Republicans, fresh from their electoral defeat, are considering their own legislation to compete with the DREAM Act. Sen. Kay Hutchinson (R-Texas) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) have put forward the ACHIEVE Act, similar to the alternative that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) worked on last summer and which would offer a untenable type of legal status for undocumented youth. However, a significant difference between this bill and the original DREAM Act is that the ACHIEVE Act does not even guarantee a path to citizenship.
The DREAM Act is already conservative in nature and has even gathered support in the past from prominent conservative leaders, including Senator Hutchison herself, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
At a time when our country faces great uncertainty, one thing has remained constant – the men and women who stand on the frontline to defend the freedoms and values upon which this great country was built.
The service of our nation’s veterans spans every day of every year of every decade of our country’s existence. Over the past two centuries, our world has changed and the duties of the Armed Forces have changed with it. However, the bravery, dignity and honor of our men and women in uniform remain firm.
This year, election night brought results that would have been unthinkable four years ago: stunning wins for proponents of marriage equality for gay couples across the nation. This historic moment indicates how far the LGBT movement and the country have come in the past four years on marriage equality and other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues.
Four years ago, President Obama’s win was tempered by the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which undid the state Supreme Court’s ruling that allowed same-sex couples to marry. And given that Obama at that time did not support marriage equality, his victory left many LGBT Americans wondering when a sitting United States president would finally support this right.
Sequestration was never intended to be good fiscal policy. It was never intended to be policy, period. When Congress passed the Budget Control Act in 2011, they formed the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, more commonly known as the Super Committee, to cut nearly a trillion dollars from the federal budget. Sequestration – a fancy word for painful cuts to every area of the 2013 budget – was a failsafe in case Super Committee negotiations broke down.
The plan was simple: By passing sequestration into law, Congress was creating a deterrent against its own gridlock. The law was so unpalatable to both sides – Democrats wanting to avoid cuts to social programs, and Republicans wanting to safeguard defense spending – that theoretically, everyone would negotiate in good faith to avoid it.
This election, more than ever before, is comprised of many voices: Many communities, many ethnicities, and many languages, all coming together to form a more-perfect union. As a democracy, America’s electoral system depends on myriad voices being heard; it must be a priority to connect with those different voices in as many ways as possible.
In the 113th Congress, California’s newly-redistricted 17th Congressional District will be the first majority-minority district in the continental United States, with 51.55 percent of the total population made up of Asian-Americans, Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and 17.46 percent made up of Latinos.
This election season, the Sierra Club has rolled out a campaign called “Toxic Money, Toxic Votes” that identifies six Republicans it claims are “toxic candidates” who allow oil and coal money to influence their votes.
Despite the proverbial chicken and egg problem in trying to prove cause and effect with political donations, this campaign might not be so bad if the Sierra Club had actually targeted candidates who are well known to be close allies of oil and coal. It didn’t. The organization had entirely different criteria. All six of the Republicans it targets are battling in tight campaigns listed in the Cook Political Report as “toss-up” races against Democrats.
You can’t even watch the playoffs these days without being bombarded by political attack ads by groups who won’t say where they get their money. Some political operatives now tell us if party committees could just take unlimited donations, the ads by these outside groups will go away. If you’re buying that, I bet they’ve got a bridge to sell you as well.
Pundits are understandably focused upon the contentious presidential race. However, let’s peek through our periscopes at which individual congressional races could influence the mindset of next Congress.
This is important because of the looming fiscal cliff regarding the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the sequestration cuts. Can the voters lead the Congress to step back from the chronic dysfunction and gridlock which marred the work of the 112th Congress?
The 2010 elections brought in a new Republican majority in the House and a stronger GOP influence in the Senate, which saw compromise as craven, preferring to push partisan brinksmanship over the issues revolving around debt, deficit and tax policy. That resolve guided the House Republicans and tied the cloture resistant Senate in knots.
Four races will likely become talismans for determining the mindset as Congress heads toward the cliff: three in the House and one in the Senate.