US War Spending Bill with Social Reforms attached

[OriginalGumby]

The situation is that the Democrats are attaching two small but significant reforms that have been the demand for social movement activists for awhile now to the next war spending bill. Some folks are saying that this is the only way that they will get passed and are pushing for those reforms to be passed along with the billions for war. The ISO had been involved in organizing for the Repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell stay in the closet policy for the military as well as critically supporting the DREAM act while arguing that it should be demilitarized. http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/17/hijacking-the-dream-act
Here is our latest article on the matter. What does revleft think about this situation?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Attaching a reform to a war spending bill puts people in a precarious position.

basically a way for the bourgeoisie to say "support our war for empire and we will give you a bit of what you want."

[GPDP]

I'm a bit torn on the issue. On the one hand, yeah, it's fucked up that such reforms have to be tied on to the empire (I refuse to call it "defense") budget. However, as an undocumented college student, I have a vested material interest in the DREAM act being passed, as it would help me gain US citizenship. It's either that or getting married, and I'm pretty much a total dork when it comes to relationships. :laugh:

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm a bit torn on the issue. On the one hand, yeah, it's fucked up that such reforms have to be tied on to the empire (I refuse to call it "defense") budget. However, as an undocumented college student, I have a vested material interest in the DREAM act being passed, as it would help me gain US citizenship. It's either that or getting married, and I'm pretty much a total dork when it comes to relationships. :laugh:
perfect example of what i was getting at.

[OriginalGumby]

It seems to me the effect will be that it will split the left that does exist into weighing which is more important, the war or immigrant rights and LGBT rights, and effectively ignoring one issue to support the other. I feel that both the DREAM act and the repeal of DADT could be won separately and that we shouldn't give the Dems a free pass to vote to continue unpopular wars. I also think that the movement that it will take to win that and more would mean that the antiwar movement and immigrant rights movement would have to be joined into stronger leftwing force. This attempt may actually weaken this development.

Attaching some of the only meaningful things they have done in the four years they have run congress to a war spending bill is a dirty trick. I think that development of an independent movement that does not accept the Democrats lead needs to be built and that we need to be able to scandalize them about how they are giving hundreds of billions to the war while the there are expected to be 1.2 million foreclosures this year and poverty is at an all time high. Calling for the bill to be passed jeopardizes this I think.

I also wonder what ANSWER's and PSL's if they are any different.

[Martin Blank]

The Dems have done this before. They're looking to force Republicans to vote against war spending before the upcoming election so they can run to the right and say the GOP isn't "supporting the troops". They really aren't thinking about what effect this has on the radical left. They're only thinking about the November midterms.

[OriginalGumby]

The Dems have done this before. They're looking to force Republicans to vote against war spending before the upcoming election so they can run to the right and say the GOP isn't "supporting the troops". They really aren't thinking about what effect this has on the radical left. They're only thinking about the November midterms.

I don't think it's about the radical left as much as it is about the liberals who were supporting them, the future radical left ;). I think they are worried that their base is completely uninspired and that they will lose because millions of folks who came out to vote D will not this time. Passing these reforms is about trying to actually deliver something to the voter base. You know its serious when the AP is printing this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_desperate_democrats

I also think that the Dems do not want to be challenged from the radical left and that they are increasing vulnerable to this because of how bad they have been. I think that putting the reforms that people wanted in the war bill is a way to escape the challenge to their war policies and that the Democrats are aware of this. They will criticize the Republicans from the right and use that to try to gain votes too but I feel it is more about the two facets of the left that I described.

[Nolan]

It must be election time.

[GPDP]

Welp, the bill got blocked procedurally. With elections looming in the distance, I suppose it was only natural.

[Soviet dude]

ISO continues to flip-flop on the Dream Act, it seems.


One argument for promoting the DREAM Act regardless of what it is attached to is that the Pentagon funding bill will "pass anyway." But accepting this logic means remaining silent about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on U.S. imperialist war. It weakens all of our movements if those who would speak out against war funding--even if they are too small at present--stay silent because they hope to win an unrelated measure as a consequence.

For this to even make any sense, the anti-war movement would have to trying to put pressure on politicians to not pass defense budgets. This is not the case. The largest anti-war demonstrations and activities have not centered around accomplishing the hopeless task of getting the Democrats to vote against war-funding. There is, therefore, no real division being created. It's merely ISO handwaving, and wishing to revert to their previous, idiotic position of opposition to the Dream Act.

The defense budget is passing anyway, and there is nothing forcing the anti-war movement to remain silent about the war.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, just got the results back from the transcontinental wet-wired neural network superbrain ultramind (heh), and it looks like, by all calculations, that this is simply a free ride, and it's worth every penny.

Since imperialist centrism is compelled to lean *one degree* to the left while elections are on the horizon, this is pretty much a "gimmie", though it's far from what anyone (who matters) would actually *want*, or deserve.

The crux of the politics are at the end of the Socialist Worker article:





Before Reid's announcement, activists were calling for the DREAM Act to be voted on as a "stand-alone" bill. This is what we must continue to demand.




We support the DREAM Act, but not if it's attached to legislation that will expand the U.S. war machine and further set back the cause of peace and justice, in the U.S. and around the globe.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/17/hijacking-the-dream-act


Also, from a different source:





Other Objections

Second, according to Sen. Reid and other proponents, passage of the DREAM Act would benefit millions of undocumented immigrants. Although it is difficult to know the exact number of undocumented youth in the United States, the Migration Policy Institute's 2010 study "Dream vs. Reality: An Analysis of Potential DREAM Act Beneficiaries" claims that there are approximately 2.1 million who could potentially be eligible.

However, not all would qualify for LPR [Legal Permanent Residency] status. Only an estimated 825,000, or 38%, would be able to gain full LPR. For those undocumented youths who do not meet the requirements after the six years of conditional status there is no guaranteed that they would not be deported. The legislation also authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to share information with other law enforcement agencies.

Third, the choice of attending an institution of higher learning, as opposed to joining the military, in order to qualify for LPR is only feasible for a small number of undocumented youth. For example, Latinos in general, compared to other ethnic groups have the lowest number of college attendees -- only 1.9%, compared to 3% for Blacks, 3.8% for whites, and 8.8% for Asians. The national high school drop-out rate among Latinos is around 40%. In California the drop-out rate is 36%.

Moreover, a significant percentage of the 1.5 generation coming to the United States without papers arrive with very little schooling and come to work to contribute to the family income. These undocumented youth would not even qualify for conditional LPR status.

The college option of the DREAM Act must also be looked at within the new higher education framework where the cost of attending college becomes another barrier. Throughout the country -- and in California especially -- the tuition or university fees at public universities have skyrocketed ... a whopping 32% increase at the UCs and CSUs last year and 54% at community colleges; not to mention the cap enrollments and repeal of affirmative action also affecting ethnic minorities.

Under the DREAM Act students would not be eligible for federal financial aid -- only loans and work study. Moreover, the DREAM Act gives states the prerogative to decide if these students qualify for in-state tuition (repealing Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996).


Behind the Latest Version of the DREAM Act: Is This Legislation We Should Support?

El Organizador <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:44 AM

EL ORGANIZADOR
P.O. Box 40009
San Francisco, CA 94140
Tel. 415-641-8616
Email: [email protected]

[Red Commissar]

It must be election time.

It's always election time in the US.

[ckaihatsu]

It's always election time in the US.


War-- I mean elections, -- I mean war -- I mean elections, is the health of the state.

[Peace on Earth]

I'm sorry for the people who would benefit from the DREAM Act, but it can't be supported when that would mean supporting an imperialist war.

[GPDP]

What do I even say to the people who say not to support the bill?

I don't even know. I'm so conflicted over this...

[ckaihatsu]

What do I even say to the people who say not to support the bill?

I don't even know. I'm so conflicted over this...


I got the impression that this was pretty much *automatic*:





The defense budget is passing anyway,


But now I'm hearing differently:





Welp, the bill got blocked procedurally. With elections looming in the distance, I suppose it was only natural.


Am I going to have to go to *and* trust the corporate media here -- ??? (Don't let me down, RevLeft!)


= )

[GPDP]

Well, it's gonna be voted on again in November. On the Dems' side, they just didn't have the balls to actually go and vote on it now before the elections. On the Republican side, they want to try and pressure the Dems to give up on the DREAM Act and DADT.

EDIT: Well, that's not wholly true. Most Dems did indeed vote Yes, save a few of them. None of the Republicans did, because they don't wanna appear as pro-illegal immigrant and pro-gay before elections.

Basically, it was the Republicans' fault.