November 17, 2010

Quick update on Don't Ask, Don't Tell: No big surprise, but the Supreme Court ruled that DADT can remain in place while a federal appeals court examines the case. The Log Cabin Republicans took the case to the Supreme Court in the hopes that they would overturn the stay. No such luck. (Full Story)

In other news, Senator John McCain is being ridiculous. McCain is a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Back in the day, he said he was against DADT being repealed unless military officials said it was the thing to do. Well, now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen have come out in support of repealing DADT. McCain seems to be ignoring this. 

McCain also previously said he was in favor of not repealing DADT until the military can study it. Well, the military has studied it. The Pentagon is preparing a report due December 1 to Obama, but sources familiar with the report have already shared findings from the report. They said the study found that a majority of respondents to the survey said the effect of lifting the ban on gay soldiers would be positive, mixed, or non-existent. Despite this finding, now McCain is dragging his feet some more. He said, "Once we get this study, we need to have hearings. And we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted." In other words, it needs to be delayed some more. Despite approving the study earlier, now he's saying they studied the wrong thing. He says the Pentagon should study how ending DADT would impact troop morale and battle effectiveness, instead of reporting how the Defense Department could lift the ban. If the study found that a majority of soldiers don't think lifting DADT will be a problem, I think that's your answer right there in terms of the impact on troop morale and battle effectiveness (read: it won't have a negative effect on those things). Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said, "McCain is telling the Pentagon: Keep working until you produce the outcome I'm looking for."  

Obama is hoping that the senate will repeal DADT during the lame-duck session (i.e., before the new Congressional session starts). McCain has said he does not think the Senate should lift the ban during this time. He has mounted an effort to take out the DADT repealment from the defense authorization bill (which sets Pentagon policy). He said he wants to cut out the DADT amendment so that the defense authorization bill can be passed quickly. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says he supports the ban but he will not proceed without Republican support. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she will vote for it if Reid allows Republicans to introduce amendments (Vote the issue, not the procedure! Opening up unlimited amendments by Republicans will probably kill the bill. And then Collins will probably still jump ship. I appreciate the Republican senators from Maine (Collins & Olympia Snowe) expressing a willingness to reach across the aisle and to vote with Democrats on various important measures. At the same time, I'm getting a little annoyed with them requesting all these compromises and favors, being granted those things, and then still not voting with them. Collins, vote the issue, not the procedure! I beg of you!). It's believed that at least 10 senators of both parties are waiting to read the Pentagon report because they make their decision. This seriously is the time to repeal it, here's no reason to keep this policy in place. It's an embarrassment and an injustice. (Full Story)

---

According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 50 million Americans lived in households (17.4 million households, or about 15% of all households) that had a hard time getting enough food to eat at least at some point in 2009. That includes 17 million children. About 5.6 million of these households had problems throughout the year that severely disrupted eating patterns (and between 500,000 and 1 million of these people affected were children). 

These measures reached a record high in 2008, and one explanation for why it remained at about the same level this year instead of going higher (when millions more Americans were out of work) is because of food stamps and other assistance programs. There has been record growth in the use of the food stamps program (it's now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). Forty-two million Americans, or 1 in 8, now use them. The food stamp program was expanded last year by Congress as part of the economic recovery bill, and clearly it has helped to contain hunger [you mean, having a social safety net actually helps people?! What a novel concept!]. Furthermore, one in four households have at least one family member participating in a USDA feeding program, up from one in five two years ago. One source of help is that about one million children got free or reduced-price meals at their schools last year. 

In light of this report, it will be interesting to see what happens when Congress faces the task of reauthorizing and expanding school lunch and other child nutrition programs. The bill has stalled in Congress because someone had the genius idea to propose that the $4.5 billion bill should be paid for by cutting future food stamp benefits. So, in order words, they want to fight against hunger by cutting benefits that will help families not go hungry. 

Some conservatives are getting their Grinch hats ready for Christmas by saying that these problems are exaggerated. "They clearly exaggerate these numbers for political effect," says Robert Rector (the article calls him "a poverty expert with the Heritage Foundation" -- although we all know that's an oxymoron). Rector says that many of these people counted might have only missed one meal on one day in the whole course of the year. I think beliefs and statements like that are doing a great disservice to the number of people that are struggling. Saying this is exaggerated for political effect is undermining the great number of people that are having a tough time and experiencing food insecurity. Just looking at one statistic, 42 million Americans are on food stamps. People don't apply for food stamps because they missed one single meal throughout the course of the year. This problem is much more prevalent than people like Rector are willing to acknowledge. Regardless of what people like Rector say, people do not have to experience "chronic undernutrition" to have it hard. The problem of food insecurity shouldn't have to reach that extreme level for it to be taken serious. Besides, no family should have to forgo even one meal because they cannot afford it (especially in a prosperous country like the U.S.). (Full Story) (Full Story)