The Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, has directed state agencies not to discriminate against gay people. This is in response to the state attorney general telling public colleges that they lack the authority to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that they need to rescind any anti-discrimination policies that include protection for gay people. Essentially, the governor overrode what the state attorney general said. (Full Story)
I'm glad to see there was such an uproar about what the attorney general said and that Virginia took enough of a beating over this in the media that the governor was willing to make a change. Was the governor's heart and mind changed enough that he's willing to promote anti-discrimination policies that include protection for gay people in their state constitution -- making gay discrimination illegal across the state?! Not likely...
Senate Republicans -- as well as some Democrats -- defeated a measure to provide $1.3 billion for summer jobs for young people this year and a $1.3 billion extension of enhanced subsidies for poor families with children. The summer jobs program would create 500,000 temporary jobs for young people. One of the co-sponsors, Patty Murray-WA, said, "I have personally heard the stories of these young men and women whose summer jobs changed their lives across the country... [This program] will invest in critical employment and learning programs that will help not only these young people but the businesses that hire them." The subsidies for poor families with children would have been via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The stimulus bill had created the TANF Emergency Fund, which provided $5 billion to reimburse states for 80% of increased state spending on cash assistance, subsidized jobs, and other short-term benefits for families. This most recent measure would provide $1.3 billion to extend the program, which expires in September, until March 2011. A senior policy analyst with CLASP said the TANF program will have subsidized at least 100,000 jobs by the end of September. The Vice President of the Economic Policy Institute said, "The TANF Emergency Fund and the summer jobs program are proven successes from last year's Recovery Act and deserve to be renewed and extended."
The measure did not pass because Republicans objected to spending the money. Senator Judd Gregg (NH) raised a budgetary point of order. He said, "Why do we keep doing this? Why do we keep passing on to our children these debts?" [Maybe because in a time of economic crisis you're supposed to spend money on programs to help bring us out of this economic crisis. Not all deficits are equal. Economists will tell you that deficits that build infrastructure or create long-term positive outcomes are not the same as those that do not provide long term effects. And where were you when George W. Bush was unnecessarily creating massive deficits out of the record surpluses of the '90s]. The Democrats could only get 55 votes, five short of the supermajority needed to overcome Gregg's budgetary point of order. Democratic Senators Claire McCaskill (MO), Jim Webb (VA), Mark Warner (VA), and Ben Nelson (NE) joined the Republicans in voting no. A senior policy analyst from CLASP said, "Obviously, we're disappointed. People need the jobs and they're not going to get them this way. It's frustrating that it got a majority but was defeated on a pay-go point of order because it's paid for over 10 years instead of one year." She said that she hopes Democrats reintroduce the TANF funding before the enhanced program expires in September.
Hours after the vote was taken, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid took the floor to announce the sponsors of the measure (Johny Kerry-MA and Patty Murray-WA) had agreed to drop TANF in exchange for a new vote on just the summer jobs provision. Reid said, "The objection that a number of senators raised was that it was paid over ten years rather than five years. In an effort to compromise on this, Sens. Murray and Kerry have agreed that they would drop anything relating to TANF...and over five years pay for summer jobs in the amount of $743 million. As everyone will remember, that was originally $1.5 billion." Gregg still objected. And thus there was no new vote. The Democrats cut their measure by more than half (and personally I believe that TANF extension is much more necessary than the summer jobs program. Both are very important and needed, but TANF is probably more important) and try to compromise, and still...nothing. So much for the bipartisanship the Republicans are constantly whining about and saying they want, but are actually hindering every chance they get. (Full Story)
A top editor for a Chinese weekly newspaper was fired for writing an editorial that criticized China's household registration system. The registration system ties Chinese people to their parents' hometown if they want government services. Many government services, like schooling, are tied to the household registration system, and the rules for changing the locale are very tedious and bureaucratic. Regardless of the incentive to stay in their hometown, hundreds of millions of Chinese have migrated to the cities in hopes of finding a good job and a better life, and they end up sacrificing the rights and benefits they would be entitled to in their hometowns. Defenders of this 50 year old policy say that without it, Chinese cities would be overwhelmed with migrants and ringed with slums. The editorial asserted that the system was unfair because it restricted the right of Chinese citizens to seek a better life outside of their hometown. The editorial stated, "We believe in people born to be free and people possessing the right to migrate freely."
The editorial was published by a 13 Chinese publications including newspapers, financial publications, and regional dailies. Within hours the editorial vanished from the internet as a result of censors. Though, before it was taken down, it was picked up by foreign news outlets. The editor, Mr. Zhang, reported that after the editorial was published, he was "punished" and let go. He added that the editorial was the product of a few editors working behind closed doors, and that that those colleagues also felt repercussions. The incident was seen as especially provocative because it was an organized effort, not an individual complaint. After the editorial was published, propaganda authorities launched an investigation and issued an official warning to the Economic Observer (the paper Mr. Zhang worked for). The reprimands serve as a warning to journalists that if they challenge government policy, they will face consequences. "The struggle between China's censorship system and the country's more independent-minded media outlets is a constant theme as the government tries to steer public opinion in its favor while presenting itself as open -- even eager -- for criticism."
The editorial was timed to appear just before the annual meetings of more than 5,000 legislators and representatives of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. These representatives' roles are mostly ceremonial and their election is far from democratic, but the representatives sometimes highlight issues of concern for ordinary Chinese. Mr. Zhang said that, like many Chinese, he does not know which representative supposedly represents him. But he said, "As media, we hope that the people's voice can be heard by the representatives who 'represent public opinion.'"
Mr. Zhang says that he is now an "independent commentator" and his colleagues hope that he will be able to return to the newspaper at a later time. (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment