Republican Presidential Candidates Want You To Know They Are Against LGBT Rights

— by Zack Ford Dec 8, 2015 4:20 PM

Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz at the Presidential Family Forum in Iowa last month.

Over the past few weeks, several Republican presidential candidates have served up attacks on LGBT people, recommitting themselves to persecution by rolling back gains for equality and enshrining the right to discriminate into law. The comments all seem to be popping up as the candidates have stayed relatively mum on issues like abortion, gun control violence, and Islamophobia, despite recent tragedies spotlighting those issues in the media.

Here are some of the recent anti-LGBT highlights from the Republican primary.

Marco Rubio
In an interview this weekend with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Marco Rubio outlined outlined extensive plans for enabling discrimination against LGBT people in the name of religious liberty. As president, Rubio said he would do the following:

  • Rescind President Obama’s executive order protecting the LGBT employees of federal contractors.
  • Only appoint Supreme Court Justices committed to undoing marriage equality and a woman’s right to an abortion.
  • Protect religious organizations that wish to refuse service to same-sex couples.

Rubio seemed to imply that employing and serving LGBT people were themselves sinful actions. “There are many government contractors and small companies who provide services to the government who are faith-based people, and they are being compelled to sin by government in their business conduct,” he said. “That is not something we should be supporting.”

Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz recently sat down with National Organization for Marriage founder Robert George for an interview on EWTN, a Catholic television network. In one segment, Cruz agreed with George that the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision was “profoundly wrong,” “fundamentally illegitimate,” “lawless,” and “not based on the Constitution.”

Cruz then referenced Justice Anthony Kennedy’s recent comments that a public official that can not follow the decision, like Kim Davis, should resign. During his remarks, Kennedy alluded to the fact that very few judges resigned from the Nazi German government. Thus, Cruz claimed, he was comparing the Supreme Court to Nazis. “This isn’t me calling them the Nazis,” Cruz explained, “this is Justice Kennedy calling the court on which he serves, calling the opinion that he wrote — analogizing that to the Nazi decrees that we must obey. That is an arrogance, it is an elitism, it is being out of touch with our nation.”

In another segment, Cruz fielded a question about accommodations for transgender students in public schools. He condemned such policies as “ridiculous” decisions made by “zealots.” “I don’t want my daughters taking showers with little boys; I don’t want them when they’re in junior high or high school. And it’s absurd. No parents do.”

Cruz pledged to end Common Core and abolish the Department of Education entirely, so there would be no federal agency to enforce Title IX to protect transgender students.

Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee also talked to Robert George for an hour late last month and offered his own renditions on many of the same points. Huckabee would “absolutely decline” to enforce the marriage equality decision, because “it’s a matter of saving our republic.” He’d also ensure that he had an attorney general who “would protect in every way the rights of those citizens who joined in disagreeing.”

As such, Huckabee would pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) in his first 100 days. The bill would prohibit the federal government from acting against any organization that discriminates against same-sex couples, creating a widespread license to discriminate. Citing examples of wedding vendors who would refuse to serve same-sex couples or schools that would refuse to recognize their marriages, he pledged the federal government under his leadership would side with them if a state is trying to enforce a nondiscrimination law.

Huckabee also chimed in on transgender school protections, calling it a “ludicrous notion” that someone “can just wake up one day and say, ‘You know, I know I have the biological makeup of a male and I have the gene — I’m genetically male, but I kind of feel feminine today,’ or ‘I’m going to feel feminine for the next year or the rest of my life.’”

He described it as “most baffling” than anyone could thoughtfully “defend the notion that it is normal — that it is perfectly legitimate — for a person just to declare oneself to be a different gender. It borders on laughable, and I know to say it’s laughable would bring great contempt because people would say you’re being insensitive. I’m not being insensitive. I’m exercising just a little bit of common sense.”

Huckabee similarly exercised his little bit of common sense earlier this year when he joked that he wished transgender protections existed when he was a kid, because he would’ve found his “feminine side” so he could “shower with the girls.”

Ben Carson
Over the weekend, Ben Carson said at a town hall event that he misses “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the policy that discriminated against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the military. “Why do you have to go around flaunting your sexuality?” he asked. “It’s not necessary. You don’t need to talk about that. We need to talk about how we eliminate the enemy.”

He also opposed allowing transgender people to serve, worrying that the military is being used as “a laboratory for social experimentation.” “Deal with the transgender thing somewhere else,” he said. Last month, Carson similarly said that trans people don’t deserve “extra rights,” like equal access to safely use the bathroom. The ban on transgender military service will be lifted this spring.

At a recent debate, Carson took umbrage at the notion that he might be described as a “homophobe” for his frequent anti-LGBT comments. When he apologized earlier this year for suggesting that homosexuality is a choice because prison turns people gay, he announced that he wasn’t going to talk about “gay rights” issues anymore.

That hasn’t proven to be the case for him or any of his fellow candidates.


This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. ‘Like’ CAP Action on Facebook and ‘follow’ us on Twitter

Advertisements

Married on Sunday; Fired on Monday!

A majority of states still do not clearly protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, people from discrimination in employment.  As many as 28% of LGBT people report being denied career advancement because of their sexual orientation, and 1 in 4 transgender people report being fired from a job they already have simply because of their transgender status.  YouTube celebrity Hartbeat explains why all Americans deserve the same protections from discrimination in the workplace.  Watch the whiteboard video:

This video is part of a special series, LGBT Nondiscrimination Explained.


This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.

Legally Married and Legally Fired

— by CAP Action War Room

The Fight For Equal Rights For LGBT Americans Does Not End At Marriage

We’ve been talking a lot about a certain Supreme Court case over the past month, with the Affordable Care Act under attack for a second time. Next up, the Supreme Court will hear another important case in April on whether to legalize marriage for committed same-sex couples throughout the country. While proponents of equality are hopeful for a historic decision to finally ensure marriage equality nationwide, regardless of the outcome, the fight for LGBT equal rights will not end in June. One aspect of that fight is securing basic non-discrimination protections for the LGBT community.

While the fundamental right to marry the one you love has been extended to Americans in over thirty states, we still have a ways to go in enacting meaningful anti-discrimination laws across the country. As the graphic below demonstrates, LGBT Americans are still vulnerable to discrimination in many other ways. And click here to learn more about all the protections that LGBT Americans don’t have.

LGBT-Discrimination

BOTTOM LINE: While the Supreme Court may soon rightly decide that marriage equality is constitutional, the fight for fairness and full equality will not be over this summer. Congress and the States need to act to ensure equal protections for LGBT Americans.


This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.  Like CAP Action on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Obama to Issue Executive Order Against LGBTQ Discrimination

Campaigners say White House move ‘will begin to undo one of the last vestiges of legally sanctioned discrimination’

— by Lauren McCauley, staff writer, Common Dreams
(Photo: Sandburchick/ cc/ Flickr)

In what is being hailed as a major victory for LGBTQ rights, the White House confirmed on Monday that President Obama is going to issue an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with taxpayer funds by all federal contractors will begin to undo one of the last vestiges of legally sanctioned discrimination,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who called the news “historic.”

According to a White House official who spoke to the Huffington Post, the president has “directed his staff to draft an executive order” banning workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors.

However, it was not said when the president was going to sign the order into law.

According to the unnamed official, the executive order will “build upon existing protections, which generally prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The rights group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) said that the forthcoming order is the “culmination of six years of advocacy” on the part of human and civil rights campaigners.

Thus far, efforts to pass legislation barring workplace discrimination have stalled in Congress. Though passing the Senate last November, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)— which would affect all employers nationwide—has not yet come up for vote in the House.

“By issuing an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people, the President will not only create fairer workplaces across the country, he will demonstrate to Congress that adopting federal employment protections for LGBT people is good policy and good for business,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. Griffin added that the White House statement is “promising,” saying that advocates “look forward to seeing the details of the executive order.”

Resources on LGBT Workplace Discrimination:

_____________________

Just Like You? Deaf, Dumb and Can’t Read!

Some time ago, I wrote to Rep. Mark Amodei regarding DOMA and various bills proposed by GOP members of Congress seeking to  restrict the marriage franchise.  I specifically stated that I believe that marriage is a contract of law and as such it should be available to all human beings, male + male, female + female and male+female couples.  I consider marriage a civil right.  I also told him in my letter that if he was of the belief that marriage should be only between ONE man and ONE woman, then he should find the intestinal fortitude to introduce a bill into Congress to remove all discriminatory marriage-related tax incentives and benefits from our US Tax Code.  It is inappropriate for Congress to impose discriminatory tax codes on certain members of our society.  I also stated that if it’s only to be between ONE man and ONE woman, then they should outlaw divorce and not allow widows or widowers to marry as they’d already used up their “ONE.”

A number of bills have been proposed.  HJRes51 proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to enshrine discrimination of against an entire class of U.S. Citizens:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article–

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

Yet another bill, HR2834, proposed which marriages would be eligible for benefits:

Declares that, in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress: (1) “marriage” includes a marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or any other similar legal union between two individuals that is recognized by a state, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe; and (2) “spouse” refers to either member of such a legal union. (Currently, “marriage” is defined only as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, while “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.)

Under the definitions outlined in HR2834, my late husband and I would not have been considered husband and wife, as we were not married in a “State,” the District of Columbia,  a U.S. Territory, or on Tribal grounds.  We were married in the Bahamas. That was another point I raised in my letter to Rep. Amodei.

Well, I finally got my response from Rep. Amodei’s office.  Clearly, he, and the member of his staff (sp) who drafted the response below, are incapable of comprehending that someone in his district would be “FOR” the principle of marriage equality and thought I must have erred in my assertion that marriage should NOT be restricted to just ONE man and ONE woman.  Here’s the copy of his letter (the only modification to this letter is the removal of my address from the letter before posting it here):

Amodei-DOMA

HHS announces first guidance implementing Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memo clarifying that all beneficiaries in private Medicare plans have access to equal coverage when it comes to care in a nursing home where their spouse lives.  This is the first guidance issued by HHS in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling, which held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

“HHS is working swiftly to implement the Supreme Court’s decision and maximize federal recognition of same-sex spouses in HHS programs,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  “Today’s announcement is the first of many steps that we will be taking over the coming months to clarify the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision and to ensure that gay and lesbian married couples are treated equally under the law.”

“Today, Medicare is ensuring that all beneficiaries will have equal access to coverage in a nursing home where their spouse lives, regardless of their sexual orientation,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Marilyn Tavenner.  “Prior to this, a beneficiary in a same-sex marriage enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan did not have equal access to such coverage and, as a result, could have faced time away from his or her spouse or higher costs because of the way that marriage was defined for this purpose.”

Under current law, Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan are entitled to care in, among certain other skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), the SNF where their spouse resides (assuming that they have met the conditions for SNF coverage in the first place, and the SNF has agreed to the payment amounts and other terms that apply to a plan network SNF).  Seniors with Medicare Advantage previously may have faced the choice of receiving coverage in a nursing home away from their same-sex spouse, or dis-enrolling from the Medicare Advantage plan which would have meant paying more out-of-pocket for care in the same nursing home as their same-sex spouse.

Today’s guidance clarifies that this guarantee of coverage applies equally to all married couples.  The guidance specifically clarifies that this guarantee of coverage applies equally to couples who are in a legally recognized same-sex marriage, regardless of where they live.
###

Same-Sex Married Couples Finally Get Some Certainty

Treasury and IRS Announce That All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Federal Tax Purposes; Ruling Provides Certainty, Benefits and Protections Under Federal Tax Law for Same-Sex Married Couples

IR-2013-72, Aug. 29, 2013

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today ruled that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

The ruling implements federal tax aspects of the June 26 Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Under the ruling, same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.

Any same-sex marriage legally entered into in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country will be covered by the ruling. However, the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.

Legally-married same-sex couples generally must file their 2013 federal income tax return using either the married filing jointly or married filing separately filing status.

Individuals who were in same-sex marriages may, but are not required to, file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations.

Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim is three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. As a result, refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Some taxpayers may have special circumstances, such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open, that permit them to file refund claims for tax years 2009 and earlier.

Additionally, employees who purchased same-sex spouse health insurance coverage from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.

How to File a Claim for Refund

Taxpayers who wish to file a refund claim for income taxes should use Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Taxpayers who wish to file a refund claim for gift or estate taxes should file Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement. For information on filing an amended return, see Tax Topic 308, Amended Returns, available on IRS.gov, or the Instructions to Forms 1040X and 843. Information on where to file your amended returns is available in the instructions to the form.

Future Guidance

Treasury and the IRS intend to issue streamlined procedures for employers who wish to file refund claims for payroll taxes paid on previously-taxed health insurance and fringe benefits provided to same-sex spouses. Treasury and IRS also intend to issue further guidance on cafeteria plans and on how qualified retirement plans and other tax-favored arrangements should treat same-sex spouses for periods before the effective date of this Revenue Ruling.

Other agencies may provide guidance on other federal programs that they administer that are affected by the Code.

Revenue Ruling 2013-17, along with updated Frequently Asked Questions for same-sex couples and updated FAQs for registered domestic partners and individuals in civil unions, are available today on IRS.gov. See also Publication 555, Community Property.

Treasury and the IRS will begin applying the terms of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 on Sept. 16, 2013, but taxpayers who wish to rely on the terms of the Revenue Ruling for earlier periods may choose to do so, as long as the statute of limitations for the earlier period has not expired.

Related articles

Congressional Republi-Nazis Propose Marriage Unequality

RepubliNaziCurrently, there are twenty-nine Republi-Nazis in the US House who have proposed that only certain individuals, one man and one woman, are worthy of the pursuit of happiness using a contract of marriage:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article–

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

  • Rep Tim Huelskamp [R-KS]
  • Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6]
  • Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1]
  • Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5]
  • Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10]
  • Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3]
  • Rep Fleming, John [LA-4]
  • Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8]
  • Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1]
  • Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4]
  • Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1]
  • Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14]
  • Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3]
  • Rep Jones Jr., Walter B. [NC-3]
  • Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4]
  • Rep Lankford, James [OK-5]
  • Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11]
  • Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19]
  • Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4]
  • Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2]
  • Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9]
  • Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]
  • Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-6]
  • Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9]
  • Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4]
  • Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36]
  • Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7]
  • Rep Westmoreland, Lynn  [GA-3]
  • Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10]

Now, you may think I’m being a bit harsh by calling these 29, angry white men, “Republi-Nazis,” but their variant of the original Nazism is real and totally in opposition to the principles our founding fathers espoused.  Nazism is an ideology that claimed the “Aryan Master Race” was superior to all other races.  The Republi-Nazis believe that we do not live in a Democracy, but instead live in some fantasy Theocracy—that our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created our constitution based on the “Christian” bible  (whatever that is, because their interpretations of what they call the “bible” tend to differ vastly from mine).  Further, they believe that only heterosexual men and women are the chosen few who deserve a “pursuit of happiness” and who deserve abundant tax breaks at the expense of all others with which to pursue their every whim.  They believe that all “Christian(?)” heterosexual members of our society should cooperate for national unity against the heinous hoards who would be the demise of our society.  Somehow, I do not believe Jesus would make or endorse  such an argument.  And frankly, since GOD created all of mankind, not just the heterosexual members of mankind, I do not believe GOD would be making or endorsing that argument either.  And please note, that I’m not even scratching the surface yet—and that I’m not going to stray into the area of their feelings of superiority over women and their needs to regulate the uses of various women’s body parts in this piece.

It is time to take a stand and call this errant behavior what it is.  Whether you call it a variation of Nazism or Fascism, it’s NOT Americanism and it needs to stop!  Take the time to write your Congressmen and let them know what you think and where you stand on this issue.  If you’re in Nevada, you can go to the LINKS page (above in the header) to find links to email or to tweet your opposition to Nevada’s members of Congress.  You can also find this bill on POPVOX where you can OPPOSE and send an email to your designated members of Congress (based on your address).

Here’s a copy of my email to Rep. Mark Amodei using POPVOX:

I oppose H.J.Res. 51 which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that marriage can be only between one man and one woman. Really, one man can only be married to one woman? If marriage is between only one man and one woman, does that outlaw divorce?

We don’t live in a “theocracy” as too many of the currently elected members of the REPUBLIBAN believe. It is NEVER acceptable to treat some members of our society in a preferential manner, while essentially levying a penalty tax on others. If you believe “marriage” is only a religious thing for the preferential few, then why does a state have to issue a license? Why does the couple have to go to court to obtain a dissolutionment of that marriage? Because, it’s NOT just a religious thing.

— It’s a LEGAL thing. That’s why they call it a CONTRACT of marriage.

— It’s a TAX thing. Married people benefit from TAX DEDUCTIONS.

It is NOT appropriate for members of our U.S. government to act like Hitler’s Nazis, branding certain individuals as acceptable and therefore, endowed with certain rights, and declare others as unacceptable and not entitled to the same pursuits as the chosen few.

NV Assembly brings Nevada one step closer to marriage

equality.fwToday, the Nevada State Assembly approved SJR13, continuing the multi-year process of placing on the 2016 ballot a question to repeal Nevada’s current ban on same-sex marriage and replace it with a law granting marriage equality to all Nevadans. The same bill passed the state senate last month and now must be passed in the next legislative session in 2015 to continue the process.

Through phone calls, letters, and lobbying, you made sure your state assemblyperson knew that Nevadans stand on the side of fairness and equality.

This incredible victory is a testament to the leadership of Assemblyman James Healey and Assemblyman Elliot Anderson.

Now it’s time to say thanks.

These leaders have shown what equality really means – they shared their stories, opened up their lives, and lived the values of true leadership – all to ensure that SJR13 passed.

HRC is proud to work with our legislative allies and progressive organizations on the ground in Nevada. The journey is not over. We’ll need your help to reelect those legislators who stood up for fairness and equality and to win again in the next legislative session.
Sincerely,


Marty Rouse
Human Rights Campaign, National Field Director

P.S. There was more good news out of Carson City today when Governor Sandoval signed a law that adds gender identity and expression to Nevada’s hate crimes law.

Texas Judge Forbids Lesbian Woman From Living With Her Partner

In a post at Think Progress last Friday, we once again learn that the REPUBLIBAN’s culture war against the LGBT community is still raging —

By Ian Millhiser on May 17, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.

And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.

Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriouslyconservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court.


This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.