tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-822809434000791529.post4144088769431565513..comments2023-04-30T06:42:46.903-05:00Comments on ~Veritas~: Republicans v. The "Violence Against Women Act"-Broc-http://www.blogger.com/profile/14683806635342467956noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-822809434000791529.post-89766837577248756302012-05-02T12:10:53.597-05:002012-05-02T12:10:53.597-05:00...(contined) Part 3
Now those three provisions ......(contined) Part 3 <br /><br />Now those three provisions are what I laid out in my original post however after reading the link there is an additional “objection” that Republicans are making about this VAWA legislation. <br /> <br />4. Republicans want to cut funding from the “Violence Against Women Act”<br /> <br />(see page 43) “…the Grassley substitute would reauthorize all key VAWA programs, including the new consolidated grant programs that S. 1925 would create, while reducing the authorization amount to recognize the current fiscal environment. The Grassley substitute would fund VAWA programs at $484.5 million over the 5 year period…”<br /><br />- Now Republicans say that the VAWA program only used about $500 million last year so authorizing the bill for $682.5M is unnecessary and would thus justify a slight funding cut to $484.5M (about a $15M cut, that work about to about a 3% funding cut) . HOWEVER, given the new provisions that were added to this bill it’s only logical that this bill would need additional funds to function appropriately. <br /><br />In closing, I do agree with the new provisions democrats are attempting to add to the “VAWA” legislation and I believe that some of the “objections” of Republicans can be included into the legislation to make it better overall. HOWEVER I stated in my original post, we have to wait for what Republicans actually put forward in their bill to see where their position is regarding this legislation. As I told you before… ALL POLTICIANS LIE… so while this link may provide some insight into why Republicans are claiming they voted “NAY”, the real test will be seen in the bill the Republicans put forward. Will they include the provisions along with their “solutions” or will they simply eliminate the new provision altogether?-Broc-https://www.blogger.com/profile/14683806635342467956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-822809434000791529.post-26860818141610983862012-05-02T12:09:30.033-05:002012-05-02T12:09:30.033-05:00...(continued) part 2
Now, to the link you provid......(continued) part 2<br /><br />Now, to the link you provided. As I alluded to earlier the list I provided of reasons why some Republicans voted against this VAWA legislation was accurate but not complete. First the 3 “objectionable” provisions I provided. <br /><br />1. “Increased number of temporary visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, that number would rise from 10,000 to 15,000.”<br /> <br />- Yes Republicans are opposed to this provision (see pages 45-47). Republicans site Fraud, Waste and Abuse (FWA) in the system and seek multiple verification steps before temporary visas are issued. Steps such as written medical documentation of “substantial” physical or mental abuse, a statute of limitations for reporting abuse, the abuse must be under criminal investigation etc. Some good some not so good, but the link does NOT reference whether not Republicans support increasing the number from 10,000 to 15,000. <br /><br /> <br />2. “New language which extends protections specifically to members of the LGBT community”<br /><br />- Yes Republicans are opposed to this provision (see pages 39-40). Republicans site a lack of evidence that specific protections are needed to the LGBT community. Republicans claim that more studies should be done to determine if discrimination is happening before legislation is enacted to stop it. (That’s interesting. Yes lets make sure some violence victims are denied service first before we act…lets not be proactive or anything. This same tactic of calling for more research and studies to done was used to stall the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”). Republicans also claim that this provision will lead to discrimination lawsuits which will cost more money. This same excuse was used to vote against the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act“which helps ensure equal pay for equal work regardless of gender. These are weak excuses. <br /><br />3. “New provision which allows for the prosecution of NON-Indian individuals who abuse women on tribal reservations.”<br /><br />- Yes Republicans are opposed to this provision (see pages 37-39). Republicans site multiple reasons why Tribal Courts should not have authority to prosecute NON-Indians, from questioning the ability of tribal authority to handle the legal proceeding, to not having adequate “expertise” (a bit insulting to tribal authority). Republicans, seemingly, do not want to respect the idea that if a crime occurs on tribal land, that tribal authority has the right to pursue legal accountability.-Broc-https://www.blogger.com/profile/14683806635342467956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-822809434000791529.post-29644808506833865142012-05-02T12:06:45.737-05:002012-05-02T12:06:45.737-05:00Thank you Clark for you the link, I did want to un...Thank you Clark for you the link, I did want to understand “why” Republicans would vote against this bill and their objections are noted in the link…don’t worry I read the WHOLE THING so I will break it all down…LOL. <br /><br />However first let me address your comments regarding how my post “read” to you. My post was not saying that Republicans are in objection to VAWA legislation. In fact in my blog post I say… <br /><br />“What is in this version of the “Violence Against Women Act/VAWA” that Republicans are objecting to?”<br /><br />I go on to say that I do not know for certain WHY the 31 Republican voted “nay” on this legislation, however I did read from multiple news sites that Republicans were objecting to specific items in the new authorization which I then list. Now that I have read the link you provided I can say that the list I provided was accurate but not complete. Republicans have additional problems with the “VAWA” legislation besides the ones I provided originally in my blog post, I will expand on that in a moment. But first, being an independent voter means I am not affiliated with one party or another. Being an independent does NOT mean my political views are always middle of the road, split between Republican and Democratic ideas. Some issues I agree with Republicans (fewer and fewer of late due to the Republican party going insane) and some issues I will agree with Democrats, other times both parties will get in wrong in my opinion. Being an independent voter doesn’t mean my views will never be “extreme” it simply means that I do not claim either party as my banner...(to be continued)-Broc-https://www.blogger.com/profile/14683806635342467956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-822809434000791529.post-44353686381814583812012-05-01T21:07:15.403-05:002012-05-01T21:07:15.403-05:00If you want to spend even more time understanding ...If you want to spend even more time understanding why these republicans voted NAY on this REAUTHORIZATION of legislation that has been widely bi-partisan for decades, read their own explanation. http://bit.ly/K6kkKN I only read part of it, so cut me some slack.<br /><br />It may be that 1 or more of these 31 are not nearly as esteeming of women as they should be. There's probably a few abusers on the left too. But generally speaking, these republicans are not against the VAWA itself, just this particular REAUTHORIZATION. Your post reads very much in the same vein as those on the extreme left OR right who assume what could be the most simple underlying motive and then conclude it must be true. As if they are all obviously wife beaters who are clueless about all the good that VAWA has done and are ACTUALLY against protecting women. Do you really think these Republicans are blind to the stats you've quoted or that they deny there is a problem in our country? Come on bro! If you you're going to be independent, be independent.<br /><br />I'm not saying the Republican perspective isn't often extremely imperfect but since this is the way the media frames the NAY votes (Republicans are obviously warring on Women), I would concur, this could hurt Republicans if they're depending on this alone to win "back" women voters. <br /><br />See you in the morning and we're not talking politics at Bible Study!Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01528657729875290383noreply@blogger.com