland Security budget for fiscal 2012, down $1.1 billion or 2.6 percent from 2011. The bill (HR 2017) funds agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Coast Guard. The first of the fiscal 2012 appropriations bills to pass the House, the measure reflects deep spending cuts fostered by the Republicans' 2012 budget plan.

Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, and LoBiondo.

Not voting: Schwartz.

Firefighters' funds. The House voted, 333-87, to add $320 million to HR 2017 (above) for antiterrorism grants used by local fire departments to fund equipment purchases and recruit and train personnel. The added spending would be offset by cuts in the Department of Homeland Security's administrative budget. The amendment would set funding for firefighters' programs at $670 million for the budget year, reversing cuts fostered by the House Republicans' 2012 budget plan.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Dent, Fattah, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Pitts.

Not voting: Schwartz.

I guess Pancake Joe doesn’t have to worry about the threat of terrorism or funding firefighters in PA-16 (once more, take a bow, you nematodes who insist on sending this meat sack back to Washington every two years).

Also, I’ll be interested to find out how many jobs are lost as a result of the Homeland Security Budget approved by “So Be It” Boehner and his pals – I’ll keep a lookout for more info.

Mass-transit security. Voting 187-234, the House defeated a motion by Democrats to set aside $75 million in HR 2017 (above) in dedicated funding to protect intercity and commuter rail lines and bus services from terrorist attacks. Although amply funded in previous Homeland Security budgets, these transportation modes face deep cuts fostered by the GOP budget plan passed in April.

A yes vote backed the motion.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, and Holden.

Voting no: Dent, Gerlach, Fitzpatrick, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Not voting: Schwartz.

As noted here, the Repugs no likey infrastructure projects generally, high-speed rail projects in particular (I guess they think it’s a “gumint” handout or something and not a “real” private sector job – and by the way, any word on when that glorious, private-industry-job-creating machine is going to ramp up at long last in this country?).

War Powers Act. Voting 148-265, the House defeated the tougher of two pending challenges to President Obama's addition of U.S. forces to the NATO-led air war over Libya. The measure (H Con Res 51) sought to end the action in 15 days under the 1973 War Powers Act, which authorizes presidents to deploy forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. Obama on March 19 ordered U.S. forces to join the United Nations, NATO and Arab League effort to bolster Libyan rebels against the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. Obama has neither sought nor received congressional approval of the action but has described his policy in detail to Congress and the public.

A yes vote was backed withdrawal within 15 days of enactment.

Voting yes: Pitts.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Dent, Fattah, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Runyan, and Smith.

Not voting: Schwartz.

I’m sure Pitts voted for this just to slam our Kenyan Marxist socialist pre-zee-dint who was too busy killing bin Laden to show us his birth certificate. However, smarter life forms in his party realized that this would have set a precedent that could one day be used against a Repug chief executive also.

GOP Libya plan. Voting 268-145, the House adopted the softer of two resolutions before it concerning U.S. military actions over Libya. Introduced by Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), the essentially nonbinding measure (H Res 92) gives the president 14 days to justify the deployment but states no consequences if he fails to do so. A competing measure (above) sought to use the 1973 War Powers Act to force an end to the action within 15 days of enactment.

A yes vote was to back the GOP resolution.

Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, and Holden.

Not voting: Schwartz.

If there is any issue where I have some agreement with the majority party in the House, it’s this one. Yes, Boehner and company are clowns, but the Obama Administration does owe us a legitimate explanation as to what our involvement is exactly in Libya as well as elsewhere and when exactly it will end.

After this vote, the House was in recess. The Senate's legislative schedule was to be announced.

In addition, this tells us that, with our economy stumbling along, two wars and the battle in Libya, our planet melting and our government doing its best to erode our civil liberties as much as possible while trying to turn every last one of us into debt slaves forever…leave it to the Repugs to fight the dread threat of the possible return of (wait for the scary-sounding music)…THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!! And I can’t believe FCC chair Julius Genachowski caved in response.

Here is more from the Hillbilly Heroin Addict and the Murdoch Street Journal on this fake “controversy,” and here is more on why we need it back (a day we likely will never see, of course…the Fairness Doctrine ended up going the way of Horn and Hardart’s, parachute pants and the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s).

Finally, George Will concocted some truly ripe stuff here yesterday at the WaPo (of course)…

Consider a hypothetical Ralph, who operated Ralph’s Diner until Applebee’s and Olive Garden opened competitors in the neighborhood. With economies of scale and national advertising budgets, those two franchises could offer more choices at better prices, so Ralph’s Diner went out of business. Should he and his employees be entitled to extra taxpayer subventions because they are casualties of competition?

Why should someone be entitled to such welfare just because he or she is affected negatively by competition that comes from abroad rather than down the street?

Sooo…it’s “welfare” to Will if a businessperson is shut down and they need a hand-up, but no word from Will about what you would call it when our august captains of finance in this country nearly crater our economy and they tells their bought-and-paid-for media/political sycophants to plead their case for them (and I thought this was a good response from a Daily Kos diarist).

(OK, to be fair, I should note that Will has decried all "handouts," though he was typically wrong here about bailing out the automakers.)

Besides, as noted here, Will’s notion of welfare is somewhat…how shall I put it…skewed anyway.

It should also be noted that Will’s attack on trade adjustment assistance is typically misguided partly because, in addition to leveling the playing field for those who are displaced by unfair competition, it was also signed into law by a Republican president in 1974, Jerry Ford to be exact (here).

And for good measure, here is more (a Will assault on unions, of course), and a real “evergreen” post from Will about “hard” and “red” America supposedly paying for “soft” and “blue” America (as you can read, Will has it exactly backwards).

And as a coup de grace of sorts, here is a clip from Keith Olbermann about how Will supposedly thinks liberals want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine (dove-tailing into the prior topic – just a reminder that K.O. returns to Current TV on 6/20 at 8 PM EST…yaaay!).