House Could Spend $1.5M Defending Marriage Act, Congressman Fights Back

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The cost to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, could balloon to $1.5 million, and Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of California wants none of it. Honda is calling for a hearing to address what he said is an "irresponsible, backdoor use of taxpayer money" on the part of House Republicans, who have agreed to increase the pay cap for an outside firm defending the law, as first reported by LGBTQ Nation.

"The speaker of the House has been on the job for 288 days and has not created a single job for the American people," Honda said in a statement Thursday. "Instead, the House Republican leadership wastes precious resources by putting the American taxpayers on the hook for a $1.5 million legal tab in defense of discrimination."

After a February announcement by the Obama administration that it would no longer defend DOMA—which defines marriage as between a man and a woman—in court, Republican leaders decided the House would take up the case itself. So the House general counsel hired lawyer Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush, to do what the Department of Justice would normally have done: defend the law.

[See a collection of political cartoons on gay marriage.]

Clement and his firm, Bancroft PLLC, were first given a $500,000 cap, but they are now authorized to charge the legislative branch "a sum not to exceed $750,000.00," but that the "cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding $1.5 million, upon written notice of the General Counsel to the Contractor." This means the costs could now triple, and the contract also leaves room for future increases, if the parties come to a written agreement.

"How long are we going to let this Republican political exercise go on, and at what cost to the American tax payers?" Honda asked, adding that GOP leaders have not been clear about where the money would come from.

[Vote now: Should gay marriage be legal nationwide?]

Other House Democrats have also called the price tag "unconscionable" in such tough economic times, suggesting the taxpayer funds and congressional energy should be spent creating American jobs instead.

But Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, counters that the House is defending the law because "the Justice Department chose to shirk its constitutional duty to do so," he said in an E-mail. "As we have always said, the entire cost should be borne by that department."

A House GOP aide added that the effort is not detracting from Republican efforts to improve the economy. "Despite Democrats' feeble attempts to demagogue this issue, the House's lawyer is doing his job," the aide says, "and House Republicans remain entirely focused on jobs."

Honda said he is hopeful his Appropriations subcommittee's chairman, Florida Republican Rep. Ander Crenshaw, will call for a hearing, but indicated he lays more of the responsibility on top House Republicans. "I recognize the tough spot [Chairman Crenshaw]'s in with his leadership on this issue," Honda said.

Home, Architecture and Furniture

Traveling Info

Read More

Why Gloomy Consumers May Spend Anyway

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Americans are in a foul mood.

Recent confidence readings show that consumers are as gloomy as they were at the worst moments of the recession, in late 2008 and early 2009. Those were apocalyptic times. Companies were axing jobs by the thousands. Stocks were in a nosedive. The government was launching rescue measures most people had never heard of before.

[See how to escape the middle-class squeeze.]

What's puzzling now is that the economy, while hardly booming, is in much better shape than it was during the depths of the recession. It's growing instead of shrinking. Layoffs have tapered off. The economy has added about 1.3 million jobs over the last year. Yet consumers seem to be losing heart. One component of the Reuters/University of Michigan survey shows that expectations for future economic conditions are at the lowest level since 1980. That was a time when inflation was about 12 percent and a sharp recession was just beginning.

So the dichotomy between consumer confidence and actual economic conditions seems perplexing—until you factor in the role played by politicians in Washington. Confidence was actually at much healthier levels until the summer, when it plunged by about 25 percent. What might have triggered that? The reckless performance by members of Congress who waited until the last second to extend Washington's borrowing limit, threatened a default on America's debt, and for all the huffing and puffing produced a weak deal that will reduce the national debt by far less than most experts think is necessary. Congress. Killed. Confidence.

It's obviously dismaying that a body whose job is to look out for American interests is harming them instead. In polls by Gallup, more than 80 percent of people disapprove of the job Congress is doing, among the worst readings ever. But disgust with politicians may not mean that consumers are shutting their wallets. New Research by economist Ross DeVol of the nonprofit Milken Institute in Los Angeles finds that falling stock prices and a weak economy have been minor factors pushing confidence down, but that "most of the drop in consumer confidence was attributable to the job approval rating of Congress."

[See why big companies are axing jobs.]

That might merely confirm what already seems obvious, but it has important implications for economic growth. Consumer-confidence levels usually help predict spending, since confidence typically reflects whether incomes are going up or down and people feel like they've got cash in their pockets. Since consumer spending still accounts for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, confidence levels have fairly direct implications for growth. Lately, with confidence plunging, many economists have been cutting their growth outlook. Forecasting firm IHS Global Insight, for instance, has reduced its estimate for GDP growth this year to just 1.5 percent, and to just 1.8 percent for 2012. That would be an extremely weak performance, barely keeping the economy out of recession.

But DeVol argues that confidence may now be a weaker indicator of future spending than it used to be. The huge drop in confidence over the summer, he points out, has not been followed by a proportionate plunge in spending. Retail sales in August—in the immediate aftermath of the debt-ceiling fiasco—were basically unchanged from the month before, and up about 7 percent from the same time a year earlier. Retailers had been hoping for a bigger back-to-school boost, but at least they didn't endure the kind of wipeout that would have happened if consumers were really as dour as they were at the depths of the recession.

[See what to expect from the stagnant economy.]

If the trend continues, it means that consumers might be depressed, but their spending isn't. DeVol predicts that consumer spending for the third quarter will rise by between 2.5 and 3 percent, which isn't a runaway pace but isn't recessionary, either. While there's plenty that could go wrong, DeVol also sees some positive signs, such as record-low interest rates and a falling debt burden on the typical household. "There is room for cautious optimism," he writes.

Since Americans now expect so little from their government, there's also an outside chance that an "upside surprise" from Washington could lift spirits and in turn boost the economy. The congressional "supercommittee" assigned to come up with further debt-reduction measures by late November might actually do it, without another political meltdown. Mere competence in that process would be an unexpected breakthrough. Congress could even end up passing a jobs plan that jump-starts the recovery for good. Unless Congress dramatically exceeds expectations, however, skepticism looks to be a new national pastime.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More