Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Passengers board a Bay Area Rapid Transit train in Oakland, Calif. A bill to create some stopgap funding for public transit agencies like BART stalled on Monday in the Legislature. | Ben Margot/AP Photo

DRIVING THE DAY: Lawmakers in Sacramento today are convening for a joint hearing on Gov. Gavin Newsoms prized Mental Health Services Act reform bill. The Assemblys Housing and Health committees, chaired by Buffy Wicks and Jim Wood, respectively, will hold an informational briefing before the Health Committee takes a vote later in the day.

THE BUZZ The future of Bay Area transit agencies is once again in limbo after an effort to bridge a gap in funding stalled Monday.

A bill by state Sen. Scott Wiener to temporarily raise tolls on seven area bridges by $1.50 was paused by the author this week amid discord in the Bay Area delegation. Wiener said he plans to work with his regional colleagues through the fall in hopes of a consensus.

But Mondays decision to hold the bill does mean delaying a solution to a problem that is already running up against the clock.

The hope was to use the increased toll revenue to keep the buses and trains running as federal funds dwindle and agencies recover from the post-pandemic ridership slump. But some lawmakers, including members of Congress, balked at the idea of raising costs for commuters.

And others simply said they refuse to fund the agencies until they agree to more oversight and accountability.

They dont deserve a bailout until they can get their act together, said Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer, who represents much of Contra Costa County. I want the transit agencies to thrive, but you cant just keep giving them money when they refuse to adhere to any basic standards of responsibility.

For months, agencies like BART and MUNI have been sounding alarms about a rapidly-approaching fiscal cliff as emergency federal relief funding runs out and ridership remains low. The situation reached a crisis level earlier this year when Newsom proposed slashing $2 billion from their budget. Advocates and Bay Area lawmakers were able to turn that around, eventually securing $400 million over the next four years. But Wiener and backers say its still far too short of the $2.5 billion needed to keep the trains running on time literally.

Without more money from the state, they said, the Bay Area could see a reduction in services in the next year or two.

Its very disappointing, and its a blow to our efforts to maintain Muni service after federal pandemic relief funds run out next year, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency spokesperson Erica Kato said n a statement.

At its core, this is a question about San Franciscos future. The citys downtown and entertainment districts have struggled to recover after the pandemic. Empty office spaces, the loss of high-profile retailers and sprawl of homeless encampments and drug use have painted an unsavory picture of one of Californias crown jewels.

A loss of public transit would not only delay the recovery, Wiener argues, but could reverse it altogether.

No matter how upset any of us might be with a particular transit system, the question is will the Bay Area be a better or worse place if BART falls apart and MUNI has to slash service, he said in an interview. And I think the answer is, unequivocally, itll be a worse place.

A message from Heat Pump Nation Inc.:

We need a plan NOW to fight the climate crisis and protect our communities from extreme heat. AB 593 directs California to develop a comprehensive emissions reduction strategy for homes and buildings that safeguards low-income households, supports clean energy jobs, and creates resilient communities. Learn more at https://theheatpumpnation.org/california-ab593/.

HAPPY TUESDAY. Thanks for waking up with Playbook.

PLAYBOOK TIP LINE Which bills are you hoping will make it off the suspense file later this month? Which ones are you expecting to fail? Let us know.

Now you can text us at 916-562-0685 save it as CA Playbook in your contacts now.

Or drop us a line at [emailprotected] and [emailprotected], or on Twitter @DustinGardiner and @Lara_Korte

WHERES GAVIN? Nothing official announced.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: This evening, Los Angeles received another bus from Texas. That means that while we were urging Angelenos to stay safe, the Governor of Texas was sending a bus with families and toddlers straight towards us KNOWING theyd have to drive right into an unprecedented storm. Evil. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in a tweet Monday night.

POLITICO's light rail trail spotted in Downtown Sacramento. | Rachel Bluth/POLITICO

CAPTION THAT TRAIN You might have spotted the POLITICO train rolling around Sacramento! Its all part of our California expansion. CONTEST ALERT: We want your best photos of the POLITICO CA Express in the wild. Share them with your best creative caption using the hashtag #PoliticoCAExpress on X (Twitter) or Instagram so we dont miss them. You can also send them to [emailprotected] and [emailprotected].

The winner will get a MAJOR prize a VIP admission, including a special POLITICO swag bag, to our Sept. 12 launch event featuring a conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom (Think open bar featuring specialty Cali Cocktails, tasty nibbles & apps and a chance to rub elbows with California power brokers and Playbookers.). Happy hunting!

Republican presidential candidate and radio show host Larry Elder stands on the grand concourse during the national anthem at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 10. Elders recent financial disclosures show how he makes his money. | Charlie Neibergall/AP Photo

ELDER ECONOMICS Presidential candidate Larry Elder fell a few polling points shy of qualifying for the first GOP debate Monday night, but a new document filed Monday showed us just how the Sage of South Central and perennial California candidate makes his moolah.

Per his own disclosure, Elder, who has spent decades building his brand as a bombastic conservative radio show host, columnist, author and film producer, gets most of his money as a consultant to the right-leaning media outlet, Epoch Times. Elder teamed up with the outlet in 2020 to launch a web series known as The Larry Elder Show. He lists earning between $1 million and $5 million from the outlet.

He also sits on the board of directors of an Oklahoma bank known as Old Glory, along with former HUD Secretary Ben Carson, earning a salary of more than $100,000.

He also is an adviser to an Ohio-based messenger app company known as Freedom Chat, and owns his own business, Laurence A. Elder & Associates Inc., which he started in 1979.

He lists over two dozen other avenues of income including earning between $100,000 and $1 million promoting the anti-inflammatory supplement Relief Factor (You mightve seen his commercial on Fox News.). He also made between $100,000 and $1 million as a consultant with his own PAC, Elder for America.

Two other California politicians also pop up in his disclosure state Sen. Shannon Grove and Republican Senate candidate Eric Early both gave up between $5,000 and $15,000 as an honorarium, which is often used to denote fees for speaking engagements.

SIGNING SEASON Want California voters to pass your policy? Its time to get going: Todays the last day to submit a ballot initiative if you want to maximize your chances at success, per the secretary of states recommended timeline. As of Monday, there were 26 in various stages of the process:

Four (4) qualified for the 2024 ballot: Two referenda, one challenging a fast food labor law and the other challenging a ban on new oil wells near homes; and two Legislature-passed constitutional amendments, one on public housing and one on same-sex marriage.

Five (5) with enough signatures to be eligible: Voters could decide on measures to fund pandemic prevention by taxing the rich, raise the minimum wage, repeal a law allowing private labor lawsuits, make it harder to raise taxes and enable more local rent control.

Five (5) cleared for circulation: Three constitutional public education guarantees, one push to repeal changes to how inherited property is taxed and one effort to decriminalize shrooms.

Eleven (11) awaiting title and summary: See for yourself.

Jeremy B. White

A message from Heat Pump Nation Inc.:

Suspect named in fatal shooting of California store owner over a Pride flag, by NBCs Matt Lavietes and Andrew Blankstein: Travis Ikeguchi, 27, was responsible for shooting Laura Ann Carleton, 66, to death after yelling many homophobic slurs about the stores Pride flag Friday, San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus said at a news conference Monday.

LGBTQ students are returning to hostile school environments even in California, by the San Francisco Chronicles Erin Allday: Pressure campaigns, largely led by conservative parent groups, have successfully lobbied school boards to out students gender-affirming requests, censor curriculums and ban books and Pride flags. In some cases, school board clashes have become intense and even violent.

Drug overdose death rates for every U.S. county, by the San Francisco Chronicle: In an effort to better understand the emergence of drugs like fentanyl, which is exceedingly cheap, accessible and lethal, The Chronicle developed this tracker using mortality data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which bases its estimates on reports from coroners and medical examiners around the country.

TRANSITIONS Tessa Browne is now comms director for Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.). She recently got a master of public administration degree from Columbia SIPA.

Longtime public affairs strategist Amy Thoma Tan on Monday announced the launch of Cobalt Public Affairs in Sacramento. Also joining the firm of counsel is former independent member of the legislature Chad Mayes.

A message from Heat Pump Nation Inc.:

Extreme heat is here to stay. California needs a statewide plan to upgrade homes and buildings with clean cooling. AB 593 ensures that Californians can create safe and healthy climate-ready homes and communities.

YES on AB 593 for:

Learn more at https://theheatpumpnation.org/california-ab593/.

CALIFORNIA POLICY IS ALWAYS CHANGING: Know your next move. From Sacramento to Silicon Valley, POLITICO California Pro provides policy professionals with the in-depth reporting and tools they need to get ahead of policy trends and political developments shaping the Golden State. To learn more about the exclusive insight and analysis this subscriber-only service offers, click here.

Want to make an impact? POLITICO California has a variety of solutions available for partners looking to reach and activate the most influential people in the Golden State. Have a petition you want signed? A cause youre promoting? Seeking to increase brand awareness amongst this key audience? Share your message with our influential readers to foster engagement and drive action. Contact Jesse Shapiro to find out how: [emailprotected].

CORRECTION: A previous version misstated the total state funding advocates say is needed to keep Bay Area transit functioning over the next four years. It is $2.5 billion.

See the rest here:

Hurtling toward a fiscal cliff - POLITICO - POLITICO

As Prepared for Delivery

Joint Money Committee Speech

August 23, 2023

Accelerating Results and Lifting Up All Virginians

Good morning, everyone.

Chair Barker, Chairman Knight, Co-Chair Howell, and Chairwoman Robinson, thank you for inviting me to address this body of legislators on issues of the utmost importance to Virginians and our Commonwealth.

Given that this is most likely the last formal opportunity to address many of you who are retiring, I just wanted to take a moment and honor your service.

The idea behind Virginias Citizen Legislature suggests it is a part-time job, but each of you knows it is a full-time commitment. I want to thank you for your dedicated service and commitment to our beloved Commonwealth of Virginia.

It was on January 17, 2022, that I first stood before the General Assembly and asked that we come together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Virginians.

I asked that we come together and deliver on a plan to unleash the full God-given potential of every man, woman and child across the Commonwealth in pursuit of their goals and aspirations.

At that time, Virginia was in the bottom 3rd in the nation for job growth. Over 142,000 Virginians had dropped-out of our labor force.

More Virginians were moving away from our Commonwealth than into it from the other 49 states a trend that persisted for 9 straight years.

Tax and fee burdens had climbed, job numbers had declined, and the murder rate hit a 20-year high. Student performance fell.

And yet, in January of 2022, because of high taxes and high fees, state government was flush with cash.

That profound disconnect...between families struggling with runaway prices at the gas pump or in the grocery aisle, a business owner not just worried they cant make payroll... but worried they cant reopen their doors...parents being told their child is proficient, when in reality they're falling further behind in school... all the while being told since government accounts were awash in resources, Virginia was doing well.

Bridging that gap is where our work began togetherand this is where our work must continue.

We began this journey to ensure Virginians keep more of their hard-earned money, jumpstart job growth, assure public safety, empower parents andrestore excellence in education and yes, to make Virginia the best place to live, work, and raise a family.

I asked that along the way we recognize the progress we are making and accelerate -- do more and do it faster.

That we accelerate not because we can, but because we must if we are to lift up every Virginian across the Commonwealth.

And that we carry out the task with a spirit of unbridled eagerness knowing it is possible.

We should all be proud of the work weve done not as Republicans or Democrats but as Virginians to deliver for Virginians.

Over the course of 18 months, we have witnessed existing businesses expanding, new businesses arriving, record job growth, and a record labor force.

Were growing.

Together, we passed the largest tax relief package in Virginia history.

Together, we also passed the largest education budget in history, providing $3.2 billion in investment for our public schools considering the recent JLARC report that noted prior administrations had underfunded education, this is something Republicans and Democrats should celebrate.

Together, we made critical, transformative investments of $430 million in behavioral health and $400 million in law enforcement.

If Virginians are in crisis, they should get the help they need, when they need it.

And yes, we are paying teachers more, and were also paying the men and women of law enforcement more.

The results speak for themselves.

As of last week, we celebrated nearly 220,000 more Virginians working versus January 2022.

We have the highest labor participation rate in over a decade, the highest employment since counting began 47 years ago.

Since then, were fourth in the nation for job growth. Virginia is on the move.

Recent data suggests weve reversed the trend of out-migration. Existing Virginians are staying and new Virginians are coming!

Our investment in site development and workforce development is working.New companies are choosing to move to Virginia and others are expanding their operations here. Since January of last year, weve welcomed 293 projects and over $58 billion in capital commitments, generating nearly 25,000 jobs over time as a result.

And when it comes to public safety, were also making progress recruiting and retaining talented law enforcement officers. Since January of last year, weve reduced Virginia State Police vacancies by over 12%.

But we still have significant work to do across all law enforcement agencies.

And since the start of Operation Bold Blue Line, weve seized over 2,000 pounds of illegal narcotics, including 47 pounds of deadly fentanyl enough to kill every Virginian multiple times over.

As we work to not just make our communities safer, but also to enable a brighter future for our students, the quiet heroes --our first responders, our healthcare workers and teachersare at the heart of these efforts.

Virginia and the nation continue to see a longstanding teacher shortage but we took an important step to support them when last year they saw a 5% pay raise, with another 5% this school year.

1,500 reading specialists and staff have received training as part of the Virginia Literacy Act.

And weve also awarded over $765 million of the $1.25 billion in grants and loans in school construction so that kids across the Commonwealth can learn in increasingly modern classrooms.

Recently, our first lab school was approved to start teaching classes this fall, with 22 more either having received, or applied for,grants.

I am very encouraged by the energy at our community college system....expanding pathways to careers with credentials and degrees for all Virginians...especially for our high school students.

And finally, we are making government work better for Virginians, and we are doing it for less.

Thanks to the work of our Office of Transformation, our DMV has significantly cut wait times, in some cases by more than 30 minutes.

Meanwhile, productivity at the Virginia Employment Commission has skyrocketed and slashed mountains of backlogs.

Were doing this at the Department of Education as well. Weve already cleared a backlog of over 4,700 teacher licenses that were just sitting there, waiting. Now we process more than 200 a day allowing much-needed, talented teachers to get in the classroom faster.

At the Department of Environmental Quality, weve launched the Permitting and Evaluation Platform (PEEP) -- reducing average permit times by more than 40% and there is more to go!

Were not just delivering better services to Virginians we're also doing it for less money.

Weve identified hundreds of millions in projected annual savings by asking the simple question: are we purchasing at the best price and at the right quantity?

Weve consolidated the states fleet of vehicles. When we got here, over half of the more than 4,000 cars owned by the Commonwealth were underused.

Weve since sold over 800 of these, bringing in $8 million.

Its the same story with the states real estate holdings. Compared to national standards, we have over 30% excess space.

We paused the $407 million construction of a new building in downtown Richmond because we dont need it.

Through the good work of our Chief Procurement Officer, we've already initiated actions that will save $20 million annually by Christmas that number will grow to $100 million, and by end of the fiscal year, we will have implemented actions to save taxpayers $200 million annually.

Folks, this is common-sense and it is just the beginning.

This culture of striving to improve, of carving out pockets of savings large or small empowers more investments to increase the effectiveness of government.

Friends, I say all this with great enthusiasm not because we are serving the government better; rather, we are serving Virginians better.

Serving as opposed to simply collecting their money.

We see this as more and more Virginians and Americans are betting their future on Virginias future.

This is a both/and moment, not an either/or moment. We can provide substantial tax relief and we can invest in law enforcement and we can invest in our schools, students and we can invest in behavioral health.

We have the funds to do it.

And when we reduce taxes, streamline regulations, restore excellence in schools, back the blue -- and guess what happens?

We know what happens: More people move to Virginia. Businesses stay. Businesses come. More people go to work.

Tax receipts for the state go up. We can then reduce taxes again and invest in these critical priorities.

This is how we fuel a truly virtuous, reinforcing cycle that makes Virginia competitive against our neighboring states.

Virginia does well when Virginians are doing well and all this notwithstanding headwinds pouring out of Washington with great bluster. Whether that is inflationary spending making gas or groceries more expensive...Or the response of the Federal Reserve to address inflation by raising rates, making it harder for families to buy a home.....or for businesses to expand.

Here in Virginia, our financial results have never been strongerrecord reserves, a Triple A Bond rating, and billions in surplus.

When we put the administrations budget together last December, we projected available resources would be $3.6 billion higher than the level assumed in the 2022 Appropriation Act.

Last fall, economists and our GACRE panel warned us of our expected economic slowdown, so we took a prudent approach and built into our assumptions a year-over-year decline in revenues of almost 8 percent.

We continue to believe its prudent to incorporate a recessionary case as our base case for Fiscal Year 2024.

However, Virginia outperformed and the recession that we had prepared for didnt happen. Additional revenues of $1.5 billion were generated above the December projections.

And thats not all. With commonsense management practices in place, our government actually spent $1.6 billion less than the amount authorized, and yet we accomplished more.

This unspent, yet appropriated $1.6 billion is on top of the $1.2 billion at the end of the Fiscal Year 2022.

The Commonwealth has substantial resources, and our balance sheet couldnt be stronger.

Our Rainy Day and Revenue Reserve Funds are expected to sit at a record $4.6 billion by the end of this fiscal year, far above the 15 percent cap provided by Virginias Code.

This is our moment to soar.

We must seize this opportunity to pursue the key priorities that are fueling our success to begin with and accelerate our efforts.

To reduce the cost of living, we must provide substantial tax relief.

To prepare our students for lives of unparalleled excellence, we must continue to raise the bar, fund the Literacy Act, support tax-driven scholarship funds and lab schools which had record participation last year.

And we specifically need to recognize that extended school closures caused significant learning loss...with alarming drops in math and reading levels, especially in 3rd through 8th grade.

I know we all agree that this requires us to come together and deliver a rapid, and forceful response to equip our children, families and teachers with the tools they need to reverse this learning loss.

When it comes to ensuring our streets and communities are safe, we must continue to invest in our law enforcement.

When it comes to addressing our current behavioral health crisis, we must get Virginians the Right Help, Right Now, when they need it otherwise, it translates into more violence, more self-harm. Everyone is touched by it.

When it comes to being good stewards of our natural resources, we must continue to fund our progress towards our environmental priorities, including innovating for our energy future and preserving the Chesapeake Bay.

And finally, this is a moment for us to drive efficiency and effectiveness in our state government. We must fully embrace a mindset of doing more for less, and the transformation process that enables it.

The best part is we can pursue all these priorities with fiscal discipline for taxpayers because its their money, not the governments.

This is a moment for us again to open the door and let commonsense values rush into the building, to further spur the engine of economic prosperity, to raise the ceiling and the floor when it comes to the quality of education in our schools.

If we continue to invest wisely, and drive policies that lift up Virginians, this will not come at the expense of our financials or resources.

Virginians are talented people who are charting a path to a better future, with faith in God, devotion to family, and belief in the limitless possibilities of freedom.

It is their ingenuity, aspiration and hard work that will assure this collective prosperity.

Our only job is to empower their dreams and aspirations.

If we want our current moment of growth to continue...if we want our businesses, students, and communities to thrive our course for this current budget is clear.

So today, I end where I began. When I first spoke to the General Assembly in January of 2022, it was with the message that together, Republicans and Democrats can deliver a brighter future.

Weve achieved so much over the past 19 months. But were just getting started.

If we act with confidence, the Commonwealth of Virginia will continue on a path towards unbounded prosperity...towards limitless opportunity, lifting up all Virginians.

Together, I know we can make Virginia the best place to live, work, and raise a family.

May God bless our Commonwealth. Thank you.

See the rest here:

Governor Glenn Youngkin - Virginia Governor Ralph Northam - Proclamation

Download PDF Quick Facts

New Zealands economic freedom score is 80.6, making its economy the 4th freest in the 2022 Index. New Zealand is ranked 2nd among 39 countries in the AsiaPacific region, and its overall score is above the regional and world averages.

New Zealands economy was growing smartly in 2017 and 2018 but began to slow in 2019 before contracting in 2020. Growth recovered in 2021. During the past five years, economic freedom has generally been robust, although it has dipped. With higher scores for government integrity and judicial effectiveness overshadowed by score decreases in fiscal health and business freedom, New Zealand has registered an overall 3.1-point loss of economic freedom since 2017 but nevertheless remains in the top, Free Index category. The countrys indicators are generally very strong except for the burden of government spending on the economy.

IMPACT OF COVID-19: As of December 1, 2021, 44 deaths had been attributed to the pandemic in New Zealand, and the governments response to the crisis ranked 7th among the countries included in this Index in terms of its stringency. The economy contracted by 3.0 percent in 2020.

The former British colony of New Zealand is one of the AsiaPacific regions most prosperous countries. General elections in 2017 resulted in a hung parliament, enabling new Prime Minister Jacinda Arderns center-left Labor Party to return to power. She will remain in power until 2023 after winning a landslide victory in 2020 elections. Far-reaching deregulation and privatization since the 1980s have largely liberated the economy. Agriculture is important as are manufacturing, tourism, and a strong geothermal energy resource base. The ongoing trade tension between the U.S. and China is of concern to New Zealand, especially given its heavy reliance on China for export revenue. Until the present crisis, New Zealands economy had been expanding since 2010.

New Zealand recognizes and enforces secured interests in property, both movable and real. The Land Transfer Act of 2017 simplified and modernized property law. The judicial system is independent and functions well. New Zealand ranked 1st among the 180 countries surveyed in Transparency Internationals 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index. Stiff penalties against bribery of government officials and those who accept bribes are strictly enforced.

The top income tax rate is 33 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 28 percent. Other taxes include goods and services and environmental taxes. The overall tax burden equals 32.3 percent of total domestic income. Government spending has amounted to 39.4 percent of total output (GDP) over the past three years, and budget deficits have averaged 2.3 percent of GDP. Public debt is equivalent to 41.3 percent of GDP.

The governments strict shutdowns of the economy decimated tourism. The government began to tax online businesses at 15 percent and is considering additional taxes. A wage subsidy of 80 percent of private companies salaries has kept unemployment under control during the crisis, but it also has significantly increased public debt. The government has introduced new subsidies for electric vehicles and for housing and urban development.

New Zealand has 13 preferential trade agreements in force. The trade-weighted average tariff rate is 2.5 percent, and 247 nontariff measures are in effect. Overall, openness to global trade and investment is firmly institutionalized. Banking is well established and competitive. To support the financial systems stability and liquidity during the pandemic, implementation of a higher capital reserve requirement for banks has been postponed.

Read the original:

New Zealand - The Heritage Foundation

Download PDF Quick Facts

Singapores economic freedom score is 84.4, making its economy the freest in the 2022 Index. Singapore is ranked 1st among 39 countries in the AsiaPacific region, and its overall score is above the regional and world averages.

Over the past five years, Singapores economy has grown slowly except in 2020, when it contracted. Economic freedom has been maintained at a very high level during that period, at or near the top of the Index. Singapores highly developed free-market economy owes its success in large measure to its remarkably open and corruption-free business environment, prudent monetary and fiscal policies, and a transparent legal framework. Trade freedom is strong, and well-secured property rights promote entrepreneurship and innovation effectively. The overall rule of law is undergirded by a high degree of transparency and government accountability.

IMPACT OF COVID-19: As of December 1, 2021, 726 deaths had been attributed to the pandemic in Singapore, and the governments response to the crisis ranked 77th among the countries included in this Index in terms of its stringency. The economy contracted by 5.4 percent in 2020.

Singapore is one of the worlds most prosperous nations and has both a business-friendly regulatory environment and a very low unemployment rate. Despite an active parliamentary opposition, it has been ruled by one party, the Peoples Action Party (PAP), for many decades. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has led the government since 2004 and has suggested a near-term leadership transition. Although certain civil liberties remain restricted, the PAP has championed economic liberalization and international trade. Services dominate the economy, but Singapore is also a major manufacturer of electronics and chemicals and operates one of the worlds largest ports. Principal exports include integrated circuits, refined petroleum, and computers.

Although there are limitations on foreign ownership, property rights are recognized and enforced effectively. Judicial processes are reliable in business-related matters but tend to favor the government in politically sensitive cases. Singapore was ranked third out of 180 countries in Transparency Internationals 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index and is considered one of the worlds least corrupt countries. The anticorruption agency is very effective.

The top individual income tax rate is 22 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 17 percent. Other taxes include a goods and services tax. The overall tax burden equals 13.2 percent of total domestic income. Government spending has amounted to 18.2 percent of total output (GDP) over the past three years, and budget deficits have averaged 0.5 percent of GDP. Public debt is equivalent to 128.4 percent of GDP.

Singapores business-friendly legal and tax structure, reliable infrastructure, and dependable regulatory processes provide a positive commercial environment. The government tightened restrictions on foreign labor in 2020. In 2021, the IMF estimated that government subsidies, grants, subventions, and capital injections to businesses and other organizations consume about 17 percent of GDP.

Singapore has 27 preferential trade agreements in force. The trade-weighted average tariff rate is 0.0 percent, and 182 nontariff measures are in effect. Foreign and domestic businesses are treated equally under the law, and nearly all sectors of the economy are open to 100 percent foreign ownership. The sophisticated financial sector is robust, and the number of foreign banks in the market has risen steadily.

Read more:

Singapore Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI ...

Download PDF Quick Facts

Mexicos economic freedom score is 63.7, making its economy the 67th freest in the 2022 Index. Mexico is ranked 14th among 32 countries in the Americas region, and its overall score is above the regional and world averages.

The Mexican economy grew slowly in 2017 and 2018, contracted in 2019 and more deeply in 2020, and returned to growth in 2021. During those five years, a trend of middling economic freedom has continued. With minor score changes across all 12 indicators, Mexico has recorded a negligible 0.1-point overall gain of economic freedom since 2017 and remains trapped in the middle ranks of the Moderately Unfree countries. Fiscal health, trade freedom, and investment freedom are relatively strong, but Mexicos long-time, very feeble rule of law does not befit the second-largest economy in Latin America.

IMPACT OF COVID-19: As of December 1, 2021, 294,428 deaths had been attributed to the pandemic in Mexico, and the governments response to the crisis ranked 122nd among the countries included in this Index in terms of its stringency. The economy contracted by 8.2 percent in 2020.

President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador of the populist left-wing MORENA party is in the fourth year of his single six-year term. His failure to deliver on promises to solve such problems as crime, corruption, and poverty led to MORENAs congressional losses in 2021 mid-term elections and could derail constitutional amendments that Lpez Obrador seeks to enhance his power, reverse his predecessors reforms, and reimpose 1970s-style statist controls over energy and other sectors in the oil-rich country. Nevertheless, he supports the U.S.MexicoCanada trade agreement that helps to propel the Mexican economy. He must also deal with unprecedented new flows of migrants seeking to enter the U.S illegally from Mexico. Nearly 60 percent of economic activity takes place in the informal sector.

Property rights are protected, but enforcement is uneven, and property registration is problematic. Foreign ownership of land is limited. The judiciary is independent, but court decisions are susceptible to improper influence. Corruption flourishes and rule of law is weakened amid a history of societal toleration of public-sector bribe solicitations, criminal violence, and entrenched political and economic interests that often collaborate with transnational drug cartels.

The top individual income tax rate is 35 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 30 percent. Other taxes include a value-added tax. The overall tax burden equals 16.5 percent of total domestic income. Government spending has amounted to 26.9 percent of total output (GDP) over the past three years, and budget deficits have averaged 3.0 percent of GDP. Public debt is equivalent to 60.6 percent of GDP.

Sudden regulatory changes and policy reversals breed a business climate of uncertainty. Questionable contract enforcement, an amorphous security situation, informality, and varying levels of corruption are some of the problems with which businesses must contend. Labor courts are being phased in gradually, state by state, until May 2022. Massive subsidies to the state-owned electric utility and the state-owned oil company PEMEX were increased in 2021.

Mexico has 23 preferential trade agreements in force. The trade-weighted average tariff rate is 4.2 percent, and 251 nontariff measures are in effect. Despite a strong desire to attract more foreign investment, the investment regime lacks efficiency and is hampered by inconsistency. The modern financial sector has become more competitive and open. The banking system remains relatively well capitalized.

More:

Mexico Economy: Facts, Population, GDP, Corruption, Business, Trade ...

Political and economic ideology

Economic liberalism is a political and economic ideology that supports a market economy based on individualism and private property in the means of production. Adam Smith is considered one of the primary initial writers on economic liberalism, and his writing is generally regarded as representing the economic expression of 19th-century liberalism up until the Great Depression and rise of Keynesianism in the 20th century. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to feudalism and mercantilism.

Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2] An economy that is managed according to these precepts may be described as a liberal economy or operating under liberal capitalism. Economic liberals commonly adhere to a political and economic philosophy that advocates a restrained fiscal policy and a balanced budget through measures such as low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimized government debt.[3] Free trade, deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, labour market flexibility, and opposition to trade unions are also common positions.[4]

Economic liberalism can be contrasted with protectionism because of its support for free trade and an open economy, and is considered opposed to planned economies and non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism.[5] As such, economic liberalism today is associated with classical liberalism, neoliberalism, right-libertarianism, and some schools of conservatism like liberal conservatism and fiscal conservatism. Economic liberalism follows the same philosophical approach as classical liberalism and fiscal conservatism.[6]

Developed during the Age of Enlightenment, particularly by Adam Smith, economic liberalism was born as the theory of economics of liberalism, which advocates minimal interference by government in the economy. Arguments in favor of economic liberalism were advanced by Smith and others during the age of enlightenment, opposing feudalism and mercantilism.[2] It was first analyzed by Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), which advocated minimal interference of government in a market economy, although it did not necessarily oppose the state's provision of basic public goods.[7] In Smith's view, if everyone is left to his own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperity. This underpinned the move towards a capitalist economic system in the late 18th century and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system. Private property and individual contracts form the basis of economic liberalism.

The early theory of economic liberalism was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest (invisible hand) and that allowing them to act without any restrictions will produce the best results for everyone (spontaneous order), provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, so that no one is allowed to coerce, steal, or commit fraud, and there should be freedom of speech and press. This ideology was well reflected in English law; Lord Ackner, denying the existence of a duty of good faith in English contract law, emphasised the "adversarial position of the parties when involved in negotiations".[9]

Initially, the economic liberals had to contend with arguments from the supporters of feudal privileges for the wealthy, traditions of the aristocracy and the rights of monarchs to run national economies in their own personal interests. By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, this opposition was largely defeated in the primary capital markets of Western countries.

Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that classical liberalism in the United States during the 19th century had distinctive characteristics as opposed to Britain: "[A]t the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea of laissez-faire. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean no government intervention at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention in behalf of consumers."[10]

In its initial formation, economic liberalism was focused on promoting the idea of private ownership and trade; however, due to a growing awareness of concerns regarding policy, the rise of economic liberalism paved the way for a new form of liberalism, known as social liberalism. This promoted an accommodation for government intervention in order to help the poor. As subsequent authors picked up and promoted widespread appeal of a subset of Smith's economic theories to support their own work of free trade, the division of labour, and the principle of individual initiative this contributed to obscuring other aspects of the rich body of political liberalism to be found in Smith's work. For example, his work promoted the ideal that the everyday man could hold ownership of his own property and trade, which Smith felt would slowly allow for individuals to take control of their places within society.

Economic liberalism is a much broader concept than fiscal liberalism, which is called fiscal conservatism or economic libertarianism in the United States.[11] The ideology that highlighted the financial aspect of economic liberalism is called fiscal liberalism, which is defined as support for free trade.[12]

Economic liberalism opposes government intervention in the economy when it leads to inefficient outcomes. They are supportive of a strong state that protects the right to property and enforces contracts.[2] They may also support government interventions to resolve market failures.[2] Ordoliberalism and various schools of social liberalism based on classical liberalism include a broader role for the state but do not seek to replace private enterprise and the free market with public enterprise and economic planning. A social market economy is a largely free-market economy based on a free price system and private property that is supportive of government activity to promote competition in markets and social welfare programs to address social inequalities that result from market outcomes.

Continue reading here:

Economic liberalism - Wikipedia

Former policy on gay people serving in the US military

President Bill Clinton announcing new policy regarding homosexuals in the military in July 1993

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on military service of non-heterosexual people, instituted during the Clinton administration. The policy was issued under Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 on December 21, 1993, and was in effect from February 28, 1994, until September 20, 2011.[1] The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by Public Law 103160 (Title 10 of the United States Code 654), which was signed November 30, 1993.[2] The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".[3]

The act prohibited any non-heterosexual person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about any same-sex relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces".[4] Since DADT ended in 2011, persons who are openly homosexual and bisexual have been able to serve.[5]

The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate an investigation of a service member's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors. However, evidence of homosexual behavior deemed credible could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass".[6]

Beginning in the early 2000s, several legal challenges to DADT were filed, and legislation to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period.[7] A July 6, 2011, ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members.[8] President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT to September 20, 2011.[9] Although DADT was officially repealed, the legal definition of marriage as being one man and one woman under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) meant that, although same-sex partners could get married, their marriage was not recognized by the federal government. This barred partners from access to the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples such as base access, health care, and United States military pay, including family separation allowance and Basic Allowance for Housing with dependents.[10] The Department of Defense attempted to open some of the benefits that were not restricted by DOMA,[11] but the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor (2013) made these efforts unnecessary.[12]

Engaging in homosexual activity had been grounds for discharge from the American military since the Revolutionary War. Policies based on sexual orientation appeared as the United States prepared to enter World War II. When the military added psychiatric screening to its induction process, it included homosexuality as a disqualifying trait, then seen as a form of psychopathology. When the army issued revised mobilization regulations in 1942, it distinguished "homosexual" recruits from "normal" recruits for the first time.[13] Before the buildup to the war, gay service members were court-martialed, imprisoned, and dishonorably discharged; but in wartime, commanding officers found it difficult to convene court-martial boards of commissioned officers and the administrative blue discharge became the military's standard method for handling gay and lesbian personnel. In 1944, a new policy directive decreed that homosexuals were to be committed to military hospitals, examined by psychiatrists, and discharged under Regulation 615360, section 8.[14]

In 1947, blue discharges were discontinued and two new classifications were created: "general" and "undesirable". Under such a system, a serviceman or woman found to be gay but who had not committed any sexual acts while in service would tend to receive an undesirable discharge. Those found guilty of engaging in sexual conduct were usually dishonorably discharged.[15] A 1957 U.S. Navy study known as the Crittenden Report dismissed the charge that homosexuals constitute a security risk, but nonetheless did not advocate for an end to anti-gay discrimination in the navy on the basis that "The service should not move ahead of civilian society nor attempt to set substantially different standards in attitude or action with respect to homosexual offenders." It remained secret until 1976.[16] Fannie Mae Clackum was the first service member to successfully appeal such a discharge, winning eight years of back pay from the US Court of Claims in 1960.[17]

From the 1950s through the Vietnam War, some notable gay service members avoided discharges despite pre-screening efforts, and when personnel shortages occurred, homosexuals were allowed to serve.[18]

The gay and lesbian rights movement in the 1970s and 1980s raised the issue by publicizing several noteworthy dismissals of gay service members. Air Force TSgt Leonard Matlovich, the first service member to purposely out himself to challenge the ban, appeared on the cover of Time in 1975.[19] In 1982 the Department of Defense issued a policy stating that, "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." It cited the military's need "to maintain discipline, good order, and morale" and "to prevent breaches of security".[20] In 1988, in response to a campaign against lesbians at the Marines' Parris Island Depot, activists launched the Gay and Lesbian Military Freedom Project (MFP) to advocate for an end to the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the armed forces.[21] In 1989, reports commissioned by the Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC), an arm of the Pentagon, were discovered in the process of Joseph Steffan's lawsuit fighting his forced resignation from the U.S. Naval Academy. One report said that "having a same-gender or an opposite-gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as is being left- or right-handed."[22] Other lawsuits fighting discharges highlighted the service record of service members like Tracy Thorne and Margarethe (Grethe) Cammermeyer. The MFP began lobbying Congress in 1990, and in 1991 Senator Brock Adams (D-Washington) and Rep. Barbara Boxer introduced the Military Freedom Act, legislation to end the ban completely. Adams and Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado) re-introduced it the next year.[23] In July 1991, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, in the context of the outing of his press aide Pete Williams, dismissed the idea that gays posed a security risk as "a bit of an old chestnut" in testimony before the House Budget Committee.[24] In response to his comment, several major newspapers endorsed ending the ban, including USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Detroit Free Press.[25] In June 1992, the General Accounting Office released a report that members of Congress had requested two years earlier estimating the costs associated with the ban on gays and lesbians in the military at $27million annually.[26]

During the 1992 U.S. presidential election campaign, the civil rights of gays and lesbians, particularly their open service in the military, attracted some press attention,[27] and all candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination supported ending the ban on military service by gays and lesbians,[28] but the Republicans did not make a political issue of that position.[29] In an August cover letter to all his senior officers, General Carl Mundy Jr., Commandant of the Marine Corps, praised a position paper authored by a Marine Corps chaplain that said that "In the unique, intensely close environment of the military, homosexual conduct can threaten the lives, including the physical (e.g. AIDS) and psychological well-being of others". Mundy called it "extremely insightful" and said it offered "a sound basis for discussion of the issue".[30] The murder of gay U.S. Navy petty officer Allen R. Schindler Jr. on October 27, 1992, brought calls from advocates of allowing open service by gays and lesbians for prompt action from the incoming Clinton administration.[31]

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[32] Commander Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, expressed the opposition of many in the military at the time when he said, "Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous" and that in shared shower situations, heterosexuals would have an "uncomfortable feeling of someone watching".[33]

During the 1993 policy debate, the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense published as Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment. It concluded that "circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention" if the policy were implemented with care, principally because many factors contribute to individual enlistment and re-enlistment decisions.[34] On May 5, 1993, Gregory M. Herek, associate research psychologist at the University of California at Davis and an authority on public attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on behalf of several professional associations. He stated, "The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters." Herek added, "The assumption that heterosexuals cannot overcome their prejudices toward gay people is a mistaken one."[35]

In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays. Reformers were led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who favored modification (but ultimately voted for the defense authorization bill with the gay ban language), and Barry Goldwater, a former Republican Senator and a retired Major General,[36] who argued on behalf of allowing service by open gays and lesbians but was not allowed to appear before the Committee by Nunn. In a June 1993 Washington Post opinion piece, Goldwater wrote: "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight".[37]

Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy.[38] Congress included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[39] The Clinton administration on December 21, 1993,[40] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[39] This policy is now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The phrase was coined by Charles Moskos, a military sociologist.

In accordance with the December 21, 1993, Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,[41] it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. 654)[42] that homosexuality was incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.[32][39] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging service members.[43]

The full name of the policy at the time was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue". The "Don't Ask" provision mandated that military or appointed officials not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. The "Don't Tell" stated that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities. The "Dont Pursue" established what was minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. A "Dont Harass" provision was added to the policy later. It ensured that the military would not allow harassment or violence against service members for any reason.[38]

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network was founded in 1993 to advocate an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. Armed Forces.[44]

DADT was upheld by five federal Courts of Appeal.[45] The Supreme Court, in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006), unanimously held that the federal government could constitutionally withhold funding from universities, no matter what their nondiscrimination policies might be, for refusing to give military recruiters access to school resources. An association of law schools had argued that allowing military recruiting at their institutions compromised their ability to exercise their free speech rights in opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation as represented by DADT.[46]

In January 1998, Senior Chief Petty Officer Timothy R. McVeigh (not to be confused with convicted Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy J. McVeigh) won a preliminary injunction from a U.S. district court that prevented his discharge from the U.S. Navy for "homosexual conduct" after 17 years of service. His lawsuit did not challenge the DADT policy but asked the court to hold the military accountable for adhering to the policy's particulars. The Navy had investigated McVeigh's sexual orientation based on his AOL email account name and user profile. District Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in McVeigh v. Cohen that the Navy had violated its own DADT guidelines: "Suggestions of sexual orientation in a private, anonymous email account did not give the Navy a sufficient reason to investigate to determine whether to commence discharge proceedings."[47] He called the Navy's investigation "a search and destroy mission" against McVeigh. The case also attracted attention because a navy paralegal had misrepresented himself when querying AOL for information about McVeigh's account. Frank Rich linked the two issues: "McVeigh is as clear-cut a victim of a witch hunt as could be imagined, and that witch hunt could expand exponentially if the military wants to add on-line fishing to its invasion of service members' privacy."[48] AOL apologized to McVeigh and paid him damages. McVeigh reached a settlement with the Navy that paid his legal expenses and allowed him to retire with full benefits in July. The New York Times called Sporkin's ruling "a victory for gay rights, with implications for the millions of people who use computer on-line services".[49]

In April 2006, Margaret Witt, a major in the United States Air Force who was being investigated for homosexuality, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that DADT violates substantive due process, the Equal Protection Clause, and procedural due process. In July 2007 the Secretary of the Air Force ordered her honorable discharge. Dismissed by the district court, the case was heard on appeal, and the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling on May 21, 2008. Its decision in Witt v. Department of the Air Force reinstated Witt's substantive-due-process and procedural-due-process claims and affirmed the dismissal of her Equal Protection claim. The Ninth Circuit, analyzing the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), determined that DADT had to be subjected to heightened scrutiny, meaning that there must be an "important" governmental interest at issue, that DADT must "significantly" further the governmental interest, and that there can be no less intrusive way for the government to advance that interest.

The Obama administration declined to appeal, allowing a May 3, 2009, deadline to pass, leaving Witt as binding on the entire Ninth Circuit, and returning the case to the District Court.[50] On September 24, 2010, District Judge Ronald B. Leighton ruled that Witt's constitutional rights had been violated by her discharge and that she must be reinstated to the Air Force.[51]

The government filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit on November 23, but did not attempt to have the trial court's ruling stayed pending the outcome.[52] In a settlement announced on May 10, 2011, the Air Force agreed to drop its appeal and remove Witt's discharge from her military record. She will retire with full benefits.[53]

In 2010, a lawsuit filed in 2004 by the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), the nation's largest Republican gay organization, went to trial.[54] Challenging the constitutionality of DADT, the plaintiffs stated that the policy violates the rights of gay military members to free speech, due process and open association. The government argued that DADT was necessary to advance a legitimate governmental interest.[55] Plaintiffs introduced statements by President Barack Obama, from prepared remarks, that DADT "doesn't contribute to our national security", "weakens our national security", and that reversal is "essential for our national security". According to plaintiffs, these statements alone satisfied their burden of proof on the due process claims.[56]

On September 9, 2010, Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America that the ban on service by openly gay service members was an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.[57][58] On October 12, 2010, she granted an immediate worldwide injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and ordered the military to suspend and discontinue any investigation or discharge, separation, or other proceedings based on it.[59][60] The Department of Justice appealed her decision and requested a stay of her injunction,[61] which Phillips denied but which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted on October 20[62][63]and stayed pending appeal on November 1.[64] The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overrule the stay.[65]District Court neither anticipated questions ofconstitutional law nor formulated a rule broader than is required by the facts. Theconstitutional issues regarding DADT are well-defined, and the District Courtfocused specifically on the relevant inquiry of whether the statute impermissiblyinfringed upon substantive due process rights with regard to a protected area ofindividual liberty. Engaging in a careful and detailed review of the facts presentedto it at trial, the District Court properly concluded that the Government put forwardno persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the statute is a valid exercise ofcongressional authority to legislate in the realm of protected liberty interests. SeeLog Cabin, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 923. Hypothetical questions were neither presentednor answered in reaching this decision.On October 19, 2010, military recruiters were told they could accept openly gay applicants.[66] On October 20, 2010, Lt. Daniel Choi, an openly gay man honorably discharged under DADT, re-enlisted in the U.S. Army.[67]

Following the passage of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, the Justice Department asked the Ninth Circuit to suspend LCR's suit in light of the legislative repeal. LCR opposed the request, noting that gay personnel were still subject to discharge. On January 28, 2011, the Court denied the Justice Department's request.[68] The Obama administration responded by requesting that the policy be allowed to stay in place while they completed the process of assuring that its end would not impact combat readiness. On March 28, the LCR filed a brief asking that the court deny the administration's request.[69]

In 2011, while waiting for certification, several service members were discharged under DADT at their own insistence,[70] until July 6 when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re-instated Judge Phillips' injunction barring further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members.[71] On July 11, the appeals court asked the DOJ to inform the court if it intended to proceed with its appeal.[72] On July 14, the Justice Department filed a motion "to avoid short-circuiting the repeal process established by Congress during the final stages of the implementation of the repeal".[73] and warning of "significant immediate harms on the government". On July 15, the Ninth Circuit restored most of the DADT policy,[73] but continued to prohibit the government from discharging or investigating openly gay personnel. Following the implementation of DADT's repeal, a panel of three judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Phillips ruling.[74]

Following the July 1999 murder of Army Pfc. Barry Winchell, apparently motivated by anti-gay bias, President Clinton issued an executive order modifying the Uniform Code of Military Justice to permit evidence of a hate crime to be admitted during the sentencing phase of a trial.[75][76] In December, Secretary of Defense William Cohen ordered a review of DADT to determine if the policy's anti-gay harassment component was being observed.[77] When that review found anti-gay sentiments were widely expressed and tolerated in the military, the DOD adopted a new anti-harassment policy in July 2000, though its effectiveness was disputed.[75] On December 7, 1999, Hillary Clinton told an audience of gay supporters that "Gays and lesbians already serve with distinction in our nation's armed forces and should not face discrimination. Fitness to serve should be based on an individual's conduct, not their sexual orientation."[78] Later that month, retired General Carl E. Mundy Jr. defended the implementation of DADT against what he called the "politicization" of the issue by both Clintons. He cited discharge statistics for the Marines for the past five years that showed 75% were based on "voluntary admission of homosexuality" and 49% occurred during the first six months of service, when new recruits were most likely to reevaluate their decision to enlist. He also argued against any change in the policy, writing in the New York Times: "Conduct that is widely rejected by a majority of Americans can undermine the trust that is essential to creating and maintaining the sense of unity that is critical to the success of a military organization operating under the very different and difficult demands of combat."[79] The conviction of Winchell's murderer, according to the New York Times, "galvanized opposition" to DADT, an issue that had "largely vanished from public debate". Opponents of the policy focused on punishing harassment in the military rather than the policy itself, which Senator Chuck Hagel defended on December 25: "The U.S. armed forces aren't some social experiment."[80]

The principal candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, Al Gore and Bill Bradley, both endorsed military service by open gays and lesbians, provoking opposition from high-ranking retired military officers, notably the recently retired commandant of the Marine Corps, General Charles C. Krulak. He and others objected to Gore's statement that he would use support for ending DADT as a "litmus test" when considering candidates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[81] The 2000 Democratic Party platform was silent on the issue,[82] while the Republican Party platform that year said: "We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."[83] Following the election of George W. Bush in 2000, observers expected him to avoid any changes to DADT, since his nominee for Secretary of State Colin Powell had participated in its creation.[84]

In February 2004, members of the British Armed Forces, Lt Rolf Kurth and Lt Cdr Craig Jones, along with Aaron Belkin, Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military met with members of Congress and spoke at the National Defense University. They spoke about their experience of the current situation in the UK. The UK lifted the gay ban on members serving in their forces in 2000.[85][86]

In July 2004, the American Psychological Association issued a statement that DADT "discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation" and that "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention." It said that the U.S. military's track record overcoming past racial and gender discrimination demonstrated its ability to integrate groups previously excluded.[87] The Republican Party platform that year reiterated its support for the policy"We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."[88]while the Democratic Party maintained its silence.[89]

In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates of the cost of DADT. It reported at least $95.4million in recruiting costs and at least $95.1million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003, while noting that the true figures might be higher.[90] In September, as part of its campaign to demonstrate that the military allowed open homosexuals to serve when its workforce requirements were greatest, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (now the Palm Center) reported that army regulations allowed the active-duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who claim to be or who are accused of being gay. A U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson said the regulation was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.[91][92] Advocates of ending DADT repeatedly publicized discharges of highly trained gay and lesbian personnel,[93] especially those in positions with critical shortages, including fifty-nine Arabic speakers and nine Persian speakers.[94][95] Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, later argued that the military's failure to ask about sexual orientation at recruitment was the cause of the discharges: [Y]ou could reduce this number to zero or near zero if the Department of Defense dropped Don't Ask, Don't Tell.... We should not be training people who are not eligible to be in the Armed Forces."[96]

In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission that included Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, and professors from the United States Military Academy released their assessment of the GAO's analysis of the cost of DADT released a year earlier. The commission report stated that the GAO did not take into account the value the military lost from the departures. They said that that total cost was closer to $363million, including $14.3million for "separation travel" following a service member's discharge, $17.8million for training officers, $252.4million for training enlistees, and $79.3million in recruiting costs.[90]

In 2006, Soulforce, a national LGBT rights organization, organized its Right to Serve Campaign, in which gay men and lesbians in several cities attempted to enlist in the Armed Forces or National Guard.[97] Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness stated in September: "I think the people involved here do not have the best interests of the military at heart. They never have. They are promoting an agenda to normalize homosexuality in America using the military as a battering ram to promote that broader agenda." She said that "pro-homosexual activists... are creating media events all over the country and even internationally."[98]

In 2006, a speaking tour of gay former service members, organized by SLDN, Log Cabin Republicans, and Meehan, visited 18 colleges and universities. Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin, thought the repeal movement was gaining "new traction" but "Ultimately", said, "we think it's going to take a Republican with strong military credentials to make a shift in the policy." Elaine Donnelly called such efforts "a big P.R. campaign" and said that "The law is there to protect good order and discipline in the military, and it's not going to change."[99]

In December 2006, Zogby International released the results of a poll of military personnel conducted in October 2006 that found that 26% favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, 37% were opposed, while 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. Of respondents who had experience with gay people in their unit, 6% said their presence had a positive impact on their personal morale, 66% said no impact, and 28% said negative impact. Regarding overall unit morale, 3% said positive impact, 64% no impact, and 27% negative impact.[100]

Retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili[101] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[102] opposed the policy in January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces" Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."[103] Shalikashvili cited the recent "Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three-quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people.[104] The debate took a different turn in March when General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune he supported DADT because "homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and... we should not condone immoral acts."[105] His remarks became, according to the Tribune, "a huge news story on radio, television and the Internet during the day and showed how sensitive the Pentagon's policy has become."[106] Senator John Warner, who backed DADT, said "I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral", and Pace expressed regret for expressing his personal views and said that DADT "does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts."[107] Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, then in the early stages of his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, defended DADT:[108]

When I first heard [the phrase], I thought it sounded silly and I just dismissed it and said, well, that can't possibly work. Well, I sure was wrong. It has worked. It's been in place now for over a decade. The military says it's working and they don't want to change it... and they're the people closest to the front. We're in the middle of a conflict right now. I would not change it.

That summer, after U.S. senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in a men's restroom, conservative commentator Michael Medved argued that any liberalization of DADT would "compromise restroom integrity and security". He wrote: "The national shudder of discomfort and queasiness associated with any introduction of homosexual eroticism into public men's rooms should make us more determined than ever to resist the injection of those lurid attitudes into the even more explosive situation of the U.S. military."[109]

In November 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women were serving in the armed forces and that there were over a million gay veterans.[103][110] On November 17, 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a similar statement.[110] In December, SLDN arranged for 60 Minutes to interview Darren Manzella, an Army medic who served in Iraq after coming out to his unit.[111]

On May 4, 2008, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen addressed the graduating cadets at West Point, a cadet asked what would happen if the next administration were supportive of legislation allowing gays to serve openly. Mullen responded, "Congress, and not the military, is responsible for DADT." Previously, during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2007, Mullen told lawmakers, "I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that's appropriate." He went on to say, "I'd love to have Congress make its own decisions" with respect to considering repeal.[112]

In May 2009, when a committee of military law experts at the Palm Center, an anti-DADT research institute, concluded that the President could issue an Executive Order to suspend homosexual conduct discharges,[113] Obama rejected that option and said he wanted Congress to change the law.[114]

On July 5, 2009, Colin Powell told CNN that the policy was "correct for the time" but that "sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed." Interviewed for the same broadcast, Mullen said the policy would continue to be implemented until the law was repealed, and that his advice was to "move in a measured way.... At a time when we're fighting two conflicts there is a great deal of pressure on our forces and their families."[115] In September, Joint Force Quarterly published an article by an Air Force colonel[116] that disputed the argument that unit cohesion is compromised by the presence of openly gay personnel.[117]

In October 2009, the Commission on Military Justice, known as the Cox Commission, repeated its 2001 recommendation that Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which bans sodomy, be repealed, noting that "most acts of consensual sodomy committed by consenting military personnel are not prosecuted, creating a perception that prosecution of this sexual behavior is arbitrary."[118]

In January 2010, the White House and congressional officials started work on repealing the ban by inserting language into the 2011 defense authorization bill.[119] During Obama's State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010, he said that he would work with Congress and the military to enact a repeal of the gay ban law and for the first time set a timetable for repeal.[120]

At a February 2, 2010, congressional hearing, Senator John McCain read from a letter signed by "over one thousand former general and flag officers". It said: "We firmly believe that this law, which Congress passed to protect good order, discipline and morale in the unique environment of the armed forces, deserves continued support."[121] The signature campaign had been organized by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a longtime supporter of a traditional all-male and all-heterosexual military.[122] Servicemembers United, a veterans group opposed to DADT, issued a report critical of the letter's legitimacy. They said that among those signing the letter were officers who had no knowledge of their inclusion or who had refused to be included, and even one instance of a general's widow who signed her husband's name to the letter though he had died before the survey was published. The average age of the officers whose names were listed as signing the letter was 74, the oldest was 98, and Servicemembers United noted that "only a small fraction of these officers have even served in the military during the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' period, much less in the 21st century military."[123]

The Center for American Progress issued a report in March 2010 that said a smooth implementation of an end to DADT required eight specified changes to the military's internal regulations.[124] On March 25, 2010, Defense Secretary Gates announced new rules mandating that only flag officers could initiate discharge proceedings and imposing more stringent rules of evidence on discharge proceedings.[125]

The underlying justifications for DADT had been subjected to increasing suspicion and outright rejection by the early 21st century. Mounting evidence obtained from the integration efforts of foreign militaries, surveys of U.S. military personnel, and studies conducted by the DoDgave credence to the view that the presence of open homosexuals within the military would not be detrimental at all to the armed forces. A DoD study conducted at the behest of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2010 supports this most.

The DoD working group conducting the study considered the impact that lifting the ban would have on unit cohesion and effectiveness, good order and discipline, and military morale. The study included a survey that revealed significant differences between respondents who believed they had served with homosexual troops and those who did not believe they had. In analyzing such data, the DoD working group concluded that it was actually generalized perceptions of homosexual troops that led to the perceived unrest that would occur without DADT. Ultimately, the study deemed the overall risk to military effectiveness of lifting the ban to be low. Citing the ability of the armed forces to adjust to the previous integration of African-Americans and women, the DoD study asserted that the United States military could adjust as had it before in history without an impending serious effect.[126]

In March 2005, Rep. Martin T. Meehan introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act in the House. It aimed "to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as 'Don't ask, don't tell,' with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".[127] As of 2006, it had 105 Democrats and 4 Republicans as co-sponsors.[99] He introduced the bill again in 2007 and 2009.

During the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign, Senator Barack Obama advocated a full repeal of the laws barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military.[128] Nineteen days after his election, Obama's advisers announced that plans to repeal the policy might be delayed until 2010, because Obama "first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus, and then present legislation to Congress".[129] As president he advocated a policy change to allow gay personnel to serve openly in the armed forces, stating that the U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops expelled from the military, including language experts fluent in Arabic, because of DADT.[130] On the eve of the National Equality March in Washington, D.C., October 10, 2009, Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he would end the ban, but he offered no timetable.[131][132] Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union Address: "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."[133] This statement was quickly followed up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Michael Mullen voicing their support for a repeal of DADT.[134]

Both yes

One yes, one did not vote

One yes, one no

One no, one did not vote

Both no

Democrats in both houses of Congress first attempted to end DADT by amending the Defense Authorization Act. On May 27, 2010, on a 234194 vote,[135] the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment[136] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. It provided for repeal of the DADT policy and created a process for lifting the policy, including a U.S. Department of Defense study and certification by key officials that the change in policy would not harm military readiness followed by a waiting period of 60 days.[137][138] The amended defense bill passed the House on May 28, 2010.[139] On September 21, 2010, John McCain led a successful filibuster against the debate on the Defense Authorization Act, in which 56 Senators voted to end debate, four short of the 60 votes required.[140] Some advocates for repeal, including the Palm Center, OutServe, and Knights Out, opposed any attempt to block the passage of NDAA if it failed to include DADT repeal language. The Human Rights Campaign, the Center for American Progress, Servicemembers United and SLDN refused to concede that possibility.[141]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit, Collins v. United States, against the Department of Defense in November 2010 seeking full compensation for those discharged under the policy.[142]

On November 30, 2010, the Joint Chiefs of Staff released the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) report authored by Jeh C. Johnson, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and Army General Carter F. Ham.[143][144] It outlined a path to the implementation of repeal of DADT.[145] The report indicated that there was a low risk of service disruptions due to repealing the ban, provided time was provided for proper implementation and training.[143][146] It included the results of a survey of 115,000 active-duty and reserve service members. Across all service branches, 30 percent thought that integrating gays into the military would have negative consequences. In the Marine Corps and combat specialties, the percentage with that negative assessment ranged from 40 to 60 percent. The CRWG also said that 69 percent of all those surveyed believed they had already worked with a gay or lesbian and of those, 92 percent reported that the impact of that person's presence was positive or neutral.[145][146] The same day, in response to the CRWG, 30 professors and scholars, most from military institutions, issued a joint statement saying that the CRWG "echoes more than 20 studies, including studies by military researchers, all of which reach the same conclusion: allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will not harm the military... We hope that our collective statement underscores that the debate about the evidence is now officially over".[147] The Family Research Council's president, Tony Perkins, interpreted the CRWG data differently, writing that it "reveals that 40 percent of Marines and 25 percent of the Army could leave".[148]

Gates encouraged Congress to act quickly to repeal the law so that the military could carefully adjust rather than face a court decision requiring it to lift the policy immediately.[146] The United States Senate held two days of hearings on December 2 and 3, 2010, to consider the CRWG report. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs chairman Michael Mullen urged immediate repeal.[149] The heads of the Marine Corps, Army, and Navy all advised against immediate repeal and expressed varied views on its eventual repeal.[150] Oliver North, writing in National Review the next week, said that Gates' testimony showed "a deeply misguided commitment to political correctness". He interpreted the CRWG's data as indicating a high risk that large numbers of resignations would follow the repeal of DADT. Service members, especially combat troops, he wrote, "deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obama's radical social experiment".[151]

On December 9, 2010, another filibuster prevented debate on the Defense Authorization Act.[152] In response to that vote, Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins introduced a bill that included the policy-related portions of the Defense Authorization Act that they considered more likely to pass as a stand-alone bill.[153] It passed the House on a vote of 250 to 175 on December 15, 2010.[154] On December 18, 2010, the Senate voted to end debate on its version of the bill by a cloture vote of 6333.[155] The final Senate vote was held later that same day, with the measure passing by a vote of 6531.[156]

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a statement following the vote indicating that the planning for implementation of a policy repeal would begin right away and would continue until Gates certified that conditions were met for orderly repeal of the policy.[157] President Obama signed the repeal into law on December 22, 2010.[7]

The repeal act established a process for ending the DADT policy. The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were required to certify in writing that they had reviewed the Pentagon's report on the effects of DADT repeal, that the appropriate regulations had been reviewed and drafted, and that implementation of repeal regulations "is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces". Once certification was given, DADT would be lifted after a 60-day waiting period.[158]

Representative Duncan D. Hunter announced plans in January 2011 to introduce a bill designed to delay the end of DADT. His proposed legislation required all of the chiefs of the armed services to submit the certification at the time required only of the President, Defense Secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman.[159] In April, Perkins of the Family Research Council argued that the Pentagon was misrepresenting its own survey data and that hearings by the House Armed Services Committee, now under Republican control, could persuade Obama to withhold certification.[160] Congressional efforts to prevent the change in policy from going into effect continued into May and June 2011.[161]

On January 29, 2011, Pentagon officials stated that the training process to prepare troops for the end of DADT would begin in February and would proceed quickly, though they suggested that it might not be completed in 2011.[162] On the same day, the DOD announced it would not offer any additional compensation to service members who had been discharged under DADT, who received half of the separation pay other honorably discharged service members received.[163]

In May 2011, the U.S. Army reprimanded three colonels for performing a skit in March 2011 at a function at Yongsan Garrison, South Korea, that mocked the repeal.[164]

In May 2011, revelations that an April Navy memo relating to its DADT training guidelines contemplated allowing same-sex weddings in base chapels and allowing chaplains to officiate if they so chose resulted in a letter of protest from 63 Republican congressman, citing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as controlling the use of federal property.[165] Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said the guidelines "make it even more uncomfortable for men and women of faith to perform their duties".[166] A Pentagon spokesperson replied that DOMA "does not limit the type of religious ceremonies a chaplain may perform in a chapel on a military installation", and a Navy spokesperson said that "A chaplain can conduct a same-sex ceremony if it is in the tenets of his faith".[167] A few days later the Navy rescinded its earlier instructions "pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination".[168]

While waiting for certification, several service members were discharged at their own insistence[70] until a July 6 ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members,[8] which the military promptly did.[169]

Anticipating the lifting of DADT, some active duty service members wearing civilian clothes marched in San Diego's gay pride parade on July 16. The DOD noted that participation "does not constitute a declaration of sexual orientation".[170]

President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent the certification required by the Repeal Act to Congress on July 22, 2011, setting the end of DADT for September 20, 2011.[171] A Pentagon spokesman said that service members discharged under DADT would be able to re-apply to rejoin the military then.[172]

At the end of August 2011, the DOD approved the distribution of the magazine produced by OutServe, an organization of gay and lesbian service members, at Army and Air Force base exchanges beginning with the September 20 issue, coinciding with the end of DADT.[173]

On September 20, Air force officials announced that 22 Air Force Instructions were "updated as a result of the repeal of DADT".[174] On September 30, 2011, the Department of Defense modified regulations to reflect the repeal by deleting "homosexual conduct" as a ground for administrative separation.[175][176]

On the eve of repeal, US Air Force 1st Lt. Josh Seefried, one of the founders of OutServe, an organization of LGBT troops, revealed his identity after two years of hiding behind a pseudonym.[177] Senior Airman Randy Phillips, after conducting a social media campaign seeking encouragement coming out and already out to his military co-workers, came out to his father on the evening of September 19. When the video of their conversation he posted on YouTube went viral, it made him, in one journalist's estimation, "the poster boy for the DADT repeal".[178] The moment the repeal took effect at midnight on September 19, US Navy Lt. Gary C. Ross married his same-sex partner of eleven and a half years, Dan Swezy, making them the first same-sex military couple to legally marry in the United States.[179] Retired Rear Adm. Alan M. Steinman became the highest-ranking person to come out immediately following the end of DADT.[180] HBO produced a World of Wonder documentary, The Strange History of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and premiered it on September 20. Variety called it "an unapologetic piece of liberal advocacy" and "a testament to what formidable opponents ignorance and prejudice can be".[181] Discharge proceedings on the grounds of homosexuality, some begun years earlier, came to an end.[182]

In the weeks that followed, a series of firsts attracted press attention to the impact of the repeal. The Marine Corps were the first branch of the armed services to recruit from the LGBTQ community. Reservist Jeremy Johnson became the first person discharged under DADT to re-enlist.[184] Jase Daniels became the first to return to active duty, re-joining the Navy as a third class petty officer.[185] On December 2, Air Force intelligence officer Ginger Wallace became the first open LGBT service member to have a same-sex partner participate in the "pinning-on" ceremony that marked her promotion to colonel.[186] On December 23, after 80 days at sea, US Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta won the right to the traditional "first kiss" upon returning to port and shared it with her same-sex partner.[citation needed] On January 20, 2012, U.S. service members deployed to Bagram, Afghanistan, produced a video in support of the It Gets Better Project, which aims to support LGBT at-risk youth.[187] Widespread news coverage continued even months after the repeal date, when a photograph of Marine Sgt. Brandon Morgan kissing his partner at a February 22, 2012, homecoming celebration on Marine Corps Base Hawaii went viral.[188] When asked for a comment, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps said: "It's your typical homecoming photo."[189]

On September 30, 2011, Under Secretary of Defense Clifford Stanley announced the DOD's policy that military chaplains are allowed to perform same-sex marriages "on or off a military installation" where local law permits them. His memo noted that "a chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion" and "a military chaplain's participation in a private ceremony does not constitute an endorsement of the ceremony by DoD".[190] Some religious groups announced that their chaplains would not participate in such weddings, including an organization of evangelical Protestants, the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty[191] and Roman Catholics led by Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA.[192]

In late October 2011, speaking at the Air Force Academy, Colonel Gary Packard, leader of the team that drafted the DOD's repeal implementation plan, said: "The best quote I've heard so far is, 'Well, some people's Facebook status changed, but that was about it.'"[193] In late November, discussing the repeal of DADT and its implementation, Marine General James F. Amos said "I'm very pleased with how it has gone" and called it a "non-event". He said his earlier public opposition was appropriate based on ongoing combat operations and the negative assessment of the policy given by 56% of combat troops under his command in the Department of Defense's November 2010 survey. A Defense Department spokesperson said implementation of repeal occurred without incident and added: "We attribute this success to our comprehensive pre-repeal training program, combined with the continued close monitoring and enforcement of standards by our military leaders at all levels."[194]

In December 2011, Congress considered two DADT-related amendments in the course of work on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. The Senate approved 973, an amendment removing the prohibition on sodomy found in Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as recommended by the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) a year earlier.[195][196] The House approved an amendment banning same-sex marriages from being performed at military bases or by military employees, including chaplains and other employees of the military when "acting in an official capacity". Neither amendment appeared in the final legislation.[195]

In July 2012, the Department of Defense granted permission for military personnel to wear their uniforms while participating in the San Diego Pride Parade. This was the first time that U.S. military personnel were permitted to wear their service uniforms in such a parade.[197]

Marking the first anniversary of the passage of the Repeal Act, television news networks reported no incidents in the three months since DADT ended. One aired video of a social gathering for gay service members at a base in Afghanistan.[198] Another reported on the experience of lesbian and gay troops, including some rejection after coming out to colleagues.[199]

The Palm Center, a think tank that studies issues of sexuality and the military, released a study in September 2012 that found no negative consequences, nor any effect on military effectiveness from DADT repeal. This study began six months following repeal and concluded at the one year mark. The study included surveys of 553 generals and admirals who had opposed repeal, experts who supported DADT, and more than 60 heterosexual, gay, lesbian and bisexual active duty service personnel.[200][201]

On January 7, 2013, the ACLU reached a settlement with the federal government in Collins v. United States. It provided for the payment of full separation pay to service members discharged under DADT since November 10, 2004, who had previously been granted only half that.[202]

Several candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination called for the restoration of DADT, including Michele Bachmann,[203] Rick Perry,[204] and Rick Santorum.[205] Newt Gingrich called for an extensive review of DADT's repeal.[206]

Ron Paul, having voted for the Repeal Act, maintained his support for allowing military service by open homosexuals.[207] Herman Cain called the issue "a distraction" and opposed reinstating DADT.[208] Mitt Romney said that the winding down of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan obviated his opposition to the repeal and said he was not proposing any change to policy.[209]

On September 22, 2011, the audience at a Republican candidates' debate booed a U.S. soldier posted in Iraq who asked a question via video about the repeal of DADT, and none of the candidates noticed or responded to the crowd's behavior.[210] Two days later, Obama commented on the incident while addressing a dinner of the Human Rights Campaign: "You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient".[211]

In June 2012, Rep. Howard McKeon, Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said he considered the repeal of DADT a settled issue, and that if Romney became president he would not advocate its reinstatement, though others in his party might.[212]

In September 2021, on the 10th anniversary of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, President Joe Biden announced that the Veterans Administration would start providing benefits for servicemembers who received other-than-honorable discharges (before DADT was enacted and while it was in effect) because of their sexual orientation.[213]

In 1993, Time reported that 44% of those polled supported openly gay servicemembers,[214] and in 1994, a CNN poll indicated 53% of Americans believed gays and lesbians should be permitted to serve openly.[215]

According to a December 2010 The Washington Post-ABC News poll 77% of Americans said gays and lesbians who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military. That number showed little change from polls over the previous two years, but represented the highest level of support in a Post-ABC poll. The support also cut across partisan and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats (86%), Republicans (74%), independents (74%), liberals (92%), conservatives (67%), white evangelical Protestants (70%) and non-religious (84%) in favor of homosexuals serving openly.[216]

A November 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 58% of the U.S. public favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, while less than half as many (27%) were opposed.[217] According to a November 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 72% of adult Americans favored permitting people who are openly gay or lesbian to serve in the military, while 23% opposed it.[218] "The main difference between the CNN poll and the Pew poll is in the number of respondents who told pollsters that they didn't have an opinion on this topic 16 percent in the Pew poll compared to only five percent in the CNN survey", said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The two polls report virtually the same number who say they oppose gays serving openly in the military, which suggests that there are some people who favor that change in policy but for some reason were reluctant to admit that to the Pew interviewers. That happens occasionally on topics where moral issues and equal-treatment issues intersect."[219]

A February 2010 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute national poll showed 57% of American voters favored gays serving openly, compared to 36% opposed, while 66% said not allowing openly gay personnel to serve is discrimination, compared to 31% who did not see it as discrimination.[220] A CBS News/The New York Times national poll done at the same time showed 58% of Americans favored gays serving openly, compared to 28% opposed.[221]

Chaplain groups and religious organizations took various positions on DADT. Some felt that the policy needed to be withdrawn to make the military more inclusive. The Southern Baptist Convention battled the repeal of DADT, warning that their endorsements for chaplains might be withdrawn if the repeal took place.[222][223] They took the position that allowing gay men and women to serve in the military without restriction would have a negative impact on the ability of chaplains who think homosexuality is a sin to speak freely regarding their religious beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church called for the retention of the policy, but had no plans to withdraw its priests from serving as military chaplains.[224] Sixty-five retired chaplains signed a letter opposing repeal, stating that repeal would make it impossible for chaplains whose faith teaches that same-sex behavior is immoral to minister to military service members.[225] Other religious organizations and agencies called the repeal of the policy a "non-event" or "non-issue" for chaplains, claiming that chaplains have always supported military service personnel, whether or not they agree with all their actions or beliefs.[226][227][228]

After the policy was introduced in 1993, the military discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.[110][229][230] The number of discharges per fiscal year under DADT dropped sharply after the September 11 attacks and remained comparatively low through to the repeal. Discharges exceeded 600 every year until 2009.

Rear Adm. Vic Guillory, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command and U.S. 4th Fleet leads DADT repeal training for Tier 2 command leadership at Naval Station Mayport, March 17, 2011

Naval Special Warfare Command personnel watching Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead during DADT repeal training, April 6, 2011

DADT Repeal training for enlisted, officer and civilian staff at Naval Medical Center San Diego, May 5, 2011

In November 2019, both Rhode Island and New York State signed into law and implemented restoring military benefits to gay and lesbian military veterans. An estimated approximately 100,000 individuals were affected by the "don't ask don't tell policy" (since it was repealed in September 2011).[236]

Original post:

Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia

Democrat Maura Healey and Republican Geoff Diehl traded jabs Wednesday night in their first debate in the race for Massachusetts governor, sparring over the economy, immigration and abortion rights.

For much of the debate, it felt like a third candidate was on the ballot: Donald Trump. From the start, Healey sought to link Diehl to the former president, who remains deeply unpopular in Massachusetts.

"My opponent has said that he backs Donald Trump 100% of the time," Healey said of Diehl, accusing him of running his campaign "from the Trump playbook" and of wanting to bring "Trumpism" to Massachusetts.

Healey, the state's attorney general who lives in Bostons South End, repeated the attack more than once, calling Diehl "extreme," "dangerous" and "unqualified to be the next governor."

Diehl, a former state representative from Whitman, was one of the state's first Republicans to endorse Trump when he ran for president in 2015. He has remained loyal to him ever since, embracing the former president's supportin his run to become the state's next governor.

By contrast, Democrat Maura Healey spent much of her tenure as the state's attorney generalsuingthe Trump administration.

But in Wednesday night's debate, Diehl called the Trump references a distraction.

"Its Halloween time and thats her boogeyman, he said.

Diehl presented himself as a fiscal conservative who supports parental rights and law and order, while backing stricter immigration laws. And he sought to tie Healey to high inflation, rising energy prices and President Biden.

"Joe Biden, the person that you supported, is leading us into economic disaster just two years into the job," Diehl declared.

Diehl, who co-chaired Trump's 2016 campaign in Massachusetts, has pushed the former president's false claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. When asked last night if he still believes the election was stolen, he at first appeared to edge away from that unfounded claim.

"Obviously Joe Biden won the election," Diehl said, before adding, "Look at how bad the economy is right now."

Diehl went on to claim there were irregularities in 2020, and insisted that mail-in voting makes election fraud more likely, even in Massachusetts. And he said a law that gives undocumented immigrants in the state access to drivers licenses automatically enrolls them to vote. In fact, the law doesn't do that. (Diehl is leading an effort to repeal the law, which will be on the ballotthis fall.)

Healey, who backs the law, said it promotes public safety and pointed out that a number of Massachusetts' police chiefs support it as well.

"You want to know who is actually driving on our roads," she said. "You want to know that they've received instruction and training through a driver's ed program."

But the sharpest clash by far came over abortion. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to end federal abortion rights, Healey said, "Massachusetts needs a governor who will protect a woman's freedom to make a decision for herself."

"I will. He won't. It's as simple as that," she said.

While Diehl opposes abortion, he said that as governor, he would respect Massachusetts' Roe Act, which codifies abortion rights in state law. And then he shifted the argument to vaccine mandates, accusing Healey of turning her back on state workers, including police troopers, who lost their jobs for refusing to get vaccinated.

"That's really shameful," Diehl said, pledging to respect peoples freedom to decide for themselves whether to get vaccinated. A lot of people lost jobs."

Healey shot back that what's shameful is "all the talk of freedom, except when it applies to women."

The debate was hosted by NBC10 Boston, Telemundo Boston and NECN.

Polls suggest Diehl is running well behind Healey. It's not clear if he managed to close any of that margin Wednesday night, but he will have have another chance on Oct. 20, when the two debate again.

The rest is here:

In first debate, Healey and Diehl clash over the economy, abortion and Trump - WBUR News

Ballots are being mailed out, and manyvoters have alreadyreceived their envelope.

While some may know who they want to represent them on city council, they might not know how to vote on local and state propositions and measures.

This week, League of Women Voters Tulare County held an informational forum on what voters can expect to see on their ballots.Two presenters gave a breakdown on the seven California propositions, as well as Visalia's Measure C a bond that would bring another four-year university.

Here are the top takeaways from Tuesday's forum:

Biden calls out 'extremist' abortion laws proposed across the country

President Biden marked 100 days since the overturning of Roe v. Wade and slammed the Republicans for "extreme" abortion bills.

Cody Godwin, Associated Press

Overview:This proposition would changethe California Constitution to include the constitutional right to reproductive freedom. At the time of the Dobbs decision, three states (Florida, Kansas and Montana) had constitutions that protected abortion rights. California, Michigan and Montana are now considering doing the same.

Currently, abortion is legal in California. The states highest court recognized abortion rights under the California Constitution in 1969. However,California law generally prohibits abortion at "viability."

Yes: California can no longer count on the Federal government to protect reproductive rights. Reproductive medical decisions shouldn't be based on political arguments.

No: Women already have the "right to choose" in California, so there is no reason to change the state's constitution. Additionally, voters should consider the rights of an unborn fetus, especially after viability.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct impact on state budget. The state already funds abortion services through Medi-Cal for eligible residents.

Overview: Proposition 26 would allow people 21 years and older to place bets on roulette, dice games, and sports at American Indian casinosand the four licensed horse tracks in the state. Sports betting is currentlyillegal in California.

Yes: Proponents of the measure believe the proposition will increase American Indian self-sufficiency and community programs. Legalizing sports betting could also bring more money into the state and provides strong age verification safeguards.

No: Those opposed say that legalizing more ways to gamble is dangerous for the public's health and safety. Gambling also contributes to bankruptcy, unemployment and loss of state tax revenue.

Fiscal impact: After regulatory costs are paid, 70% of the money generated through Prop. 26 would go toward the state's general fund, 15% wouldgo toward gambling enforcement, and 15% wouldfund mental health research.

Overview: This proposition is the most expensive campaign for and against a proposition in California. The controversial measure would allow online and mobile sports betting outside of tribal lands and the licensed horse racetracks. The proposition wouldalso create a new unit with the state'sJusticeDepartment to regulate online bets.

Yes: Those in favor of Prop. 27 have pointed out that online sports betting is already happening, so it should be made legal. Proponents also say that the proposition would provide for enforcement.

No: Much like Prop. 26, those who oppose this proposition believe gambling is a threat to public health and safety. The proposition is supported by out-of-state gambling companies that will take away money from the state. Tribes and card rooms are also concerned with how this could impact California's gambling industry.

Fiscal impact: Money generated through online sports betting would go to fund gambling addiction programs, homelessness and to tribes not involved in online sports betting. The proposition is exempt from California's education commitment mandate, so no money would go into public schools or community colleges.

It's unlikely Prop. 27 would generate more than $500 million in state revenue annually, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Overview: Proposition 28 would create additional funding for arts and music in public schooleducation. Money will be taken from Proposition 98, whichguarantees a minimum level of funding for K-12 education, community colleges, and related child development, mental health, and developmental service programs.

Yes: Proponents argue that this proposition increases funding for the arts without a new tax. Currently, only one in five California public schools have a dedicated music or arts teacher.

No: Although official opposition has been filed for this proposition, some have argued that this is not the way to create a school budget. Approving the measure could also decrease funding for other crucial educational programs.

Fiscal impact: Roughly $1 billion from the state's general fund will go to Proposition 28, which is about one-half of 1% of the general fund.

Overview: A version of this propositions has come before California voters at least three times before. Proposition 29 requires onsite licensed medical professional at kidney dialysis clinics and establishes other state requirements.

Yes: Those in favor of Proposition 29 say that clinics administering dialysis need to be better supervised and regulated. Proponents also argue that profits from this treatment should be lower, and that the money should be spent on better oversight and patient care.

No: Those opposed argue that the need for higher-trained staff isn't necessary and there is no evidence that a doctor, nurse practitioner or physicians assistant would improve care. They also worry that some clinics may close and leave patients without essential care.

Fiscal impact: The proposition has the potential to increase state costs and the need for higher Medi-Cal payments.

Electric cars: Make sure you look at these factors when shopping

Looking into buying your first electric car? Factor in its range, charging speed and whether its charging port will play nice with most stations.

Marc Saltzman, Special to USA TODAY

Overview:Proposition 30 would increase the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75%. Money would be used tofundzero-emission vehicle projects and wildfire prevention programs. The tax increase would end on Jan. 1, 2043, or if the state reported three consecutive years of greenhouse gas emission of 80% below 1990 levels.

Yes: Those in favor of the proposition believe that existing state programs are not doing enough to address climate change. There will be strict accountability on how this money is spent and could help those who can't afford electric cars.

No: This oppose argue that the state is already investing more than $50 billion on climate issues and the additional funding can be paid from the state's budget surplus. There is also no guarantee that Proposition 30 will make electric vehicles more affordable.

Fiscal impact: The proposition is estimated to generate roughly $4 billion forzero-emission vehicles and electric charging stations. Additionally, it could fund up to $1 billion in wildfire suppression.

Revenues could increase over time.

Overview: The referendum asks voters to reconsider a 2020 law thatprohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products.Stores and vending machines can't sell most flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers.

Yes: A "yes" vote would uphold the 2020 law. Proponents say Proposition 31 protects California children by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco, including vapes.

No: A "no" vote would repeal the law. Those against the 2020 law and Proposition 31 say that it's already illegal to sell any tobacco product to anyone under 21.

Fiscal impact: If the proposition passes, it would decrease state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually.

Sheyanne Romero is a journalist for USA TODAY Network and Visalia Times-Delta.

Continued here:

Election 2022: What to know about California propositions - Visalia Times-Delta and Tulare Advance-Register

"Vice President Kamala Harris calls on Texans to protect reproductive and voting rights during Austin visit" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans and engages with them about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday called Texas abortion ban immoral and urged Texans to protect reproductive rights when considering their choices in the upcoming November elections.

A democracy will be as strong as our willingness to fight for it, she said during a discussion on reproductive rights at the LBJ Presidential Library on the University of Texas at Austin campus, part of a daylong trip that ended with an appearance at a downtown fundraiser for Texas Democrats.

While Harris stressed the importance of voting not only for a governor and attorney general who support reproductive rights, she also noted that local elections were crucial, especially when it comes to choosing a prosecutor. District attorneys will now have to decide whether to prosecute Texas doctors and health care workers if they perform an abortion not meant to save the life of the pregnant patient.

Performing an abortion in Texas is now a felony punishable by up to life in prison. The new state law, which has only narrow exceptions to save the life of a pregnant person, went into effect in August, two months after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The law has forced Texans to seek abortions in other states.

Its going to matter who your county prosecutor is if you live in a place where theres a state law that has criminalized doctors and nurses and health care providers, Harris said.

Harris said the U.S. Department of Justice is working with state attorneys general to ensure Americans have a right to travel, but not the one in Texas, she said, referring to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

At the fundraiser, Harris endorsed Beto ORourke for governor and highlighted for the audience some of the Biden administrations achievements: distributing pandemic relief; passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which caps drug prices for Medicare recipients; passing a hefty infrastructure bill; and making historic strides to address the climate change crisis.

But she also spent a lot of her address discussing the U.S. Supreme Court decision this summer in the Dobbs v. Jackson case, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

The United States Supreme Court just took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of America, from the women of America, Harris said. While extremists so-called leaders trumpet the rhetoric of freedom, they attack the very foundations of freedom.

She blamed Texas elected GOP leaders for removing womens freedoms, calling them the ones passing laws making it difficult for people in the states to vote.

Harris added, One of those people is the governor of this very state. Even before the Dobbs decision, she said, Gov. Greg Abbott and other leaders passed some of the most radical, most anti-women laws in the country.

Harris warned that overturning Roe was just a first step for Republicans.

Where do we think this is heading? Harris asked the crowd. Justice Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud. Contraception is on the line. Marriage equality is on the line. With Republican party leaders in charge, health care is on the line.

One topic noticeably absent from her visit was immigration.

Shortly after Biden took office, he assigned Harris the responsibility of immigration. In June 2021, Harris she traveled to Guatemala and Mexico, a trip she said was an effort to tackle the root causes of illegal immigration. A few weeks after that trip, she visited Border Patrol facilities in El Paso and met with migrant aid groups, but the vice president has not yet visited the Rio Grande Valley, where a large number of border apprehensions are happening.

Predictably, Harris visit drew barbs from Texas Republicans, including Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, who have criticized the federal governments stance regarding the U.S.-Mexico border.

Texans have been forced to bear the consequences of this Administrations failure to address the border crisis, including the historic number of illegal crossings as well as the tragic rise in migrant deaths, drug smuggling, fentanyl overdoses, and cartel violence, Cornyn said in a statement Friday. Unfortunately, the Administrations Border Czar hasnt seen the epicenter of their self-inflicted crisis firsthand, which has overwhelmed our border communities and law enforcement.

Cornyns jab at Harris came after Cruz put pressure on the Biden administration on immigration, threatening Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with impeachment for dereliction of duty at the southern border in a letter to the department Thursday.

Federal immigration agents have recorded 2.1 million encounters at the Southwest border a record number in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2022, which ended Sept. 30. Thats a 24% increase from the entire previous fiscal year. Of those, more than half occurred at the Texas-Mexico border, where agents recorded 1.2 million encounters during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2022.

Those numbers include repeat border crossings by individuals who made more than one attempt. And those repeat crossings have helped drive the number of encounters higher.

In March 2020, the Trump administration invoked an emergency health order known as Title 42, which immigration agents have used to immediately send back to Mexico many people trying to cross the border, including asylum-seekers, without having to file charges and wait on the formal deportation process.

Immigration agents record a person attempting to cross more than once during the same fiscal year as a new encounter. The latest recidivism rate available shows that its at 27%, the highest its been since fiscal year 2015.

Reporter Uriel J. Garca contributed to this story.

Disclosure: The LBJ Presidential Library and the University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/08/kamala-harris-texas-visit/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Here is the original post:

Vice President Kamala Harris calls on Texans to protect reproductive and voting rights during Austin visit - 25 News KXXV and KRHD