Wondering on Wednesday 3/9/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

It's been a while since we've wondered together on a Wednesday; ready to give it a whirl?

Let's start with something silly - laughter is the best medicine, right? It seems that former Trump immigration guru Stephen Miller has had his phone records subpoenaed by the January 6th Committee. Miller has sued to block their release; among other things, he says private family conversations would be exposed. Now, if someone subpoenaed my phone records, they'd find that I cover my elderly mom and my husband on my family plan. But here's the thing with Miller - he's covered under his parents' plan. I guess that's better than it would be if, you know, he still lived in their basement. But here's what I'm wondering: does he even appreciate the irony of this? The king of family separation has his phone bill covered by Mom & Dad? 

You may have heard about discussions on how friendly European countries could get their Russian-made fighter jets into Ukrainian hands. There was some talk that the US would try and 'backfill' American-made jets to our allies who gave their jets to Ukraine. All of this is fraught with risk, including the risk of an all-out war across Europe. So, it was kind of surprising to learn today that Poland had offered to deliver MiG fighter jets to the US base in Ramstein, Germany, for deployment to Ukraine. Surprising, that is, because it's been reported that the Poles hadn't discussed this with us first. And I'm wondering, how on earth could that be true?

This one's from the "I wonder, will these people ever learn?" file: Wisconsin's Sen. Ron Johnson wants to obstruct the president's agenda until the Rs take control in the midterms, and then when they take back the White House in 2024,  he wants to see the GOP repeal the Affordable Care Act.  You know, the same thing they tried to stop from getting passed in the first place, threatened repeatedly to repeal and replace, and failed, repeatedly - even when they had the majority the Senate, the House, and the Oval Office? I also wonder, how many people wish that Johnson had kept his promise not to run again? 

Turning to wonder-full things in my neck of the woods, my state senator Rachel May somehow managed to have her picture taken with climate activists holding a banner that pretty much everyone thinks is highly offensive - see for yourself. 

She's apologized for the "unacceptable" image, and said she had her picture taking with lots of people and didn't see the what the banner said.

So, what's the wondering on this one? These people have staff - they have aides, and assistants, and interns, and who knows how many hangers-on who follow them throughout the day. Is there not a single person on her team who could have pulled her away from this? Do any of your elected officials get caught up in stuff like this? I can't imagine it's just a New York thing...

And finally, tonight, we turn to my county's District Attorney for life William Fitzpatrick. Fitz is in the middle of a high-profile murder trial - the second one for the defendant, a local physician who's accused of murdering his wife. The doc was found guilty in the first trial, but the verdict was tossed due to juror misconduct; a juror had received numerous texts from her father about the trial, during the trial. Keep that in mind... and follow along with today's events. 

Fitz is a big Syracuse University basketball fan; the team was playing in the ACC tournament today, with a noon start. Fitz talks with the judge and the doc's defense team just before 11:30AM, which leads the judge to pose a question to the jury: do you want to continue testimony, or watch the basketball game? The jurors decided to continue with the trial - so I'm not wondering about them. I am wondering about Fitz, though - he actually thought it was appropriate to ask the jury if they wanted to watch a basketball game in the middle of the day's testimony? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday 10/14/20

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to start with this week's wondering? Well, there's the Amy Coney Barrett hearings in the Senate, where (at least yesterday, anyway) many of the questions were silly (what's on your notepad, young lady? And whatever it was that Sen. Mazie Hirono was talking about, for example). Today, many of the questions from both sides were about the Affordable Care Act, which several Republican state Attorneys General sued to toss out. One of those states? Indiana, Barrett's home state. 

I mention that, because according to a few reports, she said she didn't know that Trump ran on, and continues to run on, getting rid of the ACA. I wonder how anyone in a state that's part of the suit to kill it can pretend to be unaware of his position, certainly not someone who was just appointed to the bench in 2017 - during, of course, the Trump administration... How stupid do they think we are, I wonder?

If you're of a certain age, you probably remember the threat of things being put on your permanent record...And today, with a particularly insane tweet from the president mocking the elderly, the infirm, residents of senior housing, nursing homes, rehab centers, and, of course, Joe Biden, I thought of the old 'permanent record' thing. And I wonder what it will be like for folks in the future to read through our history, from Bush to Obama to Trump, and wonder what the hell happened to our country? And I wondered how weird it would be to look at that permanent record, at some point in the future, and find out what happened to the person who added all this crap to it.  

 

I also have to wonder, only for about three seconds or so, why the powers that be on the peacock network decided to host a town hall meeting with IMPOTUS at the same time Joe Biden is doing a town hall on another network. Three, two, one, money. Simple, right?  I mean, it's not because they feel a compelling desire to have Americans hear from Trump, the man who never shuts up. It's not that they are at all interested in having people hear from Joe Biden, because they don't care about that, either. On the plus side?  Nah, there is no plus side. 

My Sweet Baboo and I went for our third and likely final fall foliage road trip of 2020 today, and there came a time when finding 'facilities' and food was more important than looking at pretty stuff. We stopped at a diner we've driven by without stopping at least a couple dozen times over the years. I don't have to wonder anymore about the food - it was delish. The facilities? Clean, well appointed and not in use when we arrived - a huge plus.  

Two gentlemen and  'face coverings required for entry' signs attracted my attention.  Gentleman A came in with who appeared to be his wife and two kids, fully and appropriately masked. However, his mask was tucked firmly against the underside of his nostrils. Gentleman B, one of two who arrived together on separate motorcycles, apparently didn't have a mask or doesn't wear one, but he tried to rise to the occasion today by holding his t-shirt in his teeth and tucking his nose down so it pointed into his shirt. 

And I wonder, first of all, why they thought what they were doing was appropriate and in keeping with the requirement? And secondly, why did the waitress allow them to come in when clearly the potentially dangerous parts of their faces were uncovered? And finally, specifically regarding Gentleman B, how on earth did I keep from busting out laughing? 

I wonder about other stuff too, like what a crushing blow it must have been to the president when Snitty Snitty Bill Barr's DOJ investigation into the 'unmasking' of Michael Flynn ended with no substantive findings and no charges - in effect, a highly awaited "October Surprise" that wasn't. Trump has repeatedly said that Barr is either "going down as the greatest AG in the history of our country, or he'll go down as just a regular guy." I doubt the latter will happen, after his shenanigans and statements and obfuscations and all that, but Trump can dream, I guess. I mean, clearly he does that, right? No need to wonder about that at all.

And finally, we learned today that Barron Trump also had tested positive for the coronavirus, but has since tested negative. I'm happy about that, I really am. I'd wondered about his health during the time that both his parents were infected with COVID. I'd also wondered about Melania's health as well, since we were not hearing about that. Today we learned that she has now tested negative for the virus, and I'm happy about that, too.  

When the president was asked about Barron, after Melania's note was published on the White House website, his answer? "Barron's fine. And Amy's doing a fantastic job, and we're heading out to Iowa, and we have a big rally, a lot of people, as always, but we have a lot of people and we look forward to it. Again, Amy I think is doing an incredible job." I can't help wondering what it feels like to be the person the question was actually about.

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School 9/27/20

There were lots of folks making the rounds today, including the House Speaker, a bunch of senators, a comedian, the Secretary of Labor who's also the son of a late SCOTUS justice, and more. 

I decided to check in with the folks at Fox News Sunday, who missed out on all the fun last week because of a very late transcript posting. 

Chris Wallace was off preparing for Tuesday's debate, so Brit Hume sat in to lead the conversations. Among his guests were former appellate judge and Clinton independent counsel Ken Starr and Harvard emeritus professor Laurence Tribe, both of whom are considered experts on constitutional law. Hume wanted to talk Roe v. Wade with the experts.

Tribe went first and said the nomination should have waited until we had the results of the election, and that "we've never, never jumped the gun this quickly" and that people are already voting. And he compared that to the 400 days with an open seat after the nomination of Merrick Garland. 

The idea that we need to rush ahead with a lifetime appointment, that as Judge Barrett herself would readily acknowledge will make a huge difference in the tilt of the court on health care, on women's reproductive rights, on voting rights, the idea that we can't wait a few days is ludicrous. There's no reason for it.

And, although he said he thinks quite well of Amy Coney Barrett, "the issue is not the nominee, it's the nomination." The Rs aren't willing to wait, Tribe said, because "they really are nervous about what the American people believe the Constitution means and what they believe should be represented on the Supreme Court." 

When Hume asked, Tribe admitted it wasn't unconstitutional to move forward, "but a lot of things that are constitutional are stupid. This is not a good idea."

What is it that they're afraid of? That the American people don't want to re-elect this president? If they think he'll be re-elected, and that they will have a Republican Senate, then they can confirm Amy Coney Barrett then. But the idea that it has to happen now, one of the reasons the president has given is, he wants to have a majority on the court to uphold his decision not to count all the ballots. He's said, if we don't count the ballots, if we toss some of them aside, we won't have to worry about a transition, it will just be a continuation of my presidency. That's not the way democracy works. That's the way dictatorship works.

Hume turned to Starr, who confessed his respect and affection for Tribe, but said he views the nomination as the president doing his duty. 

There is a vacancy and it's tragic that we lost Justice Ginsburg, but, exactly, you ask the right question, what does the Constitution say? I don't think that the president, whoever the president is, should dillydally. And, in fact, Justice Sotomayor said in 2016, we really don't do well -- I'm paraphrasing, with eight members of the court. And Justice Ruth Ginsburg herself said at that same time.

He said that "the president doesn't stop being the president during an election year." (unless his name is Barack Obama, it would seem), and

...now, of course, it is up to the Senate to determine, are these considerations that Professor Tribe is articulating, are those weighty enough to say we're not going to go forward or we're going to wait until after the election and so forth.

He also said that Coney Barrett was a "superb nominee" and that no one questions "her abilities, her integrity, her temperament and the like" so the issues Tribe and others are raising should be addressed in the confirmation hearing. And, in response to Hume's question about the issues Tribe raised - abortion among others - where he said it was clear how Coney Barrett would vote, Starr said that thinking was "absolutely premature and wrong," and to predict what a judge would do is "folly." About Coney Barrett, he said

Does she have a judicial philosophy? Absolutely. She has said she is of the school of Antonin Scalia. And so that's a great insight. And that is a -- what I would call a traditionalist who treats the Constitution not as simply an aspirational document, but as law. And so I would say, hold off, let's hear the confirmation hearings and see if she says, as I think she will, I solemnly promise that I will go about my duties with an open mind, I will listen to all the arguments and I will assess them with great, great respect for both sides as well as the views of my colleagues.

Tribe responded that he's read her writings, many of her opinions, and "it's clear how she approaches the law." 

It's a perfectly respectable view. It was the view Justice Scalia held. And, of course, he said he thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. She's written that Roe v. Wade is not entitled to determinative weight as a precedent. She has also been explicit in saying she thought that Chief Justice Roberts was wrong in stretching what he understood the Affordable Care Act meant in order to uphold it. She's been admirably candid about her views --

And what did he think, from a constitutional lawyer's perspective, about how Chief Justice John Roberts ruled on the ACA? 

I made clear at the time that I thought that's what he would rule and that that's what he ought to rule in order to avoid a constitutional conflict. That is, interpret the law as a tax in order to use the broad taxing power in order to uphold it. And I think the lower court, which said that when the tax goes away, it's no longer possible to uphold the law and even the protection for people with pre-existing conditions goes away. I think, and most scholars think, that that went way too far.

Now, I'm not going to predict exactly what Judge Barrett will do on that, but what is clear is she is being rushed through in a confirmation process that will be faster than any in recent memory because they want to have six conservatives on the court - that will determine whether he is remaining president.

And, the last word is from Judge Starr.

Predictions are fallacious. Let's have a confirmation hearing. The history of confirmation shows that the Senate can move forward very, very quickly, especially when you have someone with a very good and solid record and a person of such great ability. So let's move the process forward and have a good, robust debate, which I think will be good for the country.

I'm sure the confirmation hearing will be robust, and there'll be a debate on any number of things, but good for the country? Not so sure about that, if recent history of hearings is any indication. I'm not sure how much we benefit from a bunch of partisans scowling and barking at each other, but we'll see. 

Wear your mask, please, and continue practicing good social distancing habits. It might not be mentioned in the Constitution, but it's the smart thing to do.

See you around the virtual campus.

Sunday School 9/20/20 Extra Credit

We'll wander around the halls for a couple more classroom visits for you Extra Credit this week, starting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who popped in the This Week classroom with George Stephanopoulos.

First, here's how the Speaker remembers Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "petite, tiny in size, huge in impact, and powerful, brilliant brain on the court." And, she moved quickly to what's at stake.

...she would want us to keep our eye on the ball of the 200,000 people who will be, probably this weekend, will reach -- sadly reach that number. This challenge that we have is directly -- if the president thinks this isn't about the coronavirus, it is. It's about health care. So the president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because he -- November 10th is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act. He doesn't want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.

She said that "any one of us who knew her, who loved her, who respected her" mourn her loss but understand the need to move forward to protect people who are sick, and who have pre-existing conditions.

George asked how Dems can slow or block the nomination. Pelosi focused on voting, noting that 10 states have already started early voting

We just want everyone across the country who cares about health care for all Americans, who cares about crushing the coronavirus, who cares about a woman's right to choose, who cares about LGBTQ rights -- the list goes on and on -- to vote. The election is very important.

Pelosi also pointed out that Congress does have the ability to make good law from bad SCOTUS decisions, and referenced RBG's dissent in the Lilly Ledbetter case which became the first law that Barack Obama signed as president, and that's another reason why people need to vote, "why we have to have a big turnout" in the election. 

She also said she was not interested in shutting down the government, which would have "such a harmful and painful impact on so many people in our country," even as she noted "some enthusiasm, some exuberance on the left" - but that's not going to happen.  

George asked if Trump and the GOP Senators try a lame-duck session nomination, even if Biden wins, should the Dems impeach Trump or Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, "as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting' on Trump's pick?"

Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made. So right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be, would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus... 

So again, when people say, "what can I do?" You can vote. You can get out that vote, and you can do so as soon as possible. Ten states, as I said, on Friday, started their early voting, the day that we lost Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

George then said, "but to be clear, you're not taking any arrows out of your quiver, you're not ruling anything out?" 

Yeah. We have a responsibility. We've taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. That is when we weigh the equities of protecting democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver. 

I don't know about you, but by this point in the interview, I was quivering myself at the thought of all those arrows flying around, I really was. Quivering, and quaking, and probably some other 'q' words... 

Not ready to quit trying to quapture stuff from the quiver, George asked about "expanding the court in retaliation," which has been mentioned as a possible reaction by other Dems. 

Well, let's just win the election. Let's hope that the president will see the light...So people have something at stake in this decision, and how quickly the president wants to go. I don't think they care about who said what, when, and all the rest of that, but they do care about their own health and well-being and the financial health and well-being of their families if they are subjected to unlimited costs because of preexisting conditions, as well as eliminating the caps that have been placed by the Affordable Care Act on what insurance companies can charge.

...We have a great deal at stake here. I think we should be very calm. We should be inspired by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was brilliant, and she was strategic, and she was successful. And she did more for equality for women in our country than anyone that you can name, and women appreciate that, and I think that you will see women weighing in on all of these decisions, be the elections, confirmations or the rest.

Sunday School 7/19/20: The Final Chapter

Yes, it does take three volumes to cover a Donald Trump/Chris Wallace interview.  Parts one and two are in the books; here's the last of it.

After Wallace pointed out that in the latest Fox News poll, Joe Biden beats Trump even on the competency question, there was some back and forth on that test that Trump aced, shocking all of the doctors, no one had ever done so well on it, and, oh by the way, Trump said there was no way Wallace could pass it. And then,

If Joe Biden got in, first of all, he won't call the shots. The people - the radical left people that surround him will call. Religion will be gone, OK? Life, you could forget about that, the whole question of life. Supreme Court - (Wallace confirmed he was talking about abortion) Absolutely. A hundred percent. That whole question, which is a very - you know, it's always been a 50-50 thing... it's actually trending a little bit more towards one side now. 

On religion:

Well, look at what they're doing to the churches. They won't let the churches even open if they want to stand in a field six feet apart. We've had churches that wanted to stand in fields six feet apart. There has never been an administration that's done so much as I have. From tax cuts, to regulation cuts, to rebuilding the military, to getting choice for the vets. Nobody's done the things I've done. Nobody. In three and a half years, no other president's been able to do what I've done.

On the pace of reopening and whether the economy will be an issue in November:

I don't think so. I think the economy is expanding and growing beautifully. Now, the Democrats want to keep it closed as long as possible because they think that's good for election. But I think the economy is doing very well. Now we're coming back and we're coming back at a level that nobody would have thought possible. And we are -- and, by the way, take a look at another -- I mean, a gauge, whether you like it or not, the stock market. The stock market, Nasdaq hit its all-time high two weeks ago and has beaten it 14 different times, OK. The stock market, Dow, et cetera, is a thousand points away from its all-time high, meaning very close. We're going to have a stock market perhaps on November 3rd that's the highest in history.

On having no plan to replace Obamacare:

Well, we haven't had -- excuse me, you heard me yesterday, we're signing a health care plan within two weeks. A full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do. So we're going to solve -- we're going to sign an immigration plan, a health care plan, and various other plans. And nobody will have done what I'm doing in the next four weeks. The Supreme Court gave the president of the United States powers that nobody thought the president had by approving -- by doing what they did, their decision on DACA. And DACA's going to be taken care of also. But we're getting rid of it because we're going to replace it with something much better. But what we got rid of already, which was most of Obamacare, the individual mandate. And that I've already won on. And we won also on the Supreme Court. But the decision by the Supreme Court on DACA allows me to do things on immigration, on health care, on other things that we've never done before. And you're going to find it to be a very exciting two weeks.

On how it would be if he lost in November:

And you know why I won't lose, because the country, in the end, they're not going to have a man who has - who's shot. He's shot. He's mentally shot. Let him come out of his basement, go around, I'll make four or five speeches a day, I'll be interviewed by you, I'll be interviewed by the worst killers that hate my - my guts. They hate my guts. There's nothing they can ask me that I won't give them a proper answer to. Some people will like it. Some people won't like it... But, look, let - Let Biden sit through an interview like this. He'll be underground crying for mommy. He'll say mommy, mommy, please take me home. 

He can't do an interview. He's incompetent. There's a number you don't mention. It's called the enthusiasm number. The enthusiasm for Trump is through the roof, even higher - even higher than last time. The enthusiasm for Biden is non- existent. Everyone knows he's shot. (Wallace notes enthusiasm against Trump is high) Well, that's OK. That's his only shot. And that's his only shot. I agree. And those people know I'm doing a good job. But it's something in my personality that they don't like because, look, nobody's done what I've done. Biden wants to come in and ruin our country, triple your taxes. He wants to do things - he wants to add regulations that I've all cut. And we still have regulation, a lot of regulation, but I've cut it down to a level that nobody's - nobody ever thought possible.

He will destroy this country. But it won't be him. It will be the radical left. The same type ideology that took over Venezuela, one of the richest countries in the world. They now have no water, they have no food, and they have no medicine.  That's going to happen here if he wins.

On how he will regard his years as president, whether it ends in 2021 or 2025: 

I think I was very unfairly treated. From before I even won, I was under investigation by a bunch of thieves, crooks. It was an illegal investigation. Russia, Russia, Russia. (Wallace asks about the good parts) No, no. I want to go this. I have done more than any president in history in the first three and a half years, and I've done it suffering through investigations where people have been -- General Flynn, where people have been so unfairly treated. The Russia hoax, it was all a hoax. The Mueller scam, it was all a scam. It was all false. I made a bad decision on - one bad decision. Jeff Sessions. And now I feel good because he lost overwhelmingly in the great state of Alabama. Here's the bottom line, I've been very unfairly treated. And I don't say that as paranoid. I've been very - everybody says it. It's going to be interesting to see what happens. But there's tremendous evidence right now as to how unfairly treated I was.

President Obama and Biden spied on my campaign. It's never happened in history. If it were the other way around, the people would be in jail for 50 years right now. That would be Comey, that would be Brennan, that would be all of this - the two lovers, Strzok and Page, they would be in jail now for many, many years. They would be in jail. It would have started two years ago and they'd be there for 50 years. The fact is, they illegally spied on my campaign. Let's see what happens. Despite that, I did more than any president in history in the first three and a half years. 

I hope you got all of that, from this part and the first two. Remember, there WILL be a quiz on all of this. I don't normally do that, but this is hardly a normal interview.

Stay safe, and I'll see you around the virtual campus.

Sidebar: Poll Watch: The Not-So-Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Yesterday's Poll Watch looked at how registered voters responded to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, focusing on their perceptions of the president and some of those who want to be president.   Today, I wanted to share some of the opinions these voters have on the issues that are currently bubbling to the top, with the caveat that the survey was done before all the news about impeachment took over the media cycles.

A majority of all voters favor DREAMers being allowed to stay legally; an opt-in to Medicare; student loan debt forgiveness after a history of payments; tuition-free public colleges and universities; 100% renewable energy use by 2030; and, somewhat ironically, oil drilling off the US coast.

Smaller percentages of us favor ending fracking, building a wall on the border, getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, implementing Medicare for All (M4A) and getting rid of private insurance, and giving illegal immigrants government health care - which has the lowest level of both overall and strong support.

None of the issues reaches even 45% strong support.

Things look a little different if you look at the opinions of Democratic voters in the survey. Again, there's majority support for DREAMers, for the Medicare opt-in, for repayment and then forgiveness of student loans, tuition-free college, and renewable energy, but then things change.

Health care for illegal immigrants, Medicare for All (M4A), immediate forgiveness of student loans, and ending fracking also have majority support from Dems. 

Only a handful of the issues - DREAMers, the Medicare opt-in, student loan forgiveness tied to a repayment plan, and tuition-free college - have strong support from a majority of Dems; all the rest of the issues fall below 50% on the strength of support.

The key takeaway from this data? Moderate positions have greater overall support among all voters, and among Democratic voters, than do the more 'progressive' positions.

So if you're a fan of the more moderate Dems, including Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar, this may be good news. On the other hand, if you're a fan of the 'burn the house down' theories promoted by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (to a slightly lesser degree), this might not be good news for you.

I know there's a school of thought out there that everyone will be more extreme during the primaries and then they'll move to the center for the general election, but we saw how that worked in 2016, particularly for the Dems. As I recall, among the reasons why people didn't like Hillary Clinton is because they didn't trust her to keep her word, and they couldn't tell where she stood on the issues because it seemed she changed her positions so frequently.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a candidate that has convictions and the courage of them, one I can count on to say the same thing to me in October 2019 as they'll say to me in October 2020.

Dear Democrats (v1)

Hi Dems, how's everyone doing?

Listen, just wanted to let you know that, even though I dropped my registration from the party I'm still paying attention. Of course, I'm in New York, my de-Democrating won't officially take place until next year after the presidential election, so we are stuck with each other, at least on paper.

Yeah, I'm still paying attention, even though many people aren't. I mean, I watched both of the televised talk shows this week - debates, I think you called them?  I not only watched, but I live-commented them for people, so I'm more than doing my part, I think.

And I need you to do your part, too. So, let's talk about health insurance, shall we?

Most of the candidates indicated in the debates that they supported Medicare for All. Well, guess what? That's a non-starter for me and for lots of other people - not just Democrats, but also disaffected Trump voters. Do you really want to throw those votes away?

I mean, think about it:

• You fought tooth and nail to get the Affordable Care Act passed, and now, a mere 10 years later, you're willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, instead of fixing the parts that need fixing? And can any of you articulate what those parts are, or haven't you looked?
• Employer sponsored insurance is some of the best insurance around, and good companies are happy to be able to provide it as a way to attract good talent in an increasingly competitive employment market. 
• Union-sponsored insurance, purchased from and administered by private insurance companies, has long been a selling point for the unions that you all take money from, and helps support those union jobs you all think everyone needs to have. How attractive do you think unions will be when you strip away their biggest benefit?
• Do you realize how low Medicare reimbursement rates are? If doctors were required to rely solely on those payments, many would not be able to stay in practice. So, either those rates have to go up significantly, or we'll see hospitals and clinics and medical practices start to close, or we'll see them demand ever-larger shares of state and local taxpayer dollars in order to maintain financial viability. I say ever larger shares, because many of the country's hospital systems already receive a significant amount of taxpayer support. Oh - and insurance company support, don't forget - you know, fees like the ones paid here in NY that add 10% or so to the cost of claim payments on the insurer's side alone. And since our middle-class tax dollars are not unlimited, and will already be going up to pay for Medicare for All, will you be taxing the rich to get the financial support to keep these services running? 
• Private insurers are leaders in community health initiatives, charitable giving, and supporting innovators - they are cornerstones of their communities. When you relegate them to performing breast implants and Botox injections, the negative consequences will ripple throughout our communities, large and small. What's your plan for that? Taxing the rich again?
• What will happen to the 500,000 people in the industry? How are you going to make up those salaries, or find everyone jobs paying comparable salaries and offering comparable benefits? What's the plan for that? I know, raising taxes again, or giving everyone a monthly stipend or something. 
• How many more people will have to be added to the federal government payroll to support the administration of Medicare for All? How much will those low Medicare admin costs increase to accommodate all of the additional employees, increased tech costs, higher reimbursement rates, and so on? And who will be picking up that cost, middle class tax payers, or the 1%?
• One of the complaints about the ACA was that it did nothing to address the doctor shortage, particularly in the areas of primary care, geographic access (particularly in rural areas), and mental health. This is an ongoing issue with Medicare today. How does Medicare for All address that, or address other known issues with Medicare programs? Are you just going to throw people from one insurance plan to another and not address the issues first?
• In 2018, according to the Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, about one in three Medicare beneficiaries was enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, and enrollment in these plans, many of which offer richer benefits at a lower cost that original Medicare, has doubled in the past 10 years. These plans are administered by private insurers, which means you're going to throw those away too, even though they may be more cost effective? So, not only are you taking private insurance away, but you're also taking Medicare away?  Good luck with that!
• And help me understand this part. Pension and retirement funds are heavily invested in insurance company stock. What happens to all of that? How are those investments, which (again) benefit the middle class, going to be protected? What's the plan for that aspect of eliminating private insurance?

One more thing. Most of the candidates at the debates said they would provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants under their plans. Are you nuts?

Are you that out of touch with what people really think?  And have you forgotten that we've spent 10 years fighting Republican lies about undocumented immigrants being eligible for insurance under the ACA? 

That's a lie that will not die -- and now you're going to make it a truth?  Do not conflate health insurance and immigration. I promise you, that's something that we all will regret.

Please, do not spend this long primary season trying to out-left each other to get the nomination and then spend the general election season tacking right to try and pick up us middle-of-the-roaders.

It won't work. No one will believe you that you didn't mean what you said during the primary, nor will they trust anything you say if you change your stripes for the general. 

Don't blow this. 

Don't. Blow. This. 

TGIF 3/29/19

Yay! Friday!

We don't have a Mueller Report yet, but we have a promise that we'll have it by mid-April, which is good progress and shows a commitment from AG Bill Barr to do the right thing. And that's what he said he'd do during his confirmation hearing.

The best part? He's not going to give Trump or his lawyers a chance to privilege the executive out of the report. That, too, is a good sign that Barr is doing as best he can to make as much of the report available as possible.

And while I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi's take that his summary memo was "condescending" either in tone or approach, I wholeheartedly agree with reports that she suggested her members all "take a deep breath" when news broke last week that Mueller had completed his investigation.

Taking everything into consideration, I think Barr had a good week.

How did some other folks do?

Wondering on Wednesday (v164)

The weeks, they go by so fast, don't they?

Just last Wednesday, we were reviewing the president's SOTU (something I never really finished doing, I realize - so I'll get to that soon, I promise), and worrying about the potential for another shutdown, and a bunch of women in white and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's random standing around.

And here we are a week later worrying about the potential for another shutdown, we've got more Dem women running for president, and well, the Speaker is  - well, the Speaker is the current Queen of the Meme for her clapback of the president.

On the possibility we'll have another #Trumpshutdown, which his team has said remains on the table, we know that a bipartisan agreement was reached the other day, and we hear that the president is "not happy" with the compromise that was reached, but is expected to sign it if it gets to his desk. He's suggesting that there'll be some $23B for border security when all is said and done, some part of it to be found by juggling money from department budgets that may keep him from having to declare a national emergency to get at funds.

He's also proclaimed that no president has ever worked harder and I have to wonder, where's the data for that? Bueller? Anyone?

Killing the Affordable Care Act

A federal judge in Texas ruled yesterday that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, since the Republicans removed the penalty associated with the 'individual mandate' requiring people to have insurance. Since the penalty is now $0, that means the 'tax' for not having insurance is no longer in effect, and that 'right to tax' was the lynchpin that held the whole thing together in previous court cases.

Clearly, this will go back to the Supreme Court for decision, and for now, nothing will happen to people who are now on the last day to sign up for ACA policies on healthcare.gov.  Nothing, that is, except for mass confusion (will there be a policy for me?) and fear (will I lose my coverage?).  It will be interesting to see what the Justice Department does when it goes to the Supremes, since

The Justice Department's response to the case was highly unusual: thought it disagreed with the plaintiffs that the entire law should be struck down, it declined this year to defend not just the individual mandate, but the law's provisions that protect people with pre-existing conditions. 

The thing that's so important about pre-existing conditions, of course, is that over 100 million Americans have one or more of the darn things, and also that, most of the time, it seems that's the only provision anyone in Congress knows is in the ACA. Seriously:

• when was the last time you heard a elected official talking about annual and lifetime benefit maximums, which can bankrupt their constituents?  
• when was the last time you heard them talking about maintaining coverage for kids 26 years old on their parents' policy?
• or, when was the last time they talked to you about fully-covered preventative care, free of deductibles and coinsurance?
• or may favorite one, the part of the ACA that requires insurance carriers to spend a specific percentage of the premiums they collect on paying benefits, otherwise they have to refund the money to their subscribers? 

See, while those dreaded Republican death panels we heard so much about are NOT in the ACA, the items above, and many others, above ARE in the ACA. Think about that, especially that last one, and think about all of your free-market proponents in Congress and statehouses across the country, and all of their large, for-profit donors, and think about what's not going to make it into a Republican replacement plan.

And while you're at it, think about 'Medicare for all' - that wacky, socialist universal health care, widely derided by Republicans - and remember that, as a candidate, Donald Trump proposed free healthcare for Americans.

What, you didn't remember that?  Back when his cabal was issuing position papers, the two provisions below were among the ones that were included in his plan for fixing healthcare:

• allowing tax free contributions to a health savings account (HSA); the HSA would become part of the person's estate with no 'death tax' and could be used by anyone in the family, without penalty, and
• allowing people to fully deduct health insurance premiums from their tax returns

As I noted when I looked at his position back in 2016,

Translated: government-sponsored health care. Free health care. Say it either way, doesn't much matter. I mean, say your income tax responsibility is $5,000, and say you pay $6,000 in health insurance premiums. That means that the $5,000 Uncle Sam is counting on getting from you is now $1,000 that Uncle Sam owes you. Which means that someone else is going to be picking up the costs, right? And if someone else is paying for your insurance, it kind of makes your health insurance free, doesn't it?

Now, we know that the Republicans wasted millions of dollars on attempts to repeal the ACA, and they had the fiasco of failure the first time they attempted to get a replacement plan on the table , and they came close to passing a repeal until that "one guy, in the middle of the night, went like this and killed the whole thing," as the president likes to say.  And that was when they had the majority in both the House and the Senate.

I've said many times that the ACA was not perfect, but that repeal and replace was not the answer, anymore than it would have been the answer to completely throw away the entire tax code in order to pass last year's tax cut bill, or throwing away the entire defense budget and starting over (well, maybe that one would...).

In any event, we will have to see whether incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi will prioritize fixing the ACA, or if she's going to go after other legislative priorities. Of course, that sort of assumes she'll have time for legislative priorities, given the full slate of investigations into Trump that we've been told to expect.  And, we'll have to see what the Trump Justice Department decides is worth fighting for.

Fun times, folks. We've got fun times ahead.

OrangeVerse XXVII: Mar-a-Lago Musings (pt 3)

When we last left the president musing away with NY Times reporter Michael Schmidt, he had was just getting warmed up talking about Obamacare. You can read part 1 and part 2 if you want to get up to speed before diving in to this last part. Let's pick the verse up again.

Good News!

Now here's the good news.

We've created associations,

millions of people are 

joining associations.

Millions.

That were formerly

in Obamacare or 

didn't have insurance.

That's gonna be a big bill, 

you watch. 

It could be as

high as

50 percent

of the people.

Then they talked about him working with Democrats in Congress.

Sailing the Bipartisanship

But the Democrats

should come to a

bipartisan bill.

And we can fix it.

We can fix it...

We can make a 

great health care plan

through bipartisanship. 

We can do a

great infrastructure plan

through bipartisanship.

And we can do on

immigration, and

DACA in particular,

we can do something

that's terrific

through bipartisanship.

Schmidt wondered if Trump was moving towards the center, something he hadn't done before. And immigration - there's always room for immigration.

Centered, Schmentered

No. I'm not being centered. 

I'm just being practical.

No. I don't think I'm changing.

Look, I wouldn't do a DACA

plan without a wall. 

Because we need it.

We see the drugs

pouring into the country.

Chain, Chain, Chain

I'm always moving

I'm moving in both directions.

We have to get rid

of chainlike immigration

we have to get rid of the chain.

The chain

is the last guy that killed...

the last guy that killed

the eight people.

So badly wounded people.

Twenty two people

came in through

chain migration.

Chain migration

and the lottery system.

They have a lottery

in these countries

They take the worst people

in the country, 

they put them into the lottery

then they have a handful

of bad, worse ones, 

and they put them out.

"Put them out" indeed. So, wanna talk about China and North Korea?

China. China. China

Yeah, China...

China's been...

I like very much

President Xi.

He treated me better

than anybody's ever been treated

in the history of China. 

You know that.

The presentations...

One of the great two days

of anybody's life and memory 

having to do with China.

China's hurting us very badly

on trade, but I have been soft  on China

because the only thing

more important to me than trade

is war. OK?

Fox News

I'm disappointed. 

You know that they

found oil going into... 

It was very recently. 

In fact, I hate to say

it was reported

this morning,

and it was reported

on Fox News.

Oil is going into North Korea.

Oil is going into North Korea.

So I'm not happy about it.

And speaking of news...

It's Social Media, Stupid

And, by the way, it's not a tweet.

It's social media

and it gets out in the world

and the reason I do well

is that I can be treated

unfairly and very dishonestly

by CNN, and you know, I have

what do I have now, John

158 million

including Facebook

including Twitter,

including Instagram

including every form

I have 158 million people. 

Reporting just this morning

they said 158 million.

So if they do a story

that's false, I can do something

otherwise, Andy, otherwise you 

just sort of walk around saying

what can I do?

What, am I going to 

have a press conference

every time somebody,

every time Michael

writes something wrong?

And finally, we'll end with #winning, which is the only way to go out, right?

Please, Please...

We're going to

win another four years

for a lot of reasons,

most importantly

because our country

is starting to do well

again and we're

being respected

again. But 

another reason that

I'm going to 

win another four years

is because newspapers, television, 

all forms of media will tank

if I'm not there

because without me

their ratings are going

down the tubes.

Without me

the failing New York Times

will indeed be not

the failing New York Times 

but the failed New York Times.

So they basically have to let me win.

And eventually

probably six months

before the election,

they'll be loving me

because they're saying

 Please, please don't lose

Donald Trump.

OK.?

Wondering on Wednesday (v111)

Where to even start, the wondering is so powerful tonight...

There's tax reform, of course, about which I have done much wondering. Here's just a partial list of wonderment:

• Why are our elected officials so hellbent on making the corporate tax permanent, but making the tax cuts for people only temporary?
• Why are our elected officials so convinced that corporations are going to suddenly get a conscience and raise wages once their taxes go down? Many of them, in many industries, are making record profits - cruise ships full of profits, harbors full of cruise ships full of profits -- and have been making their massive profits for quarter upon quarter upon quarter -- and haven't raised wages much at all. 
• Why are our elected officials now incorporating a 'Repeal the Obamacare individual mandate' plan into their tax cut bill? (I know the answer to this one - they think they'll get re-elected by voters, the majority of whom in multiple polls are pro-Affordable Care Act and anti-repeal.  Oh wait - that's not the reason.  The real reason, in case you're wondering, is so the can have more money to pay for tax cuts for corporations, right?
• And finally, I wonder why no one seems to have listened to Carly Fiorina and her plan to make the entire tax code be only three pages long? Instead, they've decided that people should be able to file their taxes on a postcard, or maybe one piece of paper. So, what are they really simplifying here?

Thern there's the strange case of Republicans and 'worthiness' - you know, Senate-worthiness. Like, Judge Roy Moore of  Alabama is not 'Senate worthy' because of multiple allegations of inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment of a 14 year old child, dating teenagers when Moore was in his 30s, banishment from a shopping mall for his interest in young girls and children, and more.  Moore is unfit for service in the Senate, even as he continues to deny the allegations against him. 

No such declarations of unworthiness were made against the president, himself a man with more than a couple of allegations notched in his own belt, and even with his own disgusting words recorded for posterity, on a whole host of subjects, he was not deemed unfit to hold the highest office in the land.

And I wonder, why is it now safe or appropriate or right or moral for Republicans to stake the higher ground on behalf of the Senate, but it wasn't safe or appropriate or right or moral for them to do the same when it came to the Presidency?

And speaking of worthiness, I wonder if you remember this?

Trump in Transition (v23)

The transition continues. Or not...

Donald Trump, who has been touting his economic successes since even before he was elected, has been particularly vocal about them lately.

His speeches, interviews, and weekly addresses have been dotted with glowing reports about how great companies are doing, how great the economy is doing, how many jobs have been created and so on for months.

Here are a couple of his retweets from earlier this month, one from Trump Business News and one from his daughter Ivanka:

And here's a string of his own tweets from earlier this week:

Now, don't get me wrong, it's great that the American president is championing the American economy - one of the many hats the president wears should be cheerleader for the country. But this president?

Well, we know he's not shy about slamming American companies - ask Macy's.  And he's not shy about slamming entire industries - ask the solar energy sector where, if Trump's suggested tariffs go into effect, we could lose more jobs - perhaps 88,000 -  than are employed in the entire coal mining industry - about 54,000. Not bad for the greatest jobs producer God ever created.

Now, it's the health insurance sector which is under presidential attack. Here's a tweet from this morning, proudly taking credit for the "plunging' of insurance stocks after he signed his Executive Orders  on the Affordable Care Act this week:

Yeah -- sometimes this president's the cheerleader, and sometimes he's the guy who pees in your pool.

TGIF 10/13/17

Boy, I'm glad it's Friday - and I bet I'm not the only one.

For example, how'd you like to be the folks in charge at NBC, the network that gave us the Donald Trump is a bleeping moron story and the Trump talked about a ten-fold increase in nukes story, but didn't give us the Harvey Weinstein story?

At least the Peacock network wasn't alone in that last part.

While Meryl Streep made it clear that not every single body knew about Weinstein and his decades of alleged predatory behavior, it seems to have been a incredibly poorly kept secret. A joke at the Oscars; a joke on 30 Rock; an undercover investigation in which the NYC District Attorney did nothing... Opportunity lost, over and over and over.  How, or why did that happen? That will have to come out in the post mortem.

Meanwhile, reports are that Weinstein is seeking treatment for a problem he doesn't have: sex addiction. That we have to remind people in this day and age that predatory behavior such as that alleged against Weinstein is about power, not about sex, is almost as sad as the apparent willingness of all those everybodies to cover up his behavior for all these years.

Meanwhile, did you hear that Trump has pulled us out of UNESCO?  This United Nations organization, which now seems to focus on designating heritage sites, was once more focused on battling extremists and promoting peace. The US is leaving, we've been told, because of the anti-Israel biases exhibited by UNESCO, particularly in naming part of the West Bank city of Hebron a Palestinian world heritage site.

What was less publicized in reports I heard today is that we have a checkered history with UNESCO, going back decades.  After leaving in 1984 during the Reagan Administration, we  rejoined in 2002; stopped paying our annual dues in 2011 over the admission of Palestine as a member; and lost voting rights in 2013.  I point this out so that people know this isn't just another case of Trump undoing what Obama did. Had that been the case, he would go all in, pay twice what we owe and welcome Palestine to one of the Trump White Houses for a spin on a golf cart.

He did, however, strike two blows against the Affordable Care Act. One will make it easier for 'association' plans to form, across multiple states in some cases; these plans may offer fewer benefits than required for other products under the ACA, along with some other changes. The other was to end the cost-sharing reduction payments to health insurers. Under the ACA, insurers are required to provide subsidies to many subscribers for out of pocket expenses; those costs have been  reimbursed to insurers by the federal government - until now. Barring action by Congress o formally appropriate the money at least in the short term, the CSRs are done.

Trump noted that these were merely subsidies to boost insurance company profits and hey, look at their stock prices! Darn -- he's been tweeting like mad about how the stock market is up and our retirement plans are doing great as a result -- which I thought was a good thing in his worldview, but I guess not when it comes to something that has 'Obama' in its name.

TGIF, indeed.

The Update Desk: TGIF 9/22/17

One of the topics in last week's TGIF post was the latest attempt by the Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  News had broken that Arizona Senator John McCain was going to vote no, and I had hoped that others would join him and Kentucky's Rand Paul to kill the bill.

Over the weekend, and really to no surprise at all, the authors of the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill sweetened the pot, ostensibly to help states and balance the distribution of funds for the block grants that states would get and use to develop a health care plan that made sense for them. Except that the states to benefit included homes of the announced or expected 'no' votes, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

There were updates for us today, including

• some 50 disability activists were arrested after protesting a Senate Finance Committee hearing (the only one scheduled on the current bill)
• a report from the Congressional Budget Office noting that millions more would become uninsured under the GCHJ plan. The CBO report will not be comprehensive, because they simply don't have time given the September 30th deadline to get something done under 'reconciliation' which requires only a Mike Pence majority to pass legislation.
• Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, announced her opposition to the revised version of the bill, joining McCain and Paul who had previously said no - and making the bill Pence-proof.

So, what happens now?  That's up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the man who will decide if it's worth it to actually put a losing vote to the floor, to publicly shame the defectors and put them at risk in their next election. 

He might do that, or he might not, since at the same time he shames those who are agin him, he exposes himself  -- again -- as a poor leader unable to rally his troops, and sets himself up for even more bigly criticism from the president. 

Maybe he withstands that criticism, and thinks about what it seems Americans want: corrections to the Affordable Care Act. The majority of us, according to poll after poll after poll this year, want to keep and fix the ACA, not repeal it and replace it with something that doesn't even begin to come close.

Democratic and Republican governors have a plan they say will work -- 10 of them sent McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer a letter a week or so ago, asking them to drop their nonsense and take a look at something reasonable. 

If McConnell is half a leader, he'll sit down with those governors - Democrats Hickenlooper, Bullock, McAuliffe, Bel Edwards and Wolf, and Republicans Kasich, Walker, Sandoval, Scott and Baker - and Schumer, and get to work accomplishing something that will actually do some good, rather than just crossing off a campaign promise - even one that's seven years old, and counting. 

TGIF 9/22/17

Random thoughts as we cross off another Friday on the calendar:

Is it a thing now, for people to drive cars that are clearly so low on blinker fluid that their turn signals simply cannot signal their turns? (Asking for a friend.)

Now, on to more weighty subjects: Arizona Senator John McCain must truly be channeling his dear friend Ted Kennedy again. McCain and Kennedy were tied together in politics, and now in health -McCain's brain tumor is the same kind that Kennedy had.

Late this afternoon, McCain went on record as a no vote on the "last, best chance" for Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. I can't help thinking that he's remembering the passion with which Ted Kennedy fought to bring health insurance to millions of Americans, even as he fought his own diagnosis, and that he can't imagine being responsible for taking health insurance away from millions of Americans.  Kudos to you, Senator McCain. Hopefully a couple of other Republican senators will follow in your footsteps and do the same.

News broke yesterday that the brain of Aaron Hernandez, the former New England Patriot who was convicted of murder and then took his own life in jail at the age of 27, was suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. Based an examination of his brain tissue, he was at stage three of the disease (stage four is the max); his was the "most severe case they had ever seen for someone his age" according to attorney Jose Baez, who is suing the Pats and the NFL on behalf of Hernandez' daughter. This suit is outside the class action suit in which the NFL is paying a billion dollars to retired players from whom the league allegedly hid the risk of CTE. The league has promised a vigorous defense; the Pats have not yet responded.

Also, speaking of the NFL, Colin Kaepernick is still unemployed. There was an interesting discussion on WBUR's On Point radio show today (you can listen to the podcast here). Kaepernick is a better quarterback than many of the 28 starters and their backups - it's foolish, some say, to pretend that he's not qualified to play.

One thing is different now than it was in the past. Today, NFL players are not afraid to speak out in support of Kaep and are not afraid to show their own activist streaks. And some are even comfortable continuing to protest this season, after Kaep paved the way for them. There's more courage around speaking out, albeit silently, about injustice and discrimination and racism, which ARE a fact of life in America whether we're willing to admit it or not.

It's quite a bit different than it was a year ago, when Myke Tavarres was an unsigned rookie looking to make the team for the Philadelphia Eagles. As I noted in my post at that time, Tavarres announced his decision to participate in a protest, saying this:

In this situation, I've really got nothing to lose. I'm a rookie free agent, haven't signed any major contract, so there's not a lot of money on the line, I don't have any big endorsement deals on the line. Really what's at stake is my pride and what kind of man would I be and what kind of African-American would I be if I didn't stand my ground on this issue we have today?

Until his agent sat him down and read him the riot act, and Tavarres apologized for being a distraction.

I want to make change in this world but sitting down during the national anthem just isn't the best way to do it. With that being said, I do plan on finding a better way. 

He ended up being cut by the Eagles in 2016, and by the Saskatchewan Rough Riders of the CFL earlier this year.

Meanwhile, Kaep's jersey continues to be a best seller, even though he's not even in the league anymore. And I continue to be pretty darn sure that people are not standing in their living rooms during the national anthem.

TGIF.