President Obama used his State of the Union address to announce he will make government more expensive for taxpayers by issuing an executive order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 for federal contract workers. What he doesn’t announce, again, is any intention to fulfill his campaign promise of issuing an executive order barring federal government contractors from discriminating against gay people. That wouldn’t serve his political interest of using the Republican House’s failure to pass the more sweeping Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) as a campaign issue to mobilize gay votes and dollars in November’s congressional elections, an issue that would be substantially mooted if he forbid anti-gay discrimination among government contractors, who represent a large sector of private industry.
Of course, Obama couldn’t get away with failing to deliver what he could deliver by a stroke of the pen if the major Washington-based LGBT lobbies were not supplicant lapdogs whose overriding mission is to Serve the Party.
More. And no, I don’t consider the fact that HRC put out a press release (!) mildly expressing disappointment over President Obama’s “missed opportunity” to be anything more than perfunctory.
17 Comments for “ENDA the Line”
posted by Houndentenor on
The Washington-based organizations are a joke. Everyone already knows that. You are right, however, to criticize the President for refusing to keep his campaign promise to make ENDA a condition for federal contracts.
As for the minimum wage, I am having a hard time getting real numbers, but from what I can tell, only a few thousand people working on affect projects are making less than $10.10 an hour anyway. The total of that over the next three years will be minimal. It’s revolting that so many Americans haven’t had a raise in a decade (not just minimum wage workers) while the companies they work for post record profits. Look at the history of what happens when a society has too many poor with too few opportunities. it’s not a pretty picture. The future of capitalism is not about a few laws but about CEOs smart enough to know that the better the middle class does, the better the country does. That assumes, of course, that any CEOs still care about our country. I find no evidence of that (and some of that experience is personal).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The President should make ENDA a priority. It wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making it through the House, but he should do it, just because it is the right thing to do. The same thing is true of raising the minimum wage.
posted by Houndentenor on
FYI, HRC just issued a statement (via twitter and other media) criticizing the President for not signing an executive order requiring employment nondiscrimination for all federal contractors.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Perfidious. Do you think that the sheeples will fall for it?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I shouldn’t have asked. The sheeples are all falling right into line with HRC’s faux-criticism — the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Freedom to Work, a growing list of LGBT groups and Democratic Senators and Congressmen …
Even RINO-LCR got snookered into it:
I’ll hand it to the White House. Clever, they are, orchestrating what looks like criticism over the President’s inaction to deploy later as a boomerang to Serve The Party.
Rand Paul is no sheeple, though. Rand calls it as he sees it.
posted by Jorge on
Nor would the president get away with it if ENDA were an important enough issue to stage mass protests over. I doubt there are more fast food workers in this country than there are GLBT people.
As for the minimum wage, I am having a hard time getting real numbers, but from what I can tell, only a few thousand people working on affect projects are making less than $10.10 an hour anyway.
Oh. For the executive order it would be the reverse. Okay so we’re talking symbolism here.
Geez! We’re not having a good day, Tom.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For the executive order it would be the reverse. Okay so we’re talking symbolism here.
Okay so we’re talking symbolism here.
That’s true in the case of the Executive Order relating to LGBT workers, too. The top 50 federal contractors (employing 80+% of all federal contract employees) all have non-discrimination policies in place, as do most of the smaller federal contractors. A relatively small number of federal contractors would be affected by an Executive Order. The order would be mostly symbolic. Nonetheless, the President should issue the order. He said that he would, and it is the right thing to do.
Geez! We’re not having a good day, Tom.
Sometimes Stephen’s constant anti-Obama, anti-HRC “Serve The Party” spinning just plain pisses me off.
You can bet that if President Obama had issued an Executive Order, Stephen would have found a way to spin the issuance as a way to embarrass Republicans for the 2014 elections and criticize HRC for supporting it.
President Obama, like most politicians, isn’t going to spend any more political capital on gays and lesbians than he has to. He’s no knight in shining armor. We’ve had to push and kick him before (Remember the time he came under such criticism from the “lapdogs” that he called a meeting in the White House to try to stem the criticism?) and we have to keep pushing and kicking.
That’s how it goes. On the Democratic side, we’ve been pushing and kicking for three decades now. We’ve made progress (for example, in the 2011 Indiana vote, a third of the Democrats in the Indiana House voted for the anti-marriage amendment; this time around, none), and I’m proud to have played a part in turning the party. But the need to push and kick hasn’t stopped, and it won’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
According to the Blade, Representative Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) became a co-sponsor the ENDA bill Monday. Grimm is the sixth Republican co-sponsor of ENDA. The other five are Repsentatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Charles Dent (R-Pa.), Jon Runyan (R-N.J.) and Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.). Grimm’s support brings the total number of sponsors in the House to 201. A total of 218 votes is necessary to pass legislation in the chamber. The Blade also reports that there are enough Republican votes in the House to put ENDA over the top if Speaker Boehner would bring it to a vote.
So let’s see if we can get Republican gays and lesbians to put some pressure on him and bring the bill to a vote.
Let’s be clear about this: Boehner is the reason why ENDA is likely to be a 2014 election issue instead of a done deal. He’s the one, not President Obama, that is handing the election issue to the Democrats.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s a shame Grimm had to go and act like a thug in front of the cameras last night. He’s probably a goner and given the conservative nature of his district (Staten Island-Bay Ridge) he could be replaced by a less gay friendly representative.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Grimm has apologized, so maybe that’s the end of it. Everybody gets a tantrum now and then.
In any event, Grimm is likely to be around through November, which is plenty of time for Speaker Boehner to call the vote if he wants to avoid handing the Democrats a campaign issue.
posted by Jorge on
I *knew* I was going to regret resolving to give to his opponent.
I’m *really* not having a good day today.
posted by Jimmy on
“President Obama used his State of the Union address to announce he will make government more expensive for taxpayers by issuing an executive order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 for federal contract workers.”
Was all this concern for how much federal contractors were costing taxpayers expressed here when so many no-bid contracts were handed out in years past, especially to friends of Cheney? Billions went up in smoke.
But rest assured, when a handful of poor federal workers, gay or otherwise, get a very little break, there will be angst expressed by myopic conservatives.
Obama should issue the symbolic order, formalizing what is currently de facto. Either way, the failure of Republican House on many issues will be used against them to mobilize an array of voters. The immigration debates will likely produce Republican failures, too.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two quick updates:
(1) Jimmy LaSavlia amplified his remarks in the British newspaper The Guardian.
I think that LaSalvia is overstating the case that the Republican Party is finished as a national party, but the article gives additional insight into his frustration.
(2) Indiana Republican Senate leadership assigned the anti-marriage amendment to the Rules Committee, rather than the Judiciary Committee, as usual practice would dictate.
The assignment out of Judiciary sounds like an attempt to avoid the embarrassment in the House by moving the amendment to a more friendly committee before disaster strikes. The problem with Judiciary in both cases, I suspect, is that the lawyers on Judiciary are more familiar with the constitutional issues involved and attuned to the post-Windsor train that is coming down the track.
I would love to be a mouse in the room with Governor Pence and Republican legislative leaders right now. According to everything I’m hearing, Governor Pence does not want HJR-3 on the ballot in 2016, when he runs for re-election, because of the factors DeSalvia has been talking about. If the Senate passes HJR-3 as amended, that will be the result.
Pence has two ways around the issue. The first is to let the Senate vote against HJR-3. The second is to undo the amendment, reinsert the “identical or substantially” similar language, and force the House to accept that in reconciliation. Both directions pose risks for Pence.
posted by Houndentenor on
I remember a lot of crowing from Democrats after the 2008 election of the end of the GOP. Then came 2010. Such predictions always turn out to be premature. There are too many variables to make such broad pronouncements with any accuracy. I will say that the anti-everything that isn’t white, male and the “right” kind of Christian is going to be an ongoing problem for the GOP. it’s one they brought on themselves. Excuse me my moment of Schadenfreude every time it blows up in their faces. It is, however, a very effective strategy in many parts of the country.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm…
I think Mr. LaSalvia expresses too high an opinion of Mitt Romney. I have always considered Romney a little greasy, a cookie-cutter politician. However it is certainly true that the vast majority of Republican primary candidates said and did nothing nice on any issue affecting gays unless asked directly.
It is hard to argue with the examples from the RNC.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I did a bit of research and it looks like President Clinton — circa 1998 — issues an executive order for equal opportunity (that included sexual orientation) and the GOP screamed bloody murder and tried to pass a law making it illegal to fund the order. Maybe, the Obama administration is trying to avoid this sort of thing from happening.
I suspect that ENDA with just sexual orientation could maybe pass both houses of Congress (assuming it actually got a fair hearing and was not killed in committee or put in the limo zone of the Congressional calendar).
Even with gender identity — which I fully support being in the bill but also appreciate being pragmatic — the bill is a far cry from a comprehensive civil rights bill (i.e. it does not dealing with housing or credit or, say bullying/harassment in schools).
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Romney made so many mistakes that they teach you NOT to make in political science 101. Seriously, one of my professors is a life-long Republican and he said that the Romney campaign was probably one of the worst in modern history.