In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand.
True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
It's true that non-conventional oil is more expensive, and that contributes to keeping prices sticky to the upside. But that isn't the only force in the marketplace. Do you really think you can make a prediction on oil prices just from the rig count? Look at your own graph - when prices fell so did the rig count. But it rebounded quickly with prices. That's no suggestive of a situation where you're risking a huge price spike because of an investment dearth.
No, it was a single piece of evidence. I listed more than one reason in the post, and there are more reasons I haven't listed.
Super.
You still ain't psychic.
If you think otherwise, go get rich.
Don't be idiotic.
This isn't about anything so trivial as a market prediction at a certain time. This is about the trajectory of the long term future.
On March 06 2014 05:08 Danglars wrote: More testimony from the House Oversight Committee on the IRS corruption scandal.
The libs here might even like Cumming's (D-Maryland) objections/outburst, so give it a listen. We'll see if Lerner continues all the way to arrest for contempt and a trial on that matter. I don't know if her activism in the matter was just poor choices, or if the administration also had a hand in it (suppressing voter turnout efforts ahead of the 2012 election). I doubt there's a paper trail even if her orders had come from ranking officials within the White House. Her testimony throughout this case gives me the impression that the Director of IRS Exempt Organizations abused her authority.
I cant tell if Issa is incompetent, misinformed or just more interested in putting on a show then doing his job but he basically just wasted a bunch of time by calling a witness who was going to take the 5th just so he could talk a whole bunch at her. Ignoring the unprofessionalism that took place at the end by Issa it just seems like he is just trying to find something to point at and go "that is the scandal" and if he cant just keep calling it one until it becomes one.
So he should have done nothing because he knew she would plead the fifth? "Well everyone, the witness will refuse to testify, time to pack it up and go home!" How does that make sense? Don't you at least want to bring the person before the committee and have them say it? THEN you pack up and leave.
I think it's more unprofessional for a congressman to try and make a political point after they adjourn. Issa has the power to cut mics (it's at his desk!) how is it unprofessional to shut off the mic at that time? I'ts not like Issa interrupted Cummings' duly allotted time. Cummings thought he was going to be able to make his pre-planned speech that day and was not happy when he didn't get the chance. That's just my bet though.
On March 05 2014 13:26 CannonsNCarriers wrote: [quote]
During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand.
True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
It's true that non-conventional oil is more expensive, and that contributes to keeping prices sticky to the upside. But that isn't the only force in the marketplace. Do you really think you can make a prediction on oil prices just from the rig count? Look at your own graph - when prices fell so did the rig count. But it rebounded quickly with prices. That's no suggestive of a situation where you're risking a huge price spike because of an investment dearth.
No, it was a single piece of evidence. I listed more than one reason in the post, and there are more reasons I haven't listed.
Super.
You still ain't psychic.
If you think otherwise, go get rich.
Don't be idiotic.
This isn't about anything so trivial as a market prediction at a certain time. This is about the trajectory of the long term future.
And you think that trajectory is certain.
Here's what the EIA thinks:
They think the price of oil could go up really high, up modestly or stay low for an extended time. You think differently, and that's fine, (and you may turn out to be correct!) but the future isn't certain on this point or any of the other doom and gloom points you made.
increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up.
These aren't unreasonable opinions / predictions. But they aren't guaranteed facts either. They all have good arguments for why they could be true, or why the could be false. Outsourcing (I assume you mean to another country) ain't the big auto-win it used to be. Productivity has slowed in many advanced economies. The price of nat gas looks to stay low in the US for a long while, and the price of renewables is falling quickly.
PHOENIX — A few key Republican senators joined with Democrats on Wednesday to defeat a bill that would have prohibited Arizona from using a set of educational standards known nationally as Common Core.
The Arizona Senate failed to pass Senate Bill 1310, sponsored by Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, after giving it initial approval Tuesday.
Five Republicans broke rank with their party and helped Democrats defeat the bill: Sens. John McComish of Ahwatukee, Adam Driggs of Phoenix, Steve Pierce of Prescott, Michele Reagan of Scottsdale and Bob Worsley of Mesa. The Senate killed the bill with an 18-12 vote.
The measure would have prohibited the state from using a set of new educational standards accepted by most of the nation, and which Arizona adopted in 2010 without opposition. Melvin and others have said the standards are a poorly conceived federal effort to usurp states’ rights.
Common Core standards aim to focus learning on comprehension and real life examples and were designed by a national, bipartisan group of governors and education leaders to better prepare students for college and the job market.
Gov. Jan Brewer has supported Common Core and renamed the standards the Arizona College and Career Ready Standards.
At a debate on the bill Tuesday, Melvin said, “many citizens, I think the majority, have fundamental problems with Common Core and its implementation in the state. I believe that we, as a state, can do a far better job in this area than the federal government dictating to us, and that’s the thrust of this bill.”
Supporters of Common Core standards said eliminating the program would cost Arizona millions in federal funding and would make the state less economically competitive. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce opposed the repeal effort.
Opponents of Melvin’s bill also said getting rid of Common Core would have been a disservice to the many Arizona school districts that have spent millions of dollars implementing the program since 2010. However, education advocates had said it’s hard to track down a specific dollar cost figure because each school district handles its own implementation.
Additionally, the Arizona Department of Education receives about $1 billion annually in federal funds for Common Core implementation. Potentially, all of that funding would have been at risk if Arizona moved away from the standards, according to the department.
Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, has said the legislature should not make decisions based on whether schools have already invested in the program but on what is the best policy for the state. Biggs supported Melvin’s bill and voted in favor of it.
My take: This part worries me the most about the decision, regardless if Common Core is the right thing to support.
Additionally, the Arizona Department of Education receives about $1 billion annually in federal funds for Common Core implementation. Potentially, all of that funding would have been at risk if Arizona moved away from the standards, according to the department.
A House chairman probing the IRS scandal on Wednesday said that President Obama has reneged on a promise to have his aides cooperate with the investigation, forcing the Ways and Means Committee to conduct a dragnet for emails and documents needed to smoke out the truth.
Rep. Dave Camp also revealed that federal agents conducting an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's bid to punish Tea Party and conservative critics of the president have yet to talk to a single target of the scandal.
Camp, whose committee is one of several looking into the 2010-2013 scandal, put the blame for the drawn out investigations on Capitol Hill at the president’s feet.
“I don’t fully understand why it’s taken them so long given that the president promised,” Camp said at a media roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “He promised that he would have quick action and we still don’t have the documents from an agency that is in this administration."
His committee has been frustrated with the administration's failure to cough up emails from Lois Lerner, who ran the IRS department that blocked Tea Party groups from winning the typically quick approval of tax exempt status. Lerner was on Capitol Hill Wednesday where she refused to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The libs here might even like Cumming's (D-Maryland) objections/outburst, so give it a listen. We'll see if Lerner continues all the way to arrest for contempt and a trial on that matter. I don't know if her activism in the matter was just poor choices, or if the administration also had a hand in it (suppressing voter turnout efforts ahead of the 2012 election). I doubt there's a paper trail even if her orders had come from ranking officials within the White House. Her testimony throughout this case gives me the impression that the Director of IRS Exempt Organizations abused her authority.
I cant tell if Issa is incompetent, misinformed or just more interested in putting on a show then doing his job but he basically just wasted a bunch of time by calling a witness who was going to take the 5th just so he could talk a whole bunch at her. Ignoring the unprofessionalism that took place at the end by Issa it just seems like he is just trying to find something to point at and go "that is the scandal" and if he cant just keep calling it one until it becomes one.
So he should have done nothing because he knew she would plead the fifth? "Well everyone, the witness will refuse to testify, time to pack it up and go home!" How does that make sense? Don't you at least want to bring the person before the committee and have them say it? THEN you pack up and leave.
I think it's more unprofessional for a congressman to try and make a political point after they adjourn. Issa has the power to cut mics (it's at his desk!) how is it unprofessional to shut off the mic at that time? I'ts not like Issa interrupted Cummings' duly allotted time. Cummings thought he was going to be able to make his pre-planned speech that day and was not happy when he didn't get the chance. That's just my bet though.
Unprofessional is holding a hearing and not letting anyone else talk or ask questions, something fairly unique in the history of congress which tells me it was never about gathering information.
As for the case in question if the witness is clearly going to plead and has informed congress of that and you are not planning to give immunity then the only purpose of calling her to a public hearing is to try to make statements to the press and in no way is about investigate. I am not saying he shouldn't go and investigate what needs to be investigated and I am sure there are other actual explorable avenues he could inquire to but he choose to do a public hearing just to grandstand and then to further prove he refused to let anyone else ask any questions whatsoever.
I would say though before finding a scandal he first needs to find proof that the law was actually applied improperly something that I have yet to actually see so far.
Edit: Just to be clear I am aware the congressmans question was procedural in nature but that does not change the fact that aside from those being standard and well within his right to ask it doesn't help an investigation to not allow any questions from anyone other then yourself even if those questions are directed at you.
The libs here might even like Cumming's (D-Maryland) objections/outburst, so give it a listen. We'll see if Lerner continues all the way to arrest for contempt and a trial on that matter. I don't know if her activism in the matter was just poor choices, or if the administration also had a hand in it (suppressing voter turnout efforts ahead of the 2012 election). I doubt there's a paper trail even if her orders had come from ranking officials within the White House. Her testimony throughout this case gives me the impression that the Director of IRS Exempt Organizations abused her authority.
I cant tell if Issa is incompetent, misinformed or just more interested in putting on a show then doing his job but he basically just wasted a bunch of time by calling a witness who was going to take the 5th just so he could talk a whole bunch at her. Ignoring the unprofessionalism that took place at the end by Issa it just seems like he is just trying to find something to point at and go "that is the scandal" and if he cant just keep calling it one until it becomes one.
So he should have done nothing because he knew she would plead the fifth? "Well everyone, the witness will refuse to testify, time to pack it up and go home!" How does that make sense? Don't you at least want to bring the person before the committee and have them say it? THEN you pack up and leave.
I think it's more unprofessional for a congressman to try and make a political point after they adjourn. Issa has the power to cut mics (it's at his desk!) how is it unprofessional to shut off the mic at that time? I'ts not like Issa interrupted Cummings' duly allotted time. Cummings thought he was going to be able to make his pre-planned speech that day and was not happy when he didn't get the chance. That's just my bet though.
Unprofessional is holding a hearing and not letting anyone else talk or ask questions, something fairly unique in the history of congress which tells me it was never about gathering information.
No. Not fairly unique.
Go google the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.
The libs here might even like Cumming's (D-Maryland) objections/outburst, so give it a listen. We'll see if Lerner continues all the way to arrest for contempt and a trial on that matter. I don't know if her activism in the matter was just poor choices, or if the administration also had a hand in it (suppressing voter turnout efforts ahead of the 2012 election). I doubt there's a paper trail even if her orders had come from ranking officials within the White House. Her testimony throughout this case gives me the impression that the Director of IRS Exempt Organizations abused her authority.
I cant tell if Issa is incompetent, misinformed or just more interested in putting on a show then doing his job but he basically just wasted a bunch of time by calling a witness who was going to take the 5th just so he could talk a whole bunch at her. Ignoring the unprofessionalism that took place at the end by Issa it just seems like he is just trying to find something to point at and go "that is the scandal" and if he cant just keep calling it one until it becomes one.
So he should have done nothing because he knew she would plead the fifth? "Well everyone, the witness will refuse to testify, time to pack it up and go home!" How does that make sense? Don't you at least want to bring the person before the committee and have them say it? THEN you pack up and leave.
I think it's more unprofessional for a congressman to try and make a political point after they adjourn. Issa has the power to cut mics (it's at his desk!) how is it unprofessional to shut off the mic at that time? I'ts not like Issa interrupted Cummings' duly allotted time. Cummings thought he was going to be able to make his pre-planned speech that day and was not happy when he didn't get the chance. That's just my bet though.
Unprofessional is holding a hearing and not letting anyone else talk or ask questions, something fairly unique in the history of congress which tells me it was never about gathering information.
No. Not fairly unique.
Go google the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.
Is it bad that I was able to laugh at the meaning of that without even googling it?
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Avellone: Massachusetts should seek a permanent waiver from Obamacare
Joe Avellone, a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts governor, said this week that Massachusetts should petition the federal government for a permanent waiver from the Affordable Care Act, known informally as "Obamacare". ...
Avellone said the national regulations, many of which went into effect this year, “would just confuse things and reopen old issues that we’ve solved already here.” He said in Massachusetts, “We have the end result that everybody’s looking for, which is everybody insured.”
Avellone’s comments are similar to those made by Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, who also believes the state should have sought a waiver from the national health care law.
But it puts Avellone at odds with all of the other Democratic candidates for governor — Treasurer Steve Grossman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, former Medicare and Medicaid administrator Don Berwick and former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem — who do not believe Massachusetts should have sought a full waiver. It also puts him at odds with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Although Patrick requested a waiver from the federal government from a specific provision of the Affordable Care Act relating to the way insurers calculate premiums for small businesses, Patrick has been a staunch defender of the president’s law, and officials in his administration have touted the law’s benefits for Massachusetts. ...
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Avellone: Massachusetts should seek a permanent waiver from Obamacare
Joe Avellone, a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts governor, said this week that Massachusetts should petition the federal government for a permanent waiver from the Affordable Care Act, known informally as "Obamacare". ...
Avellone said the national regulations, many of which went into effect this year, “would just confuse things and reopen old issues that we’ve solved already here.” He said in Massachusetts, “We have the end result that everybody’s looking for, which is everybody insured.”
Avellone’s comments are similar to those made by Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, who also believes the state should have sought a waiver from the national health care law.
But it puts Avellone at odds with all of the other Democratic candidates for governor — Treasurer Steve Grossman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, former Medicare and Medicaid administrator Don Berwick and former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem — who do not believe Massachusetts should have sought a full waiver. It also puts him at odds with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Although Patrick requested a waiver from the federal government from a specific provision of the Affordable Care Act relating to the way insurers calculate premiums for small businesses, Patrick has been a staunch defender of the president’s law, and officials in his administration have touted the law’s benefits for Massachusetts. ...
The most interesting thing about that is that gubernatorial is actually a real word. When i read it, i was absolutely sure that it was some made up slang by someone trying to be funny.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Avellone: Massachusetts should seek a permanent waiver from Obamacare
Joe Avellone, a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts governor, said this week that Massachusetts should petition the federal government for a permanent waiver from the Affordable Care Act, known informally as "Obamacare". ...
Avellone said the national regulations, many of which went into effect this year, “would just confuse things and reopen old issues that we’ve solved already here.” He said in Massachusetts, “We have the end result that everybody’s looking for, which is everybody insured.”
Avellone’s comments are similar to those made by Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, who also believes the state should have sought a waiver from the national health care law.
But it puts Avellone at odds with all of the other Democratic candidates for governor — Treasurer Steve Grossman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, former Medicare and Medicaid administrator Don Berwick and former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem — who do not believe Massachusetts should have sought a full waiver. It also puts him at odds with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Although Patrick requested a waiver from the federal government from a specific provision of the Affordable Care Act relating to the way insurers calculate premiums for small businesses, Patrick has been a staunch defender of the president’s law, and officials in his administration have touted the law’s benefits for Massachusetts. ...
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Avellone: Massachusetts should seek a permanent waiver from Obamacare
Joe Avellone, a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts governor, said this week that Massachusetts should petition the federal government for a permanent waiver from the Affordable Care Act, known informally as "Obamacare". ...
Avellone said the national regulations, many of which went into effect this year, “would just confuse things and reopen old issues that we’ve solved already here.” He said in Massachusetts, “We have the end result that everybody’s looking for, which is everybody insured.”
Avellone’s comments are similar to those made by Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, who also believes the state should have sought a waiver from the national health care law.
But it puts Avellone at odds with all of the other Democratic candidates for governor — Treasurer Steve Grossman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, former Medicare and Medicaid administrator Don Berwick and former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem — who do not believe Massachusetts should have sought a full waiver. It also puts him at odds with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Although Patrick requested a waiver from the federal government from a specific provision of the Affordable Care Act relating to the way insurers calculate premiums for small businesses, Patrick has been a staunch defender of the president’s law, and officials in his administration have touted the law’s benefits for Massachusetts. ...
Patrick is already governor and he's sought exemptions delays to the ACA as well.
On March 07 2014 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: it puts Avellone at odds with all of the other Democratic candidates for governor — Treasurer Steve Grossman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, former Medicare and Medicaid administrator Don Berwick and former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem — who do not believe Massachusetts should have sought a full waiver. It also puts him at odds with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Although Patrick
You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Avellone: Massachusetts should seek a permanent waiver from Obamacare
Joe Avellone, a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts governor, said this week that Massachusetts should petition the federal government for a permanent waiver from the Affordable Care Act, known informally as "Obamacare". ...
Avellone said the national regulations, many of which went into effect this year, “would just confuse things and reopen old issues that we’ve solved already here.” He said in Massachusetts, “We have the end result that everybody’s looking for, which is everybody insured.”
Avellone’s comments are similar to those made by Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, who also believes the state should have sought a waiver from the national health care law.
But it puts Avellone at odds with all of the other Democratic candidates for governor — Treasurer Steve Grossman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, former Medicare and Medicaid administrator Don Berwick and former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem — who do not believe Massachusetts should have sought a full waiver. It also puts him at odds with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Although Patrick requested a waiver from the federal government from a specific provision of the Affordable Care Act relating to the way insurers calculate premiums for small businesses, Patrick has been a staunch defender of the president’s law, and officials in his administration have touted the law’s benefits for Massachusetts. ...
On March 07 2014 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: it puts Avellone at odds with all of the other Democratic candidates for governor — Treasurer Steve Grossman, Attorney General Martha Coakley, former Medicare and Medicaid administrator Don Berwick and former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem — who do not believe Massachusetts should have sought a full waiver. It also puts him at odds with Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Although Patrick
"Although Patrick requested a waiver from the federal government from a specific provision of the Affordable Care Act relating to the way insurers calculate premiums for small businesses"
They've also requested a delay for the insurance marketplace.
On March 07 2014 06:00 farvacola wrote: You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
IDK, kinda sucks that we already have the highest premiums in the country and the ACA will raise them more and hurt employment as well. All to solve an issue we already solved...
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected a controversial bipartisan bill to remove military commanders from decisions over the prosecution of sexual assault cases in the armed forces, delivering a defeat to advocacy groups who argued that wholesale changes are necessary to combat an epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults in the military.
The measure, pushed by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, received 55 votes — five short of the 60 votes needed for advancement to a floor vote — after Ms. Gillibrand’s fellow Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, led the charge to block its advancement. The vote came after a debate on the Senate floor filled with drama and accusations that Ms. Gillibrand and her allies were misguided.
“What Senator Gillibrand is doing is way off-base,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, his voice rising. “It will not get us to the promised land of having fewer sexual assaults.”
The debate pitted the Senate’s 20 women against one another, and seemed bound to leave hard feelings, given that a solid majority of the Senate actually backed Ms. Gillibrand’s proposal.
“The only reason some are forcing a filibuster on the Gillibrand vote is because they know we have a majority,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who supported the bill, pointing to a sign that said “Don’t Filibuster Justice.” But Ms. McCaskill wouldn’t budge, and refused to allow the Gillibrand bill to actually get a yes-or-no vote.
Several Republicans, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, supported the Gillibrand proposal, and expressed deep frustration with the military’s failure to stem the number of sexual assaults. Congress began scrutinizing the sexual assault problem in the military after a recent series of highly publicized cases, including one at the Naval Academy, and after the release of new data from the Pentagon on the issue. On Sept. 30, 2013, the end of the last fiscal year, about 1,600 sexual assault cases in the military were either awaiting action from commanders or the completion of a criminal investigation.
Critics of the military’s handling of such cases say that the official numbers represent a tiny percentage of sexual assault cases, while Ms. Gillibrand said that only one in 10 sexual assault cases were reported. She and her supporters argue that forcing sexual assault victims to go to their commanders to report cases is similar to forcing a woman to tell her father that her brother has sexually assaulted her.
Because commanders often know both the victims and the alleged abusers, Ms. Gillibrand’s supporters say, victims often shy away from reporting abuse. Military commanders, they say, have not proven themselves able to deal with the issue.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result,” Mr. Paul said. Mr. Grassley added: “The Defense Department has been promising the American people for a long time that they’re working on the problem of sexual assault.” Then he said, “Enough is enough.”
On Thursday, an Army general accused of sexual assault pleaded guilty to three lesser charges. Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair is accused of twice forcing a female captain to perform oral sex, and threatening to kill her family if she told anyone about their three-year affair. General Sinclair admitted to having improper relationships with two other female Army officers and to committing adultery with the primary accuser, which is a crime in the military.
General Sinclair also admitted violating orders by possessing pornography in Afghanistan.
I haven't read every single one of the articles, only the NYTimes one so far. But I'd like to know what specific provisions of the bill that the opposers had against it..
EPT![[image loading]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-YrVzgIkuGtA/T9yL1g9mTyI/AAAAAAAAS88/yT-vcegAQPc/s1600/rig2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/images/figure_21-lg.jpg)
