Tweets, but No Laws — Support for Transgender Service Members Comes From All Sides

President Trump tweeted in late July that the military would not “accept or allow” transgender service members. The news blindsided transgender members of the U.S. military deployed in hotspots and active war zones around the world.
“There’s a lot of anxiety and chaos that’s been injected into the system. It’s a national security issue, we need [our service members] focused and doing their jobs. Not afraid of losing them,” says Matt Thorn, executive director for Outserve-SLDN, the nation’s largest advocacy group for gay and transgender service members.
To be clear, nothing has been put into law yet. Politico obtained a message from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, that said there will be no changes in how the military deals with transgender service members, “until the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.”
Until then, recent history, advocates and elected officials collectively offer precedent for protecting LGBTQ rights within the military.

Outserve’s fight for LGBTQ rights in the military

OutServe began as a secret Facebook group during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” days when gay men and women could be discharged from the military for their sexual orientation. Since connecting with more than 4,000 service members, the group merged with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network to form OutServe-SLDN, an influential lobbying force fighting for civil rights within the armed forces for LGBTQ service members.
The organization’s efforts have paid off. In 2011 the military (with the support of the U.S. Senate) repealed its historic anti-LGBT “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. And OutServe-SLDN’s founder, Josh Seefried, was contacted by Pentagon officials to help shape future policy.
In 2012, a report issued by the Palm Center, an independent research institute on public policy, found that a year after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was repealed, there was no change in service members’ abilities to complete their missions or work — putting conservatives at ease on how the change in policy would affect day-to-day duties.
Then two years ago, the Senate nominated Eric Fanning, who is openly gay, to his former post as Army secretary under President Barack Obama.
The ban for transgender service members was lifted in June 2016, removing the last barrier of service for members of the LGBTQ community. The decision came after a study found that the cost to pay for transgender service members’ gender reassignment and medication would cost less than one percent of the entire military budget, according to a RAND Corporation report that was conducted while the ban was still in place.
In July 2017, OutServe-SLDN worked with the American Military Partner Association against the Hartzler Amendment, which cut government funding for transition surgeries and hormone therapy treatments for transgender service members. The amendment failed 214-209.
As a result of President Trump’s announcement, OutServe-SLDN is preparing for legal battles to help protect transgender military members currently serving and to fight any regulation that might come from the White House. “If it comes to it, we’re prepared to go to court if he puts anything on paper,” says Thorn.

Bipartisan support for LGBTQ service members

Working in tandem, policy makers from both sides of the aisle are also standing up for LGBTQ rights. Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who lifted the transgender ban last year, said Trump’s decision would, “send the wrong signal to a younger generation thinking about military service.”
Sen. John McCain, who has recently gained renewed fame (thanks to his speech on bipartisanship), said in a statement, “We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so — and should be treated as the patriots they are.” Though, he reserved his opinion on whether transgender service members would serve until medical studies were done.
And other members of Congress have returned fire on Twitter. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah posted a statement on the social platform that said, “I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.” Meanwhile, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio wrote, “All who serve in our military deserve our gratitude [and] respect. We should not turn away people who are willing [and] able to serve this country.”
MORE: Marriage Equality Happened, But LGBTQ Youth Still Face Struggles. Not Here

Republicans and Democrats Love This Anti-Poverty Policy

Historically, Democrats and Republicans have seldom seen eye-to-eye on any tax issue — except the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a refundable tax credit at both the state and federal levels given to the working poor. Conservatives support it because it’s connected to earned income; liberals believe the government should provide financial support to needy families.
Today, an estimated 28 million low and moderate-income families could benefit from the EITC (eligibility is determined by annual household income, the number of hours worked and number of children), which is now widely regarded as the most successful way to get families above the poverty line, according to policy analysts.
As bickering across the aisle creates an impasse in our nation’s capital, lawmakers in California recently approved a bipartisan solution (introduced by a Republican, passed by a Democratic dominated legislature) that could provide a model for federal lawmakers debating tax reform and how best to help struggling Americans.

THE RIGHT BACKS AWAY

Introduced in 1975, Congress passed the federal EITC at a time many other welfare programs were being criticized for their wild inefficiencies (most were eventually scrapped). Its aim: To get people back to work and off of public assistance by returning a portion of their income tax payment.
Throughout its existence, the credit has been expanded by every president, with Ronald Reagan (who called it “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress”) backing one of the biggest increases.
In 2016, The American Action Forum, a conservative-leaning economic policy group, recognized the benefit of expanding the credit. And a 2014 House Budget Committee Report, headed by Republicans, said the credit was “an effective tool for encouraging and rewarding work among lower-income individuals, particularly single mothers.”
Despite this, Republican support has dwindled in recent years as far right members of the GOP advocate for significant cuts to government spending.
In 2014, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said he would agree to an expansion of the EITC, but only if it wouldn’t result in increased spending. (Experts said that growth of the program would inevitably mean more money would be returned to workers, costing the federal government an estimated $91 billion, based upon 2015 tax code.)
Conservatives have also argued that there’s no need to expand the EITC since an increase in the minimum wage would provide the same monetary benefits to workers.
And there is concern about fraud. The Internal Revenue Service estimates close to $13 billion in credits, or 21 to 26 percent of filings, were given out that likely shouldn’t have been.

PLAYING CATCH UP

California has been a progressive leader in sustainability practices and social programs, but until recently, its EITC efforts lagged behind states like Maryland, Minnesota and Rhode Island, all which expanded their credit programs in 2014. (Rhode Island legislators backed further expansion last year.)
“California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, counting the cost of living, and families still need to make several times the federal poverty level income to afford basic necessities,” states an opinion piece in the Orange County Register, adding that families would need a minimum wage of $31 per hour to survive in the state.
By these standards, an expansion was necessary.
In June, the state expanded its EITC to meet the minimums needed for a family to get by in one of the nation’s most expensive states, where the average rent is 50 percent higher than the rest of the country.
The expansion enables independent contractors and freelancers working in California’s gig economy to qualify for the credit, now mirroring federal and other states’ rules. It also increased the minimum income requirements from $13,870 to $22,300 so that families earning the state’s new minimum wage could qualify.

MORE HELPFUL READING ABOUT THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT

The Anti-Poverty Program That Transcends Divides, CityLab

A Bold Law Aims to Eliminate the Gender Wage Gap, School Integration Finally Gets the Funding It Deserves and More

Illegal in Massachusetts: Asking Your Salary in a Job Interview, New York Times
With women only making 79 cents for every dollar earned by a man, how to close the gender wage gap is a hotly debated topic. Will bipartisan legislation in New England, which attempts to level the playing field by forbidding businesses from asking a prospect’s previous salary, be a model for other states to follow?
Is School Integration Finally Making the Grade?, New America Weekly
Dozens of studies prove that school integration leads to student success. President Obama’s new “Stronger Together” grant program encourages districts to fully integrate by income, not ethnicity — giving low-income children of all races the opportunity to receive a better education.
Meet the Mothers Who Have Been Fighting Police Brutality for Decades, BuzzFeed
Described as “ultimate activist mother,” Iris Baez founded the grassroots group Parents Against Police Brutality after her son was killed in 1994. Working alongside fellow grieving mothers, Baez already has scored several important policing reform victories, but the 70-year-old isn’t letting age slow her advocacy work.
MORE: 5 Ways to Strengthen Ties Between Cops and Citizens
 

This One Bill Could Make Criminal Justice Reform a Reality

In 1988, a powerful 30-second TV spot scuttled a presidential campaign and altered American politics for the next three decades. The no-frills ad claimed Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, who that summer led George H.W. Bush by 17 points in the polls, offered “weekend prison passes” to first-degree murders like Willie Horton, who while on one of these furloughs, stabbed a man and raped his girlfriend during a brutal home invasion. “The ghost of Willie Horton has loomed over any conversation about sentencing reform for over 30 years,” Sen. Dick Durbin, tells The Marshall Project, revving up incarceration rates and making criminal justice reform seemingly impossible.
But as the consequences of our nation’s tough-on-crime policies have become increasingly clear — in cost and governmental overreach, to Republicans, and for Democrats, in preventing rehabilitation and furthering the racial divide— progress is happening. Last Thursday, a bipartisan group of senators, including Durbin, introduced a bill to accompany the House’s SAFE Justice Act. As we’ve written before, Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, presented the largest obstacle to criminal justice reform. But after three years of lobbying and political maneuvering (Sen. Chuck Schumer compared it to putting together “a Rubik’s cube,”) The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 has Grassley’s support and now looks like the best chance of getting a bill to President Barack Obama’s desk.
“The United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country on earth. Mandatory minimum sentences were once seen as a strong deterrent. In reality they have too often been unfair, fiscally irresponsible and a threat to public safety,” Durbin said at the bill’s announcement. “Given tight budgets and overcrowded prison cells, our country must reform these outdated and ineffective laws that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. This bipartisan group is committed to getting this done.”
The bill is modeled on reforms in Texas that significantly decreased the number of incarcerated in the Lone Star State. If passed, it would reduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for those with drug and firearm offenses. It would also limit the application of Three Strikes, which mandates a life sentence after three felonies, to serious violent and serious drug felonies. Perhaps most notably, these reforms would apply retroactively. Other provisions include rehabilitation behind bars and a ban on the use of solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prison.
Already, the legislation has amassed a powerful set of co-sponsors. On the Republican side, there’s John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah) and presidential candidate Lindsey Graham (South Carolina). On the left, there’s Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island), Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Schumer (New York).
These two pieces of legislation aren’t perfect. “Our broken criminal justice system can’t be fixed in one year, with one bill,” says Van Jones, co-founder of #Cut50, a group lobbying to cut the prison population in half within the next decade. And as a staunch defender of ensuring “access to justice for both the victims and the accused,” Grassley won’t let Democrats totally undo mandatory minimum sentences.
“But it is cause for celebration that there are bipartisan bills to discuss at all. And in a town as broken and dysfunctional as Washington D.C.,” Jones says, “we now have actual legislation on the table.” These pieces of “concrete legislation” in both houses should “give Congress the opportunity to go on record and debate these issues. It’s time to schedule hearings, markups and floor votes,” Jones adds. “Let’s not let politics get in the way of progress.”

Republicans and Democrats Rarely Agree On Anything. Except This

Republicans and Democrats indicated at the start of last week’s legislative term that 2015 is the year for criminal justice reform.
With an ideological split dividing President Obama and congressional leadership, you can probably expect more bickering than legislation to come from Washington over the next two years. But one of the few issues lawmakers seem to agree on is the need to reduce our prison population, now surpassing 2.3 million inmates. High-profile Republicans are lining up behind sentencing reform at the same time that Democratic leaders, including Rep. G.K. Butterfield, the new chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), announced that the overhauling of the criminal justice system is the top priority.
“We believe Congress has a critical role to play in helping to restore trust in the criminal justice system, ensuring that every American is treated equally before the law,” write Reps. Elijah Cummings, John Conyers, Jr., and Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democratic members on three powerful House committees. “This is a transformative moment for our country.”
Statistics about our country’s prison system are disturbing, to say the least. There are now more black men in prison, jail or on parole than were enslaved in 1850, The New Yorker calculates. The entire populations of Philadelphia and Detroit could fit in the bunks of our jails, Pacific Standard adds. And the costs of all these cells are staggering: Detaining inmates now eats up almost one-third of the Justice Department’s annual budget.
This growing federal bureaucracy has caused many Republicans to pivot away from the party’s traditional tough-on-crime stance. Why? It just makes economic sense. Add the nationwide anger over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the rallying cry for change is louder than ever — from both sides of the aisle.
“There is a well-founded mistrust between the African-American community and law enforcement officers. The statistics are clear. Video clips are clear,” says Rep. Butterfield. “You will see the Congressional Black Caucus make criminal justice reform a centerpiece of our work.”
As solutions, black legislators have promised to push for updates to “outdated” mandatory sentencing laws, accountability for police and “unethical prosecutors” and access to competent public defenders, says Butterfield, a North Carolina Democrat.
This progressive rhetoric is expected from Butterfield’s caucus — known on the Hill as the “Conscience of Congress” — but what is unusual this year is that a group from the right, including Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch of Utah and Rob Portman of Oregon, are also trumpeting reform. Each of these lawmakers has introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at undoing decades of slamming criminals behind bars.
“I say enough’s enough. I won’t sit idly by and watch our criminal justice system continue to consume, confine and define our young men,” Paul, a likely presidential candidate, told the National Urban League last summer. “I say we take a stand for justice now.”
Reform still won’t be easy. Last year, the Smarter Sentencing Act, a proposal to shorten prison sentences for low-level drug crimes, and the Federal Prison Reform Act, a bill that would have given inmates credit for time served in job training and drug rehab programs, both stalled and died without a vote on the floor.
Looking ahead, any future bills will have to win approval from Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, the Republicans chairmen of each chamber’s judiciary committee. Both boast reputations for being tough on crime, and both can delay any bill indefinitely with exhaustive reports, hearings and amendments. But in a hopeful sign last month, Grassley introduced a bipartisan bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, designed to prevent “at risk-youth from entering the [prison] system” and helping juvenile offenders already “in the system become valuable members of communities.”
As is usually the case in Washington, compromise seems to be the way forward. “There will be times when I will encourage the CBC to reach across the aisle and try to reach some bipartisan deals that will not make us feel good, but will move the needle in our communities and communities of color,” Butterfield tells BET. “The fight for the future is not a black fight, a Democratic or Republican fight; it is a fight that all fair-minded Americans should promote.”
[ph]

Tired of Waiting for Immigration Reform, One Man Is Giving Undocumented Students a Shot at the American Dream

Don Graham, the former CEO of the Washington Post Company, doesn’t think America can afford to wait for immigration reform before beginning to help the undocumented students who were brought here as kids. To that end, he’s announced a $25 million scholarship fund for such students, called TheDream.US, which will begin providing 1,000 full-ride scholarships a year to some of the estimated 240,000 college students brought to the U.S. as children who are still waiting for the passage of the DREAM Act to provide them with a more secure legal status.
These students, who aren’t at immediate risk because of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, do not qualify for federal student aid or Pell grants. Eighteen states now offer in-state tuition to undocumented students, with more debating the issue currently, such as Arizona and North Carolina.
Republican and Democratic legislators alike have given public support to TheDream.Us, whose funders include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Inter-American Development Bank, and Bloomberg Philanthropies. The fund has already given 38 scholarships to students in all majors but liberal arts, and TheDream.Us administrators are working with a group of colleges that the students can attend. Graham told Maggie Severns and Hadas Gold of Politico, “We’re focusing on places that are low enough in cost that we can send a lot of students there, because we have to raise every dollar for their tuition,” giving students “a bachelor’s degree from a good place that will give students a start.”
MORE: Meet the Undocumented Immigrants Who Created an App to Press for Immigration Reform