Together as one

REPUBLICANS STICKING IT TO THE MIDDLE CLASS ONCE AGAIN

2011-12-20T15:43:00.001-05:00

The vote is in. Minutes ago, Tea Party Republicans blocked a bipartisan bill to extend President Obama’s payroll tax cut.
Now, middle class Americans could see their taxes increase by $1,000 on January 1st unless Speaker Boehner, Eric Cantor and House Republicans back down from their extreme stance.
It is up to us to ensure that voters in their districts are aware of the damage that House Republicans are wreaking on behalf of the Tea Party fringe and the top 1%.

A thought for the holidays

2011-11-24T16:42:00.001-05:00

wishing all my friends and extended family a Safe and Happy Thanks Giving,

and Please as we enjoy our day today, try and remember those who are less fortunate

this year, due to the economic turn down, and what they have lost, and remember them, as well as our

service men over seas in your thought’s and prayers.

everyone be safe and enjoy the day.

Congressional Republicans are putting big Wall Street banks before middle class families

2011-11-22T14:18:00.001-05:00

We have the smoking gun.
If you need further proof that Congressional Republicans are putting big Wall Street banks before middle class families, look no further than an explosive memo prepared by former John Boehner staffers-turned-banking lobbyists.
This just-leaked memo details an $850,000 “message war” plan to attack and discredit grassroots citizen movements working to hold special interests accountable.
With just days left until the FEC deadline, we must have a powerful showing to demonstrate our strength and stand up to the Republican assault on hardworking Americans.
Can we count on your support?
Help us beat the Republicans’ $850,000 “message war” plan. Contribute $3 or more today and your generous support will be matched dollar-for-dollar by House Democrats >>
Republicans and big corporate backers may have Washington special interests, but we have an army of grassroots Democrats made up of committed citizens like you standing with us.
Why are Republican lobbyists panicking? One of the overriding concerns of the memo’s authors is how it will look for their executives to collect multi-million dollar year-end bonuses at a time middle class families are struggling to make ends meet. This is just another example of the misguided priorities of the Republican Party.
The memo goes on to describe a Democratic victory in November as detrimental to Republican special interests. They know a Democratic Majority in Congress will fight for middle class families, and make sure that millionaires pay their fair share and close corporate tax loopholes.
But, we need you. Stand with us and contribute today >>
Thank you for your generous support.
Nancy Pelosi

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

2011-08-20T17:17:00.000-04:00

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

A delicious sounding Veggie Meal

2011-08-12T16:12:00.001-04:00

Grilled Veggie Sandwich (serves 4)
Ingredients
1 small zucchini
1 small yellow summer squash
1 small eggplant
1 medium sweet onion, sliced
1 large sweet red pepper, cut into rings
4 whole wheat hamburger buns, split
New chipotle mayo
1/4 cup crumbled feta cheese
Sliced provolone cheese
Garlic, minced
Instructions
Cut all of the vegetables into slices, place them into a baggie, drizzle olive oil on them, and add garlic and other seasonings to taste. Grill the vegetables, covered, over medium heat for 4-5 minutes on each side or until crisp-tender. Remove them and keep warm. Grill the buns, cut side down, over medium heat for 30-60 seconds or until toasted. In a small bowl, combine the chipotle mayo, feta cheese, garlic, salt and pepper and spread over the bun bottoms. Top with the vegetables and replace bun tops.

How to fix Congress and the Govt.

2011-07-31T18:15:00.001-04:00

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”.
Patrick Henry -

I have totally cleaned this e-mail from all other names, sending it to you in hopes you will keep it going and keep it clean. This is something I will fight for and I hope you all read it all the way through. You will be glad you did. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure. I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people,it will only take three days for most people (in theU.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.. THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete. You are one of my 20+. Please keep it going.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

More Republican Tea Party Bullshit

2011-07-30T15:24:00.001-04:00

It’s all over the news -- radical Tea Party Republicans are pushing our economy to the brink of disaster. But get this -- Speaker Boehner’s campaign team has turned their attention from Washington to an upcoming special election in Nevada.
In a district that was never suppose to be winnable, our proud Democratic candidate Kate Marshall is standing strong and spreading her message that everyday Americans, not millionaires and Big Oil, should come first. Meanwhile her Tea Party opponent is running on a platform of protecting special tax breaks for the ultra-rich while plunging seniors into poverty.
This critical special election has the potential to send a stinging rebuke to the Tea Party’s radical refusal to govern. Washington Republicans are running scared and dumping over $200,000 into dishonest attack ads against Kate.
We must immediately raise rapid response funds to make sure we can help Kate spread her message. So, we have set a goal of immediately raising $50,000 online before tonight’s media buy deadline.

Please contribute today. Your gift can have a direct impact on election day.
Kate’s opponent may have his fat cat cronies to keep him on the air, but we are depending on grassroots supporters like you. Your generous donation will help Kate to keep these TV ads running strong so we can spread our message of creating jobs and protecting Nevadans' Medicare and Social Security far and wide across our district. Even just a small gift today could go a long way.
So please click here to make a contribution that will keep Kate’s ads going strong on TV.
Thank you,
Robby Mook
DCCC Executive Director

Obama urges compromise, Republicans set to vote - Yahoo! News

2011-07-29T16:25:00.000-04:00

Obama urges compromise, Republicans set to vote - Yahoo! News

look who’s running the republican party now

2011-07-29T15:55:00.001-04:00

Thomas --
Wow -- in a shocking turn of events, Speaker Boehner was forced to kowtow to the Tea Party fringe and pull his debt ceiling bill from the House floor.
The sticking point: some Republicans viewed Pell grants -- financial aid for college students -- as "welfare" and wanted more radical cuts to this vital education program. This from a party still protecting special tax breaks for billionaires and Big Oil companies.
Now, Boehner is re-writing his bill to make it even more extreme with a vote set for TODAY.
We are just $84,681 short of hitting our $500,000 Rapid Response goal to hold Tea Party Republicans accountable and expose the truth about their actions with targeted ads. We have to act fast.
Contribute $3 or more right now to take the fight directly to Tea Party Republicans.
Leader Pelosi and House Democrats stood strong against the Republican plan to slash education, Medicare and Social Security benefits while protecting tax breaks for billionaires and Big Oil. Now, we need your help.
Thanks for everything you do.
Robby Mook
DCCC Executive Director

Republicans race to revive debt plan - Yahoo! News

2011-07-29T03:16:00.000-04:00

Republicans race to revive debt plan - Yahoo! News

financial state of America

2011-07-27T16:48:00.001-04:00

http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/finance/article-113199-10445-1-debt-in-america-most-and-least-indebted-states?hp=true?ywaad=ad0035&nc

Dems use NY gay marriage law to tweak Sen. Brown - WRGB Channel 6 News

2011-06-27T22:26:00.000-04:00

Dems use NY gay marriage law to tweak Sen. Brown - WRGB Channel 6 News

our day at Ocean Beach

2011-06-27T19:42:00.000-04:00

Barney Frank to Playboy: ‘Antigay Prejudice Is Diminishing’

2011-04-15T23:00:00.000-04:00

Barney Frank to Playboy: ‘Antigay Prejudice Is Diminishing’

Lawyers: Prop 8 trial tapes should be made public | The Associated Press | News | Washington Examiner

2011-04-15T22:57:00.000-04:00

Lawyers: Prop 8 trial tapes should be made public | The Associated Press | News | Washington Examiner

Judge: Gay rights group can canvass outside Target

2011-04-14T22:58:00.000-04:00

Judge: Gay rights group can canvass outside Target

Viewpoint: Relative morality

2011-04-14T22:55:00.001-04:00

Technorati Tags: Gay,Lesbian,Bi,Tran-gender,Morality,Republicans,Democrats

Viewpoint: Relative morality

Print | E-mail | Letter to the editor

By: Teddy Papes
Published April 13th, 2011

Conservatives often counter the proposals to legalize gay marriage with the “slippery slope” argument. I was listening to a Glenn Beck broadcast in which he warned that defining marriage between two consenting adults would open the door to incest and other deviant persuasions. Some may claim that these are different situations and that Republicans are scaremongering, but I would say that Glenn Beck has exactly the right idea. I hope that with the legalization of gay marriage, our other marriage taboos — specifically our laws against incestuous marriage — will slide down the proverbial slope into humanity’s closed-minded history.

More like this

If you think gays shouldn’t get married, you’re probably not going to be convinced by this article. But if you tend to favor an expansion of our current marital parameters, I think some reflection is in order. The laws barring interracial marriage weren’t overturned until 1967, when 15 states still had laws against such a union. God did put different ethnicities on different continents, so do we really want to violate his grand plan? It’s important that we step out of our contemporary societal (and religious) constraints and reflect on our culture and history. Our goal should be to create a contemporary world that will not have a progeny that is embarrassed of its forebears.

The logical step when we federally give gays the rights to marry must also extend the parameters to incestuous marriages. The argument that it is gross certainly has no bearing. Many people are bothered by homosexual relationships and consider them unnatural or depraved. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that should not give these opinions any legal credibility. Our sensibilities changed for interracial marriage, our sensibilities are changing for gay marriage and our sensibilities should, and most likely will, change for incestuous marriages.

The best argument levied against incestuous marriages is its effect on children. The chance of genetic defects among the offspring of incestuous couples is increased because of an increased prevalence of recessive genes. If this is going to be the main argument, wouldn’t it logically follow that we should ban couples that are known carriers for recessive genetic disorders? Ashkenazi Jews had a higher prevalence of Tay-Sachs than the general population. They underwent genetic screening to avoid having children who had Tay-Sachs, but if a couple both tested positive, shouldn't they be barred from having children?

Legalizing marriage in no way means legalizing procreation, and incestuous couples could easily have children even if their cohabitation isn’t legally recognized. As a form of compromise to those concerned with the children of incestuous marriages, the U.S. could arrive at a law that legalized incestuous marriage, but still barred incestuous procreation. The marriage law could require medical proof of a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. Incestuous couples simply cohabit with the marriage benefits that the U.S. extends to childless couples. What argument could people levy against people taking precautionary and socially responsible steps to ensure the prevention of children with birth defects, who want to receive marriage rights with the one they love? And if children truly are the main concern, then the legalization of same-sex incest and same-sex incestuous marriages circumvents any concerns for offspring because they obviously won’t be having any children.

Incest with minors is and should remain a crime, but its legality between consensual adults needs to be modified. Consensual incest between adults is legal in Rhode Island and New Jersey and is completely legal between consenting parties in France. In 25 U.S. states, marriage is legal between first cousins, while some have counseling mandates for cousins who want to get married. For example, Illinois allows cousins who are unable to reproduce or are 50 years or older to get married. These laws need to be expanded to all 50 states and need to apply to sibling and other more immediate family relationships. Cousins who want to get married are forced to travel to other states where it is allowed, much like homosexual couples of today.

This may be a little hard to swallow, but whatever progressive logic we apply to homosexual matrimony needs to apply to other marginalized groups within the country. It may be complicated, but that doesn’t mean we should wholeheartedly ban incestuous relationships. Our easily offended sensibilities shouldn’t create victims out of those whose love manifests itself in a form different than our own.

Teddy Papes is an LSA junior.

Is the US. ready for GOP Medicare cuts

2011-04-09T22:04:00.001-04:00

Technorati Tags: Government,Republicans

By Daniel Gross
Economics Editor of Yahoo! Finance

The praise for Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan from the commentariat has been almost universally unctuous. "The most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes," gushed David Brooks of the New York Times. "Good Plan!" reads the headline of a Slate column by my onetime boss, Jacob Weisberg. "Serious," proclaims blogger Andrew Sullivan.

Well, those aren't quite the adjectives I'd use. For one, I would start with "delusional." The research Ryan ordered up from the Heritage Foundation projects that enacting his budget will lead to an unemployment rate of 2.8 percent in 2021. (Um, dudes? The unemployment rate has never been anywhere near that low.) "Bass-ackwards" is another. The Ryan plan calls for big tax cuts for corporations and the well-off and higher taxes on the middle class. How about "random?" Take a pair of twins. One is born December 31, 1956, at 11:58 p.m., the other is born January 1, 1957, at 12:03 a.m. Both work at identical jobs and pay identical taxes. But upon turning 65, five minutes apart, the first will be entitled to Medicare in its current form—a single-player, government-funded, open-ended health insurance plan. The younger twin will get a voucher to buy health insurance that will lose value over time.

Ryan's plan is being hailed as a starting point for a new conversation in American politics. But it's really a continuation of one we've been having off and on for the past 75-80 years: on the government's role in providing what I'd call social insurance — health insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, income insurance.

In the modern era, in the wake of serious, widespread market failures, the government has stepped in to provide backstops, or to incentivize and encourage private companies to do the same. In the 1930s, after many people's life's savings had been wiped out, Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed old-age income insurance — i.e., Social Security. Denounced by opposition Republicans as a fatal step toward socialism, Social Security became extremely popular among recipients and among politicians of both parties.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Nearly 30 years later, another market failure was apparent. Retired workers faced a double-edged sword. They were living on fixed incomes and the insurance industry wasn't capable of, or interested in, insuring older people who tend to use lots of medical services. The solution was a new form of social insurance: Medicare. Like Social Security, it was widely denounced by those on the right—here's Ronald Reagan declaring it would lead to a Socialist dictatorship—only to become popular. A similar market failure—the insurance industry's inability to profitably insure the working poor, or to profitably provide long-term care—led to the creation and expansion of Medicaid. (As blogger Matt Yglesias notes with this helpful chart, a lot of Medicaid is spent on long-term care for the elderly and disabled.)

Over time, most of the bitter opponents of social insurance have reconciled themselves to the programs. But in recent years, we've seen schizophrenic attitudes toward social insurance. President Bush, for example, proposed remaking Social Security for future recipients. But he also pushed through the Medicare prescription drug benefit, an open-ended, enormously expensive piece of social insurance with no funding mechanism. (I'm still waiting for the deficit-hawk economists who served in the Bush administration, such as Greg Mankiw and Daily Ticker guests Glenn Hubbard and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, to apologize or explain.)

That dichotomy neatly encapsulates what seems to be the contemporary Republican party's approach to social insurance: generous, untouchable programs for today's elderly and near-elderly, and tough love for everybody else.

There are two problems with this approach. First, as time goes on, the demand for the government to provide—or assist in the provision of—social insurance will grow, not decline. Historically, companies shouldered the load of funding workers' health care and retirement savings. But 401(K)s are replacing pensions. According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute, the percentage of employees participating in defined benefit plans was 33 percent in 2007 compared with 63 percent in 1988. Public-sector pensions are likely to be trimmed. That means tomorrow's retirees will need more old-age income insurance, not less. In addition, jobs increasingly don't come with health care benefits. According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of people in 2009 covered by employment-based health insurance fell to 55.8 percent in 2009, the lowest "since 1987, the first year that comparable health insurance data were collected." With each passing year, more people need help buying insurance, not fewer.

Private-sector developments are driving these changes. But Washington policy proposals would drastically reduce the availability of social insurance. The Ryan plan would — let's be honest — abolish Medicare for those born after 1956. Turning Medicaid into a block grant to states, as Ryan suggests, would essentially give states even more incentives to drop people from the rolls. (Arizona, for example, is dropping 280,000 from Medicaid eligiblity this year, with the federal government's blessing.) Ryan's budget also assumes full repeal of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), which, as Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic notes, would mean an extra 32 million people would be without health insurance. Oh, and we've been assured that an adult conversation (read: cuts) about Social Security is up next.

Paul Ryan has positioned himself as an implacable foe of entitlements. He's one of those poor souls who, as I've written before, is bedeviled by the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be getting social insurance. But his proposal doesn't come close to going whole hog. Remember, people 55 and older will find that the government will keep its hands off their Medicare. And the weird wrinkle is precisely why we should be skeptical. Why exempt the old folks? It's not because they've paid for it. Thanks to low Medicare taxes and the rising cost of health care, people in the system are getting far more out of it than they put in. No, it's because older people tend to vote, and these days they tend to vote Republican. In 2008, Obama crushed McCain among young voters. But as CNN noted, the exit polls showed that"the only age group where McCain prevailed was 65 and over," which he won by a 54-44 margin. Republicans spent much of the fall 2010 campaign complaining that Obama's health care reform would cut Medicare, and seniors responded. As Ruy Teixera and John Halpin write, "About 12 percent of 2010 voters were 18-29 years of age, sharply down from their 18 percent share in 2008," and seniors were "21 percent of 2010 voters, up sharply from their 16 percent share in 2008."

Ryan's plan fearlessly goes after entitlement programs, except for those that impact a large demographic slice that has become reliably Republican. Today's retirees are fired up about protecting Medicare and Social Security for themselves, while typical 30- and 40-something voters view them as abstractions. But today's young and middle-aged people will be tomorrow's old people. And when my cohort moves into our late 50s, and we start looking at our 401(K) balances and the cost of insurance, you can bet there will be enormous political pressure to restore the social insurance programs Ryan wants to eviscerate.

Of course, without these cuts, there's no way Ryan can make the huge tax cuts he proposes seem viable. And this is why I'm skeptical that the Ryan plan will work as advertised over the long term. Presuming that legions of older voters would prefer poverty and the tender mercies of the health insurance industry to today's tax rates on high earners and companies isn't courageous or bold. It's politically naive.

Subscribe to Daniel Gross's RSS feed here.

Washington Shut down Averted in the U.S.A.

2011-04-09T22:02:00.001-04:00

Technorati Tags: Government,Republicans,Democrats

By: ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press – Sat Apr 9, 5:20 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Rivals in a divided government, President Barack Obama and the most powerful Republican in Congress split their differences to stave off a federal shutdown that neither combatant was willing to risk.

Their compromise is the result of a battle pitting the enduring power of the presidential veto and the White House soapbox — despite a "shellacking" in the last election — against a strong-willed GOP House speaker vaulted into office by a voter revolt against Washington's free-spending ways.

The resulting measure will bleed about $40 billion from the day-to-day budgets of domestic agencies over just the next six months, the biggest rollback of such government programs in history. It allows Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to claim his GOP shock troops had put Cabinet department operating budgets on track toward levels in place before Obama took office. In the end, the White House had to meet Boehner more than halfway on spending.

On the other side was a strong-willed Obama, who mostly succeeded in forcing Republicans to cave in on dozens of controversial conservative policy prescriptions — including rolling back environmental protections and cutting off Planned Parenthood from taxpayer assistance while protecting favored programs like education, clean energy and medical research.

It was, in short, the type of split-the-differences deal that a political scientist might have predicted from the start, given the realities of divided government.

Obama stood firm against GOP attempts to block the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to issue global warming rules and other reversals of environmental regulations. Obama's wins on the environment were matched by a bitter battle in which he said no way to GOP demands to cut off Planned Parenthood from federal help. The results, taken together, pleased core Democratic constituencies of environmentalists and women.

But it's clearly a win for Boehner, who despite accepting billions of dollars in questionable savings demanded by Democrats as a substitute for cuts in domestic programs, ended up basically where he started in the first place. The original plan backed by Boehner in February called for cuts in the range of $35 billion as a campaign promise down payment that reflected the fact that the budget year was half over.

But conservative Republicans, many elected with tea-party backing, demanded far bigger cuts of more than $60 billion that would have led to widespread furloughs and harm to programs like food inspection, tax collection and U.S. overseas diplomatic efforts. The final deal, a product of weeks of wrangling, got Republicans back to their original goal, while avoiding most of the harsher effects of the tea party-backed version.

"We're not going to roll over and sell out the American people like it's been done time and time again here in Washington," Boehner said Friday, hours before the agreement came together. "When we say we're serious about cutting spending, we're damn serious about it."

The agreement was sealed around 10:30 Friday night by staff surrogates of Obama, Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and communicated to Boehner in the middle of a meeting of all House Republicans. Much of the final days' battles involved a GOP push to preserve modest spending increases for the Pentagon against Democratic raids, while Republicans were forced to accept billions of dollars in phantom savings, cutting money that probably wouldn't have been spent anyway.

"We have a deal," Boehner said, earning applause and praise from the rank-and-file, who credited him with battling to the very end. Boehner, GOP officials said, knew that he would lose leverage to Obama in any shutdown.

"We are behind the speaker 100 percent," said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., as she took a phone call outside the closed-door meeting.

Democrats said Boehner was being whipsawed by tea party hard-liners demanding the full roster of cuts and policy riders. But at the same time, Boehner didn't try to squelch such talk and seemed to be playing the tea partiers against the Senate Democrats to win more spending cuts.

"We used every tool we had," said a chuckling GOP leadership aide, who required anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The government shutdown that so many feared was headed off just in time and the House and Senate quickly passed an emergency measure to keep the government open until Friday in order to give lawmakers time to draft the measure and advance it through the House and Senate.

As a result, about 800,000 federal workers avoided furloughs while national parks and Washington's tourist attractions remained open Saturday. Obama made a surprise visit to the Lincoln Memorial Saturday afternoon, to the delight of tourists at the monument.

"Because Congress was able to settle its differences ... this place is open today," Obama said. "And that's the kind of future cooperation I hope we have going forward."

Obama was referring to upcoming, and far bigger, battles over cutting the budget further and advancing must-pass legislation this summer to permit the government to borrow more money to meet its obligations. The so-called debt limit battle is freighted with politics, especially for tea partiers, and there's a widespread expectation that Obama is going to have to accept significantly more in spending cuts in that upcoming round.

There are few details available regarding the pending appropriations bill, which would fund the day-to-day operating budgets of federal agencies through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year. It's still being put in legislative form.

But aides did say that the measure avoids outright cuts to the IRS, though Obama's hoped-for increases were denied. Cuts to Pell Grants for college students from low-income families were restored, as were cuts to health research and Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative that provides grants to better-performing schools. Large cuts to foreign aid were tamed.

Anti-abortion lawmakers did succeed in winning a provision to block taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia. And Boehner won funding for a personal initiative to provide federally funded vouchers for District of Columbia students to attend private schools.

Some $18 billion of the spending cuts involve cuts to so-called mandatory programs whose budgets run largely on autopilot. To the dismay of budget purists, these cuts often involve phantom savings allowed under the decidedly arcane rules of congressional budgeting. They include mopping up $2.5 billion in unused money from federal highway programs and $5 billion in fudged savings from capping payments from a Justice Department trust fund for crime victims

Both ideas officially "score" as savings that could be used to pay for spending elsewhere in the day-to-day budgets of domestic agencies. But they have little impact, if any, on the deficit.

Hypocrites - Opinion/Editorial

2011-03-30T22:32:00.000-04:00

Hypocrites - Opinion/Editorial

365gay.com | Withers: Cuomo promises gay marriage vote

2011-03-30T22:31:00.000-04:00

365gay.com | Withers: Cuomo promises gay marriage vote

New Report on Catholic Attitudes Towards LGBT Issues

2011-03-22T22:14:00.000-04:00

New Report on Catholic Attitudes Towards LGBT Issues

Matt Barkley: USC QB Faces Claims of Being Homophobic After Tweet

2011-02-28T01:09:00.001-05:00

Technorati Tags: Gay,Homophobic,USC,College Football

Matt Barkley: USC QB Faces Claims of Being Homophobic After Tweet

Ryan Rudnansky

(Featured Columnist) on February 26, 2011

16,115 reads

3 comments

0 likes

Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

Matt Barkley Tweets His Opinion on Gay Marriage, Gets Blasted For It.

It only took three letters for USC quarterback Matt Barkley to bring an onslaught upon himself on Twitter after posting a comment about gay marriage on Feb. 23.

It wasn't the body of the message that was blasted, it was the three letters before the message that drew ire.

On Feb. 23, Barkley tweeted, "Smh.. “@YahooNews: Gov't says it won't defend constitutionality of law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage: http://yhoo.it/hUSDca”

Those three letters before, "S-M-H," stand for "shaking my head."

In other words, Barkley is evidently against gay marriage in the United States of America.

After posting the tweet, he received one notable tweet right away:

@MattBarkley “SMH”?? really? ur a homophobe? did not know this about you.. how disappointing to learn it.

One person actually tried to notify coach Lane Kiffin of Barkley's tweet:

@Lane_Kiffin r u aware that ur QB is tweeting homophobia today? better get a handle on it before the media picks it up

"Better get a handle on it before the media picks it up?"

Too late.

Barkley's tweet has made the rounds around the Web already, picked up by numerous sites.

Responding to the lashing out, Barkley tweeted, "look bro, I’m not discriminating and I’m not a homophobe. I’m standing up for what I believe. Cool down.."

On such a divisive topic, Barkley sure knows how to draw attention.

But was he wrong to voice his opinion?

I don't think so.

It wasn't like he was bashing the gay community or anything of the sort, he simply stated his opinion.

He may need to think about hiring a PR guy, but nothing he did was inherently wrong.

Whether you disagree with it or not, it was his opinion and he was only exhibiting freedom of speech, which, as far as I'm aware, is still protected by the Constitution.

Calif court to answer question on gay marriage ban - KION - Monterey, Salinas, Santa Cruz - News Weather

2011-02-17T00:22:00.000-05:00

Calif court to answer question on gay marriage ban - KION - Monterey, Salinas, Santa Cruz - News Weather

California high court agrees to take question considered crucial to gay marriage ban's future - Brandon Sun

2011-02-17T00:21:00.000-05:00

California high court agrees to take question considered crucial to gay marriage ban's future - Brandon Sun