Bonnie Erbe 10 minutes ago

Delaware State Axes Equestrian Team, Possibly Violating Title IX

By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Now here's a Title IX lawsuit after my own heart. The Women's Law Project, a Philadelphia-based group suing in behalf of women's rights, has filed suit against Delaware State University for deciding to eliminate its equestrian team at the end of this school year.

This suit resonates with me because I, too, compete in equestrian sports and I know what an incredible confidence-builder it can be for young women. But here's where the plot thickens. Delaware State is a Historically Black College/University or HBCU. African-Americans participate in the kind of equestrian sport in which I participate, hunter-jumper shows--in percentages much lower than their representation in the general U.S. population. So why Delaware State would have an equestrian team is somewhat of a mystery to me.

Robert Schlesinger March 13, 2010

Poll: Daylight Savings Time 2010 Not Worth the Hassle

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Tonight we "spring forward," meaning the loss of a precious hour of sleep in the name of energy conservation. (Daylight Saving Time--there's technically no 's' at the end of the middle word, though most people put it there so I'm following the herd in my headline--was first implemented to save power during the First World War.) But does it work? And is it worth the hassle?

The first question has engendered a long running debate which I'll address in a second. Rasmussen reports provides an answer to the second question with a poll released today showing that 47 percent of Americans--a plurality--believe that Daylight Saving Time just isn't worth the hassle.

Mary Kate Cary March 12, 2010

Why Aren’t Republicans Rallying to the Reagan-esque Paul Ryan?

By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog 

It's been about six weeks since Republican Paul Ryan released his Roadmap for America's Future. Marc Ambinder noticed in the Atlantic this week that very few members of the Republican conference have endorsed Ryan's plan for cutting the deficit. "So the question for Republicans is: yes, Paul Ryan has a plan. But if you don't support it, then what, specifically, would you do to reduce the deficit over the long term?" 

Well, Ryan calls for a consumption tax and not too many Republicans are interested in raising taxes, because they fear they'll lose their seats. But they've got it backwards. As incumbents, these days there may be more risk in appearing to do nothing about the deficit than there is in appearing to favor tax increases--especially if there's a way to establish a simpler, fairer tax, as Ryan advocates. It all depends on how much of a moral imperative exists for restoring fiscal sanity, and polls show that imperative is clear to a growing number of voters. 

Republicans--Ronald Reagan is the most famous one--have raised taxes before in order to cut deficits and gotten re-elected. It's the ones who pledge not to raise taxes and then break their pledge who get in trouble. Believe me, Bush 41 speechwriters like me know how NOT to communicate on taxes. We learned the hard way. Here's what Bush 41 said in his daughter Doro's biography of him: 

Peter Roff March 12, 2010

Pelosi’s Comeuppance: Why Democrats May Sack the Speaker

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog 

No matter what the outcome of the elections next November, it is time to consider the possibility that the House of Representatives will have a new speaker in January 2011. 

Having made heavy-handedness a hallmark of her leadership style, Nancy Pelosi now appears well on the way to receiving her comeuppance, if not from her fellow Democrats then from the American people. National poll after national poll shows public approval of the job Congress is doing is at near-record lows--and someone has to take the blame for that. As the Democrats do not yet appear ready to toss President Barack Obama over the side, Pelosi seems the most likely choice. 

She has won herself few friends by trying--over and over--to force the House to vote on healthcare legislation a majority of Americans have said repeatedly they do not want. Rather than negotiate with the Republicans to produce a compromise, Pelosi has insisted that her Democrats go it alone, a decision that is going to cost her party dearly at the polls. A reduced majority--or a new minority--even though it would likely be more liberal than the Democrats' current majority, may not be in the mood to reward Pelosi's ineptness by handing her the gavel for another two years. 

Robert Schlesinger March 12, 2010

Healthcare Reform Bill Abortion Debate is Nonsensical

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

House Democrats' attempts to satisfy Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak over the "abortion issue" in healthcare reform have reportedly finally ground to a predictable and in some ways deserved halt. I say predictable because it has seemed clear for some time that there was no available compromise on the issue: Abortion rules would not be eligible for consideration under reconciliation rules, and there aren't 60 votes in the Senate for more restrictive abortion rules (as it was, pro-choice senators held their collective noses to vote for restrictive language already in the bill).

And I say deserved because while I understand the need for the negotiations--passing the health reform bill is the greater good here--the fact is that they were meaningless because the health reform bill on offer simply wouldn't use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. The "issue" here is of the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin nature, unrelated to what the bill actually does but focusing on what theoretical ripple effects it might have. Or, as the St. Petersburg Times put it today, it's "more about philosophy than funding."

Of course whether the health bill passes or not will likely turn on this issue more than any other.

John Aloysius Farrell March 12, 2010

Spielberg, Hanks, and ‘The Pacific’ a Welcome Remembrance of My Dad’s War

John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The USS Pearl Harbor is a landing ship, not the most charismatic vessel in a Navy of cruisers and subs and aircraft carriers. And so I generally get two responses from veterans when they see me in my blue and gold Pearl Harbor cap. Some wonder why I want to advertise my link to so unglamorous a duty. Others, after discovering I never actually served in the Navy, accuse me of veteran-envy, or something akin to resume fraud.

But once I tell them the story behind the hat, they generally give me a pass. It was my dad's--sent to him as an honor for having served under fire, on Dec. 7, 1941, as the Japanese attacked Hawaii. He was a young Army officer, in command of an anti-aircraft battery, caught totally unprepared.

Like so many of the World War II generation, my dad passed away in recent years. Now my son and I share his hat which, despite the fact that he never served in the Navy either, he also wore with pride.

Mary Kate Cary March 11, 2010

Pelosi’s Inaction on Massa Harassment Inexcusable

By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog 

My first reaction to the whole Eric Massa craziness is that this is Reason No. 42 why we need more women in politics. 

Then the Washington Post reported that Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office knew about concerns about Massa as far back as October. Now, this afternoon, the Daily Caller reports the House voted 402 to 1 to refer the charge that Pelosi mishandled the matter to the House Ethics Committee. This was the woman who promised to "drain the swamp" when Democrats took over the House. So much for that. 

You'd think that as a woman, Nancy Pelosi would be a little more tuned into issues involving harassment, but apparently not. It's surprising that the entire House voted to refer charges against her to the Ethics Committee, 402 to 1. That's a statement. 

John Aloysius Farrell March 11, 2010

Economic Trends Quietly Turning Obama’s Way

By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

With all the chaff about tea parties, and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and filibustering and John Roberts and Eric Massa and Rahm Emanuel, we all might be missing something. The economy is healing.

Mike Dorning, a reporter for Bloomberg, wrote a most interesting article this week. "The political consensus may be that President Barack Obama's handling of the economy has been weak," Dorning wrote. But "the judgment of money in all its forms has been overwhelmingly positive, and that may be the more lasting appraisal."

If the good trends accelerate, and continue, this may not be so bad a 2010 for the Democrats as some Washington wise guys predict, and things may be downright rosy for Obama and the Democrats in 2012.

Peter Roff March 10, 2010

Senate GOP Vows United Opposition to Health Reform Reconciliation

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

A unified Senate GOP let the Democrats know Wednesday that it will resist efforts to ram the healthcare bill through Congress using the legislative maneuver known as the reconciliation process.

In a letter to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, the 41 members of the Senate Republican Conference announced they would vote as a bloc in order to remove the changes needed to "fix" the Senate healthcare bill that are necessary to winning the votes of recalcitrant House Democrats unhappy with the cost of the total package as well as the comparatively weaker language banning abortion funding.

As things currently stand, the House must pass without amendment the version of the healthcare bill approved by the Senate at Christmas in order to get around the possibility of a GOP filibuster. If the Senate bill is amended in the House it would have to go back to the Senate once again, where it would be "dead on arrival" because Reid is now one vote short of the 60 he needs to bring it to the floor.

To get around this problem, congressional Democrats have been working on a strategy involving the reconciliation process where the changes demanded by wavering Democrats necessary to winning their votes for the Senate version of the healthcare bill would be worked out in reconciliation, a parliamentary maneuver typically used to address budget and spending issues that cannot be stopped with the filibuster.

The GOP letter makes its combined objection to the strategy clear.