Romney: Unconscionable Hypocrisy

Mitt Romney says that the passage of healthcare reform legislation represents an "unconscionable abuse of power." Romney, however, promoted and endorsed a remarkably similar plan while he was the governor of Massachusetts.

Romney is clearly trying to position himself for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. In order to do so, he has decided to condemn the healthcare legislation, even though the national plan and the Massachusetts plan he endorsed share many central components. 

I doubt that Republicans will allow Romney to remake his image. They already ridicule the Massachusetts plan as "RomneyCare."  He will likely lose in 2012 because of his "liberal" past.

What A Joke: Republicans Deny Similarities Between Massachusetts Healthcare Refrom And Democratic Proposals

This one is from the surreal vault. Republicans are trying to distinguish Massachusetts healthcare reform -- endorsed by Mitt Romney and Senator Scott Brown -- from the federal proposals pending in Congress.

Last week, Brown described the Democrats' reform proposals as "bitter" and "destructive." David Axelrod, appearing on ABC's This Week, criticized Brown's statement, noting the similarities between the Democratic proposals and the Massachusetts policy.

Senator Lindsay Graham, who appeared after Axelrod, however, disputed Axelrod's comments: "No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington." Graham explains that: "We didn’t cut Medicare — they didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts. They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts."

Graham's effort to distinguish the Massachusetts policy from the Democratic proposals is foolhardy. First, states cannot raise federal taxes, nor can they reform the Medicare program. So, Graham's explanation regarding the differences between Massachusetts policy and the federal proposals is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Massachusetts plan and federal proposals are also quite similar in terms of substance. The Wonk Room has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the two packages, showing the dramatic similarities. Also, Think Progress nicely summarizes the similarities:

[T]he plan implemented by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts is very similar to the Democratic proposal. Both plans require people to purchase coverage and both provide affordability credits to those who can’t afford insurance. Both create insurance exchanges, both establish minimum creditable coverage standards for insurers, and both require employers to contribute towards reform.

Romney implemented the Massachusetts plan as governor of the state, and Brown voted for it as a member of the state legislature. Romney apparently wants to run for president again, and he believes he must portray the Massachusetts reforms in a false light in order to appeal to Republicans. Brown is trying to score points with the GOP as well, and he is distorting history to achieve this goal as well. Their weak effort to distance their prior stances from highly similar Democratic proposals, however, is not fooling anyone. The record is too clear to deny.

New Gay Rights Test for Obama: Gay Married Couples File Suit Challenging Defense Of Marriage Act

15 gay and lesbian individuals from Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act (or "DOMA"). All of the plaintiffs legally married after the state lifted its ban on same-sex marriage. The legislative change followed a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court which held that prohibiting same-sex violated the state constitution.

What Is DOMA? What Do the Plaintiffs Want?
DOMA has two main provisions. One provision defines "marriage" in heterosexual terms for purposes of federal law. This means that any federal right or benefit available to "married" persons is restricted to opposite-sex couples. Accordingly, same-sex married partners cannot jointly file federal taxes, do not qualify for survivor benefits under social security or federal pensions, cannot include a spouse in a health plan for federal workers, and do not qualify for many other federal rights and privileges reserved for married individuals. The plaintiffs in this case only challenge the exclusion of same-sex married couples from federal benefits.

A second provision of DOMA provides that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in other states. In other words, the statute purports to allow states to deny "full faith and credit" (a constitutional concept) to same-sex marriages. The constitution, however, requires states to extend full faith and credit to "acts, records, or judicial proceedings" from other states. Under this concept, a marriage performed in one state is legally valid in other states; similarly, a judgment imposed by a court in one state has legal force in others. DOMA tries to undo this principle in the context of same-sex marriage. Many legal scholars doubt the constitutionality of this provision.

The Massachusetts federal lawsuit only seeks equal benefits for the plaintiffs. It does not ask the court to rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the constitution. So, from that perspective, it is a "safe" case. Because the vast majority of the public disagrees with the legalization of same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that a court -- especially the conservative Supreme Court -- would issue a ruling striking down laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Test for Obama?
Obama has usually taken a favorable, even if inconsistent, position on glbt rights. He lost some credibility among glbt individuals, however, by opposing same-sex marriage and choosing Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration. Like Obama, Warren opposes same-sex marriage, and he campaigned in favor of an amendment to the California constitution that defines marriage in opposite-sex terms. Warren defended his opposition to same-sex marriage by arguing that it is the moral equivalent of statutory rape and incest.

Obama's Past Positions on DOMA
Although Obama currently favors the repeal of DOMA, his position on the subject has been somewhat inconsistent. During his campaign for Senate in 2004, Obama wrote a letter to the Windy City Times -- a glbt-themed newspaper in Chicago -- that takes a firm stance supporting gay rights issues. In the letter, Obama says he has always opposed DOMA, and he promises to vote to repeal the statute if elected:

For the record, I opposed DOMA [ the Defense of Marriage Act ] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted....

When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue....

Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.... [Note: All of the ellipses appear in the original text.]

Although the 2004 letter states that Obama opposed the enactment of DOMA in 1996 and that he would vote to repeal it, a few months earlier in 2003, Obama completed a candidate's questionnaire in which he stated that he did not support the repeal of DOMA. In 2007, Bill Burton, a campaign spokesperson, tried to explain the shift, saying that "after hearing from gay friends who relayed to Obama how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, he supported its repeal. But this does not explain how he could oppose DOMA in 1996, support it in 2003, and oppose it in 2004.

During his presidential campaign, Obama took a position favoring the "complete repeal" of DOMA, including the full faith and credit provision. But in 2004, he stated that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to honor out-of-state marriages that its law prohibits.

Obama's Current Position on DOMA
As for his current position, the WhiteHouse.Gov website contains the following language regarding DOMA:

Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

This position, which supports the equal provision of federal benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex married couples, is precisely the argument of the litigants in the Massachusetts lawsuit. Accordingly, the case could test Obama's position on the subject. The Department of Justice will represent the government, and DOJ lawyers will likely try to "win" the case by defending the legality of DOMA. But if Obama believes that DOMA is abhorrent and that it should be repealed, then presumably he could direct Attorney General Holder to seek some type of delay in or resolution of the case (such as a settlement) while he works with Congress to repeal DOMA.

Obama Pushed to Act on GLBT Rights
Although it remains unclear what position Obama and DOJ will take in the Massachusetts anti-DOMA litigation, this is yet another situation that will likely test Obama's stated support for glbt rights. In another pending litigation that challenges the discharge of a lesbian from military service, DOJ will soon have to take a position concerning the legality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (or "DADT"). Furthermore, a House Democrat has reintroduced legislation that would repeal DADT altogether. Although Obama has stated that he opposes DADT and that he would seek to repeal it, he has directed military officials to "study" and report on the subject before he moves on the issue in Congress.

All of these recent developments push President Obama to act on glbt issues much more rapidly than he would have acted on his own. Historically, social movements have only created change (in either political direction) by agitating and engaging political leaders, rather than passively accepting their positions. If pushing Obama generates positive developments on gay and lesbian rights, perhaps other liberal movements will emulate glbt social movement actors and their allies and push for greater reform.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Legal Showdown Looming Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell: What Will the Obama Administration Do?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Heats Up in Courts and in Congress

Obama Will Order Military to Study Whether It Should Stop Discriminating Against Gays and Lesbians

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights

Sorry, Adam and Steve: If You Get Married, We Must Allow the Smith Triplets to Wed Each Other As Well!

Rick Warren versus Don Imus: Obama's Inconsistent Positions

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

Michigan, Massachusetts and Marijuana

Voters in Massachusetts have decided to ease anti-pot laws by limiting the penalty for possession to a $100 fine. Distributors and producers would still face tougher penalties.

Michigan voters also reformed the state's laws concerning marijuana. Now, terminally and severely ill patients can, with doctor's approval, use marijuana to treat their illnesses. Although federal law still criminalizes the use, possession and distribution of marijuana, several states have decriminalized its possession, typically for medicinal purposes.

Source: Examiner.Com