Republicans found time to appropriate extra money to defend DOMA, but not Sandy relief
from Greg Sargent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/03/tea-party-republicans-favor-spending-taxpayer-money-on-anti-gay-discrimination/?print=1
Tea Party Republicans favor spending taxpayer money on anti-gay discrimination
It’s emerged that House Republicans have decided to continue to spend taxpayer funds defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court. GOP lawmakers gave the green light to this idea in a private meeting last night, and it is expected to pass the House as part of a rules package when it is voted on today.
The optics of this move are intriguing. DOMA has already been found unconstitutional by lower courts. The House GOP has already spent over $1.5 million paying outside counsel to defend this law, and while the amount it will ultimately spend on this means little in the larger fiscal scheme of things, it comes just after House Republicans took a beating for failing to vote on aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
“They found the time to appropriate extra money to defend discrimination, but they didn’t find the time or money to push the hurricane relief bill through,” prominent gay advocate Richard Socarides told me today.
How many supposedly fiscally conscious. Constitution-loving Tea Party House members favor spending taxpayer money defending DOMA? Perhaps a reporter should ask them, and if they favor it, how they reconcile that with their zeal to cut spending on wasteful government . . .
For these reasons, Democrats are calling on Republicans to hold an open vote on continued taxpayer money to defend DOMA. “The American people should have the opportunity to know exactly where their Representatives stand on the use of taxpayer dollars to defend this unconstitutional law,” Dem Rep. Mike Honda said in a statement. “Republican leadership should give it an up-or-down vote.”
read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/03/tea-party-republicans-favor-spending-taxpayer-money-on-anti-gay-discrimination/?print=1
= new reply since forum marked as read
