Mr. Speaker

Finally, the long first week of the new year is over, and we have a Speaker of the House. He may be missing some pieces of soul, or body parts, but he got the votes, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Trump) is the guy who'll be wielding the gavel. 

I went to bed after he lost the 14th vote, the one about which McCarthy was sure he'd win, because he had counted the votes. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Blecch) had a different idea, and prevented the victory. It was at that point that the majority of the Republican caucus wanted to punch Gaetz in his smirking fact, and one of them - Alabama's Rep. Mike Rogers - almost did. That would have been a horribly popcorn-worthy moment, for sure. 

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) garnered the most votes during the week, as the Dems stayed united and gave him all of their votes every time. It didn't matter, really, other than to show that even though they're also a fractured caucus, they know how - and when - to stand together.  

In the end, though, what mattered was that all the Rs were sick of the handful that were holding things up, after all of the concessions that were made, and managed to convince them that that voting 'present' - in effect, voting for no one - was better than voting for someone other than McCarthy. After a planned vote to adjourn until Monday was rejected, the 15th round ended the fight. 

There's lots to digest - oh, excuse me, a lot to unpack, in pundit-speak - including the possibility that many representatives from both sides of the aisle are probably secretly happy with some of the rumored rules changes: being able to offer amendments from the floor, having 72 hours to read bills before a vote, and a 'germane' rule that should help ensure that a bill on ice fishing in Lake Ontario, for example, won't include something ridiculously unrelated, like funding flame-throwing drones for Taiwan... you get the drift. 

There's even a promised vote on term limits; I'm definitely looking forward to that. 

So, while I enjoyed the comedy that came from this week, and watching the Rs attack each other, the Dems enjoy a week of unity, the reading clerks Susan Cole and Tylease Alli deftly handle the voting roll calls, and House Clerk Cheryl Johnson maintain control over an often-unruly crowd, there's some really interesting stuff coming down the pike. 

And, of course, there's some really dumb stuff coming down the pike, too - and it isn't going to take long, according to the new Speaker.

I know the night is late, but when we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 IRS agents. You see, we believe government should be to help you, not go after you.

And there's more.

Now speaking of committees, we will hold the swamp accountable for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, to the origins of COVID and to the weaponization of the FBI. 

We didn't hear Hunter Biden's name mentioned, but we can be sure that those investigations can't be too far off.

We also heard McCarthy and his allies talk about the importance of Donald Trump in securing the win, so it seems pretty clear that any hope of Trump not being a factor can be tossed out the window, at least at this juncture.

Much more to come as the Rs take control, with the newly empowered gang of 20 getting their rewards, and McCarthy hammering away with the smaller-than-usual gavel. 

Wondering on Wednesday 1/4/2023

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

When Sally Field won her second Academy Award, she said, "Right now, you really like me!" I wonder what Rep. Kevin McCarthy would say, after losing six votes for House Speaker?  Perhaps it's, "Right now, I wished you really liked me?"  Or, maybe "Right now, I wonder if you ever liked me?" 

I also can't help wondering how many votes McCarthy will allow before he decides it's time to step aside for someone 16 0r 17 votes more palatable?  He's said he's in it to win it, and that he's "earned" the Speakership, but there may never be enough votes for him. 

Former president Donald Trump tried to exert whatever power and control he has over the party, urging the Rs to get behind McCarthy who, Trump said, "will do a good job, and maybe even a GREAT JOB - JUST WATCH!" That didn't work - Lauren Boebert even suggested that Trump should have told McCarthy to step aside - and now I'm wondering what other Rs might have the power to convince the GOP caucus to align. 

• Former Veep Mike Pence could offer a few hundred rambling words without ever really saying anything about anything, but it might confuse people enough that they accidentally vote for McCarthy...
• Florida Man Ron DeSantis could promise to cancel anyone who voted the wrong way, or - even worse - call them all 'woke' or something. That might get them in line...
• Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could... nah, never mind.

Maybe there isn't a unifying Republican out there?

Sticking with the House, as Rep. George Santos (R- You Kidding Me?) cast his vote for McCarthy, someone allegedly yelled "mentiroso" - the word for 'liar' in Spanish and Portuguese. The shout came from the Democratic side of the chamber, which make sense, right? I mean, Santos was endorsed by McCarthy, and by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Trump), the GOP Conference chair. 

Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene has also chimed in, tweeting "I think we Republicans should give George Santos a chance and see how he legislates and how he votes, not treating him the same as the left is."  I know they've been busy the past couple of days, but I wonder how MTG feels now, knowing that Santos' website noted*, according to The New Republic, that he voted against the omnibus spending bill that passed, and was signed into law - in December. Does that mean he passed the test? 

Finally, I'm having lots of laughs over some of the McCarthy memes I've seen on Twitter. For example, there's Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football; there's a speaker captcha; there's six stages of toast. There's a Groundhog's Day quip (too easy?) and even a Home Alone riff.  Truth be told, I'm having a hard time picking a favorite; I wonder if anyone else is having trouble, too? 

Oh - the House came back into session, then voted narrowly to adjourn. I think this means that McCarthy might have won a vote, finally.

What's on your wondering mind tonight? 

* When I checked his website, there was no mention of the spending bill.

Wondering on Wednesday 12/21/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to begin tonight's wonder-full meandering? Let's start in DC, where there's been lots of news. 

• The January 6th Committee made a criminal referral to the DOJ for former president Donald Trump, for obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the USA; conspiracy to make a false statement, and conspiracy to defraud the US by assisting or comforting those involved in an insurrection. Everyone's wondering if anything will come of the referrals, or if Jack Smith, the special counsel, will continue on his merry way without the Committee's help.

• John Eastman, a law professor and attorney, was also named in a criminal referral to the DOJ, for obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the US. Eastman was the guy who pitched Trump on the hare-brained scheme of having former VP Mike Pence refuse to count the electoral votes and, in effect, throw out the election. Will Eastman be disbarred, I wonder? Will he be charged based on the referral? That seems perhaps more likely than Trump being charged, but again, there's Smith, so...

• It also referred four House members - Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ) - to the House Ethics Committee for failing to speak to the Committee, and for subsequently refusing to comply with its subpoenas. Does anyone wonder why there weren't more of them? And does anyone think, for a minute, that anything will come of it, now that the Rs are taking over the House?

• Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelenskyy is speaking to the Congress, and to the country, from the floor of the House, the first wartime leader since Churchill to do so. The applause has been long, and loud, and I wonder if the doubters, like McCarthy, will be moved by his words? Will they continue the support, or pull back? 

• Marjory Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are catfighting on social media. I don't wonder anything about that, other than Bobo's saying that she doesn't believe in Jewish Space Lasers. Is that supposed to make us think more of her?

• Members of the House still don't appear to be aligned behind McCarthy's bid to be House Speaker and in fact some are trying to ensure they can remove him, before they'll vote for him. I do wonder if anyone's going to put forward the "let's have Trump be Speaker!" rubbish that was floated in the past? 

• The Senate, in a bipartisan move, passed a nearly $1.7 trillion bill that would fund the government through September 30th, the end of the current fiscal year. The bill would also reform the 1887 Electoral Count Act, making it harder for another fiasco like the one which ended with criminal referrals from the January 6th Committee. I'm fine with them doing both of these things, but specifically on the ECA, I used to wonder if we needed to do legislation to prevent "another Trump," but sadly I'm convinced that the cat's out of the bag, and we have no assurances that there won't be another one.

• The House Ways and Means Committee voted to release several years of Donald Trump's taxes, including one year showing he paid less in federal tax than I spend for a month of groceries; given he's a billionaire and I'm a thousandaire, I can't help wondering what I'm doing wrong.

• Also, we learned that the IRS didn't audit Trump's taxes during his first two years as president, even though their guidelines require audits of all presidents and vice presidents during their tenure. Wonder how that happened - was it the Deep State leftists who controlled the government that kept the IRS from doing their jobs, or was it... Mnuchin??? 

Elsewhere?

• Elon Musk polled Twitter users to see if he should stay CEO of the company; over 57% said no. I wonder how many of his followers are Tesla stock owners? Pretty sure they would all have been in the 'hell no' bucket, given how the value of their stock has tanked since Musk's whole Twitter distraction started.

• Neil Schon of the band Journey has filed a cease-and-desist order against Jonathan Cain for playing Don't Stop Believin' when Cain appears at Trump events. Cain's married to televangelist and Trump 'spiritual advisor' Paula White, so he's been in MAGA-land for a while now. If anyone was wondering, the odds of there being a Journey reunion tour are about as good as the odds of Trump being reinstated as winner of the 2020 election.

• Saturday is Christmas Eve; I'll get out our special 'cookies for Santa' plate, pile on a few treats for him and the reindeer, and leave the plate on the mantel, like we always do. And, as sure as I'm sitting here, most of the goodies will be gone when we get up in the morning. I never wonder about that.

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sunday School 12/4/22

I spent time with George in ABC's This Week classroom for Sunday School lesson. 

First up? Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who'll be the new House Minority Leader come January. He outlined the D's mission: "to find ways to work with Republicans whenever possible to get things done for the American people."

And I hope that Republicans will look for common ground with us, but we will also oppose them when we must, particularly as it relates to any effort to go down this rabbit hole of unnecessary, unconscionable, unacceptable investigations of the administration.

Asked for some specifics where the Ds and Rs could cooperate, he spoke generically about the "American middle class and those who aspire to be a part of it" having "been under assault for decades" by things like globalization, outsourcing American jobs, and increased automation, which have "made it difficult for folks to pursue the American dream..." You solve for that by building upon what's already been accomplished - the Inflation Reduction Act, infrastructure bills, the CHIPS and Science Act - and "to find common ground to look for other ways to build upon that great work." He hasn't had any conversations with his Republican counterparts yet, but he looks forward to doing that "soon."

They also talked about who'll replace Nancy Pelosi, who will remain in the House but not in the Speaker role. Jeffries said it's up to the Rs to figure out if Kevin McCarty will be their guy. George wondered if it might come down to an agreement between moderate Rs and Ds on someone who could get enough bipartisan votes. Jeffries dodged the question the first time, then closed the door. The Dems, he said

are preparing... as we transition temporarily from the majority into the minority, continuing to work with the Biden administration, with Democrats in the Senate, building upon the great work led by Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn that has been done over the last few Congresses when we've been in majority. And then let’s see what happens on the other side of the aisle.

George pressed again on bipartisanship and compromise, and said if they could get a GOP speaker who's willing to do that, "wouldn't that be good for Democrats? Wouldn't that advance your mission?" 

Jeffries said he's "actually worked together" with his Republican counterparts, as if that were a miracle or something. Heck, he said, "I've even worked with the Trump administration in the past..." But working together to get a moderate elected House Speaker? That seems a bridge too far. 

The question on the other side of the aisle is, what will Republicans do? Are they going to double and triple down on the extremism that we've seen from people like Marjorie Taylor Greene? That would be unfortunate. And if that happens, then there’s not going to be real meaningful opportunities --.

What do you think - is he missing an opportunity here?

Next up, a Republican with whom Jeffries has worked, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH); he's chair of the Republican Governance Group, which, Joyce describes as "dealmakers hell-bent on breaking through Washington's dysfunction." I'm thinking it might have to kick Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Trump) out, but I digress. 

George wondered how much leverage the group has, and how it'll use it. Joyce said they're "basically focused on making government work." They know what the problems are, because they hear them from constituents. 

And we're not the people who you see on TV every week talking about issues that aren’t germane to what the people are feeling at home... you see all this fighting and you see all this kabuki theater taking place in DC, but what is that doing to lower the price of gas? What is that doing to lower the groceries? How do we start fixing the problems that we have with our educational system?

He said if they can deal with those problems, and "show that we can govern, then perhaps we'll be respected and given the majority back." 

George asked about opportunities to work with Jeffries and the Dems. Joyce mentioned setting a budget, reducing spending across all twelve appropriations bills, and getting 218 votes in the House to pass them - none of which seem interesting to many Dems.

And what about the GOP's idea of not extending the debt ceiling unless there are major program spending cuts, with Medicare and Social Security potentially included? Joyce's response was interesting, more for what he didn't say than what he did.

...obviously, the debt limit is an issue, and it’s going to be times where I hope that we don't get in a position like we did with that failed experiment in October 2013 where we shut down the government for a long period of time, because in the words of a great philosopher, Lebowski, that didn't end too well for us.

The October 2013 shutdown, during Barack Obama's second term, lasted 16 days. The longest one ever? That would be Donald Trump's shutdown, lasting 35 days in 2019. Maybe that one's all a blur, compared to the one under Obama?

Joyce thinks there's enough good guys in his group, and enough Dems who want government to work, to keep the government open. He knows they won't agree on everything, but they have to focus on what they can agree on.

...when you focus on those things, like keeping the government open, keeping the budget that’s specifically low so that people understand what the cost and expenses of running their government is. And if you look at what we've done over a ten-year span with discretionary spending, we’ve actually kept the cost of running the government down. It’s the mandatory spending that’s driving us into the $31 trillion -- as well as the excess spending in the last year.

And if the Dems passed a lame-duck extension of the debt limit, something Joyce says makes perfect sense politically for them, would he vote for it? He's a numbers guy, he said, but he also said "I don't deal in hypotheticals, George." He'd look at the numbers, if it comes to that, and vote accordingly.

Also, speaking of numbers, what about Kevin McCarthy as Speaker? He said folks are talking about not voting for him, but

Well, then who then? I mean, Kevin deserves the opportunity. And he has done the hard work that was necessary to bring together the majority... And we were given this opportunity to do that and he deserves the chance to lead us. And he deserves the chance to lead for two years.

He also said he's "not a fan of a motion to vacate," which has been suggested by some in the Freedom Caucus. If that happened, whoever was Speaker would have to step down.

And what these people got to get used to is that if a majority of our conference agree to something, then that's how you move the ball forward. And just because five or six people don’t like it doesn’t mean that we should hold up the whole thing.

Finally, George mentioned the former president's statement about suspending the Constitution so he could be reinstated as president; he asked Joyce, who voted for Trump twice, if he could support a candidate in 2024 that's in favor of suspending the Constitution.

Well, again, it’s early. I think there’s going to be a lot of people in the primary. I think, at the end of the day, you will -- whoever the Republicans end up pick, I'll fall in behind because that’s –

Even if it's Trump? George asked. Joyce he'd support whoever the Rs nominate - but it won't likely be Trump. Besides, he has more to worry about than what Trump says.

I have to worry about making sure this Republican Governance Group and the Republican majority, that we make things work for the American people... We're moving forward and we're going to continue to move forward as a Republican majority and as a Republican conference.

Whether they were really out of time or not, that was the end of the interview.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (v196)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So, we heard from #IMPOTUS last night about the State of the Union - and what a production it was. 

It started out with Trump not shaking Nancy Pelosi's hand, moved to her not giving him the  traditional introduction, and then got into the heart of Trump's real or imagined accomplishments, many of which the Republicans have never been in favor of before, and really aren't in favor of today. But those things, including all that talk about women and blacks and Asians and stuff- and sucking up to the president, or course - keep them in office, so it's all good. 

At the end of it all, after some 90 or so sniff-free minutes,, there was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up her copy of Trump's speech. 

People are unlikely to remember the numbers and lies and misstatements and alternative facts, and even the truths he recited, They'll be unlikely to remember the guests, including Venezuela's Juan Guaido, a Philly fourth-grader, the obligatory families of crime and terror victims, and a family reunification in the balcony? No, not *that* kind - don't be silly. It was a four-times-deployed soldier and his family. People will probably remember the centenarian Tuskegee Airman and his great-grandson. But will they remember 

• chants of "four more years" and "USA USA USA" but surprisingly, not "Lock Him Up" - I wonder if that's because there could be confusion on who 'him' was, Trump or Biden? Nope.
• Lots of women in suffragette white (ADD fact: Bowie's 'Suffragette City' was recorded on 2/4/72);  some walked out; others chose not to attend at all. Maybe, but not for more than a couple of days.
• chants of "H.R. 3" from the Dems, telling the Senate to do something with their bill on prescription drug costs instead of waiting for Trump to do one? Again, probably not, since that's just one of some 400 bills that the Senate is ignoring;
• or a Parkland parent being escorted out, and later, apologizing. I hope he gets remembered. 

People should long remember the gag-inducing presentation of the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, misogynist-racist-birther-rude guy extraordinaire - because that should go down in history as one of the worst moments in SOTU history, I think.

But people will definitely remember Pelosi's stunt. About that, I don't wonder a single bit.

Because every Republican running for re-election will have that video clip in their ads. The president will be showing it at his rallies, probably with unlicensed music blaring in the background. He'll mention it in his daily calls to his personal news network. 

It will be tweeted hundreds of thousands of times, in this kind of context, ludicrous as it is. 

Trump's base is in an uproar, and will continue to be, especially since he was just officially acquitted on both counts of impeachment, and because they are looking for red meat to chomp on until November. And he's got way more advocates - and money - and experience - for that kind of thing than anybody else. 

The Dems and Independents and non-affiliateds? Well, no surprise there - three camps:

• "Whoo hoo, Pelosi rocks, that was awesome!" Or
• "Well, she probably shouldn't have done it, but come on, Trump has torn up the Constitution and is a con man and just invited election interference from a foreign country and and and...", Or
• "What the actual hell was she thinking?" 

No need to wonder where I stand on that.  Or where this guy stands.

A couple of other things this week? First, you don't need to wonder if SecState Mike Pompeo watches The Simpsons. Clearly, with his hopelessly wrong tweet, sent from his personal account, the answer is no. 

Trying to clap back at Pelosi for her speech-tearing move, he thought this was a good meme. Sadly, for him at least, she tore up her speech because, as she saw in person, 

The city of Washington was built on a stagnant swamp some 200 years ago, and very little has changed. It stank then and it stinks now – only today it is the fetid stench of corruption that hangs in the air.

And finally, on the day that Utah's Senator Mitt Romney became the first person to vote in favor of convicting his own party's president in an impeachment trial, you don't have to wonder - at all - what the reaction would be from said party. 

It seems they're calling for him to be kicked out of the GOP. 

#MAGAMA

Wondering on Wednesday (v129)

I have a day job and so was not able to watch either of the two days of testimony from Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to House and Senate committees. I did hear that his personal information was compromised, as was that of 86,999,999 other people, and that he got into a spat with Lyin' Ted Cruz about Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day and bias against conservatives or something.

I did wonder about a couple of questions he got from Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). First, Durbin asked if Zuckerberg would be comfortable sharing what hotel he stayed in, and then he asked if Zuckerberg would share the names of anyone he had messaged that week. In both cases the answer was 'no' with varying degrees of discomfort, Zuckerberg sensing as he must have been the presumed trap he was walking into. AHA! people thought: the exchange proved everyone's point that Facebook overshares!

I didn't see it that way; Zuckerberg did not intend to share where he stayed the previous night, nor did he have any intention of sharing who he messaged - so, in effect, he set his privacy settings to 'friends only.' Just like you can do on Facebook, and should do, if you're paying attention. Congressmen are forgetting that so much information that can be gathered from Facebook is put there - on purpose - which is nothing like asking a random stranger where he spent the night.

There were also questions about political ads and disclosing who is behind them, to show transparency and protect us from bad guys. I wondered if Zuckerberg wanted to say he'd go for the same level of disclosure that Congress allows on ads that support them, but I think even if he had an inkling to, he was surely well counseled to not go there.

Another thing I thought was interesting was the level of concern these politicians have for privacy, something over which people can actually exert some control, compared to pols' apparent lack of concern over, say, clean air or clean water?  Everyone has issues with the costs of environmental regulations, and ensuring multi-billion dollar profits quarter after quarter after quarter for companies in that space. Everyone has issues with the costs of regulation on financial firms, and particularly now, no one's complaining about quarter after quarter billion dollar profits - so, why are they so concerned about Facebook and the company's profits, I wonder?

Moving on, House Speaker Paul Ryan has announced his retirement from politics - not just from the House, but from ever seeing himself run for office in the future. I wonder, will anyone hold him to that? His wife, maybe?

Ryan says he's leaving because his kids are going to only know him from the weekends, and he doesn't want that. Others say he's leaving because, well, he got his tax deal and now's as good a time as any. Or that he sees the handwriting on the wall and the House is going to fall, in the fall, so screw it all and go back to Janesville. Or that he's sick of dealing with Trump and he's not loyal enough to the orange-haired one, and loyalty is all that matters.

I could do a whole post on Ryan, and I might do that, but right now, I'm wondering about a tweet the president sent. Take a look:

Is it too much to wonder, to wish for, that Trump's "We are with you Paul!" comment means that Trump won't run in 2010?  

Nah. That's just silly stuff, not wonderful stuff. 

The Speaker Speaks to NPR (Pt two)

In part one of the recap of House Speaker Paul Ryan's interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep, I looked at Ryan's take on the impact of the House plan on average middle-class Americans.

Highlights:

• middle-class is not defined, but generally seems to be a family making around $50K
• we will be able to file our taxes on a postcard
• anyone who takes advantage of deductions, 'loopholes' and benefits in the tax code is 'sophisticated' (yay me!)
• big businesses are the 'people' who are complaining the most about the plan, so it must be good
• if you're living paycheck to paycheck, which would happen 52 or 26  or 24 or 12 times a year, depending on your pay cycle, all of your woes will be gone when you get your $1,182 average refund the following spring.

Got it? OK. Picking up again: Inskeep asked about the deduction for medical expenses, which some nine million people claim today, and how eliminating that deduction could hurt "ordinary people with kids who have severe trouble." Ryan's answer was interesting, to say the least.

But it's typically a higher income person because of the way the Obamacare tax increase worked on that. You have to make a pretty good amount of money before you can even enjoy the ability to use that tax deduction.

According to the IRS anyone can deduct a whole host of medical expenses as long as those expenses are greater than 10% of the adjusted gross income for the year, the expenses are not already covered under insurance, and a bit of other fine print.  Here's  partial listing of the 'higher income person" expenses that are currently deductible:

• payments to doctors, dentists, surgeons, and other providers, including non-traditional practitioners
• payments for inpatient medical care, in hospitals or residential nursing homes
• insulin and drugs requiring a prescription 
• dentures, glasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, wheelchairs, crutches and more
• transportation to receive medical care, such as ambulances, and even costs associated with going to get care in your personal vehicle.

I'm not sure how this plays in Wisconsin, Ryan's home state, but nothing in the IRS guidance screams 'higher income" or having to make a "pretty good amount of money" to enjoy this deduction. But he did get to blame Obamacare for something, and any day a Republican can do that is a good day, I guess.

The interview then turned to history. As in, "history shows us that Congress will do the right thing when given the chance."  The question pertained to having the people tax cuts expire, or sunset, before the end of the ten year deal. This was done, Inskeep noted, to prevent too much damage to the deficit, and it requires a future Congress to continue the cuts or that $1,182 would be lost.

Here's the history lesson from Ryan.

Well, first of all history, if it's any guide Congress doesn't have a big tax increase on middle-income families. This was because of the Senate budget rules, which obviously we're not big fans of here in the House. But I'd also like to attest to the fact that this is going to produce economic growth. The Tax Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, showed that because of the tax relief in this bill and the pro-growth provisions in this bill, particularly for businesses to expense and hire and build more factories in America that will lead to about a trillion dollars in additional revenue because of faster economic growth...

Grow the economy means we can get out of this stagnant economic malaise we've been in with 1 to 2 percent growth, get ourselves up above 3 percent growth like we used to be. You get  that kind of economic growth which is clearly possible, and we think this helps us do that, then people can get wage increases. We have living standards go up. You have more jobs being created here that pay better. You have faster economic growth and you get more revenue as a result of that. 

And then Inskeep asked the question that all people who are not elected officials have been asking.After pointing out that there are conflicting studies on the tax plan, some supporting Ryan's take on things, some that don't.

We don't want to go back and forth with studies, but you do know that is is possible that businesses will take their tax savings and simply give it to stockholders in the form of dividends, or simply hold onto it in cash or buy back stock. What if they do? Does it matter to you?

That IS the real question, right? What if they don't do the right thing with their new-found wealth? And what about the companies that pay nothing, or pay next to nothing now - why aren't they papering the country with new factories, new investment, new jobs and higher wages? Again, Ryan's answer was enlightening. What if the corporations don't do the right thing?

That's still not an excuse not to put American businesses on a more level playing field with the rest of the world. Here's the dirty truth of the matter. We live in a global economy whether we like it or not. 

So -- the fact that we're tossing this gigantic, even bigly bone to corporations, knowing that they might just continue to act the way they do today - that's no reason not to do it. Sheesh, Inskeep - what on earth are you smoking?  Ryan didn't actually go that far, but he did go this far:

So what is happening in America is American businesses are leaving, going to other countries, building factories in other countries and foreign companies are buying American companies.  This is costing us jobs. It's costing us economic growth. It's removing headquarters from our communities, which - there goes the United Way campaign, there go the jobs. And so, I don't think any of these arguments hold a candle to the fact that we better get competitive with the way we tax our businesses so we can make an incentive to keep businesses in America. 

He cites a conversation he had with a major corporate executive.

Let me just give you one more thing. I talked to the head of Intel, one of the biggest companies in America. They make all the microprocessors in your computers for the most part. They have 50,000 employees in America, factories spread across this country. They ran the numbers. They would save in taxes alone, over a 10-year period per factory, $2 billion in taxes if they just moved to another country. If they just go relocate to another country. 

So our current tax code today rewards and incentivizes businesses to move money, capital, manufacturing, employees overseas. We want to reverse that trend so that we can keep businesses in America, jobs in America, expansion in America And that's why I'd say all these arguments about why we shouldn't be doing corporate rate reductions, I think they pale in comparison to the fact that if we don't do this, we'll see more of this ugly trend continue. 

According to this Marketwatch article, Intel's effective tax rate over the past five reported quarters, including state and local income taxes?  Just 22%.

There was more on business incentives (100% write offs for factories and equipment instead of having to depreciate the costs over multiple years, for example) and about the cash that's offshore that can't be brought back (as if the current tax code refuses to allow businesses to bring that money home) and about how this won't increase the deficit because the growth is going to be so great (I thought he was going to say #winning at some point, but he didn't).

The bottom line is, Republicans somehow feel that the sun, stars and moon are going to miraculously align in such a way that

(a) companies are going to build factories in America, paying dramatically higher wages and dramatically better benefits to their American workers than they do overseas, at the same time keeping their prices low enough that they are competitive with foreign companies in their same market, and

(b) that people's wages over across the board -- not just the for the people working in the new factories, but all of the wages paid to all of our American workers -- are going to rise much more than they have during this stretch of massive corporate profits, so that no one will be living paycheck-to-paycheck any more, and 

(c) that Americans are going to suddenly decide that it's great to pay more money for the products they need, want, and use.  

Do we really think all of that is going to happen with an additional $1,182 in a person's pocket, and a limited 'real' decrease in corporate taxes?

Well, all that matters is that Speaker Ryan and his colleagues in the House think so. And the Senate agrees, because very early this morning, they passed their tax plan, which will allegedly accomplish the same thing. Now, the two parties will have to sober up and figure out a way to reconcile the two bills and drop something on the president's desk so we get our big fat beautiful tax cuts for Christmas.

One more bit of Ryan's interview to come.

The Speaker Speaks to NPR (Pt one)

Boy, you've just gotta love House Speaker Paul Ryan.  He must really believe what he says, and how can you not love a guy who is so convinced he's right?

Ryan sat down with Steve Inskeep of NPR's Morning Edition, and the transcript is out. Let's take a look.

Inskeep asked about Ryan's priorities, and what the House tax plan says about the priorities, when you look at who wins and who loses. Here's how Ryan answered.

We wanted a middle class tax cut. We wanted to have a system that's more fair, much simpler. Right now the tax code is just chock full of special interest carve outs and deductions and loopholes. When you take away those loopholes, in exchange for lower tax rates and a broader tax base people who are very sophisticated who use all those loopholes will not have all those loopholes. But the exchange is lower tax rates across the board for most tax payers in a simplified system. By doubling the standard deduction, instead of 70% of Americans being able to fill an easier tax form, 9 out of 10 Americans  can fill out their taxes on a post card. So by simplifying the system that way and reducing loopholes, you can actually simplify dramatically and lower taxes across the board. 

Got that? The tax base is broader because (no explanation provided). And the 'very sophisticated' people who are using those 'loopholes'? They're middle class people who either have tax software, or an accountant, or a pen and paper, who file their taxes today. And again, there's that filing your taxes on a postcard, which is a ridiculous visual that he's been stuck on the whole time.

Ryan then talked about averages - which is fair, to a degree, because it's neither feasible or recommended that Congress try to come  up with a plan that will ensure that every single middle class American tax payer will save money.

The average tax cut for a middle-class family is going to be $1,182... This is designed to be a middle-class tax cut. I think the people who are concerned the most are some of the big businesses. That's where we hear most of the complaints about. But this is a middle-class tax cut, no two ways about it...

And then there was the math. As in

Here's  - just do the math. Instead of your first $12,000 being tax-free, as a couple your first $24,000 are tax free. You pay lower tax rates up the income scale until you come to the top tax bracket which is a million dollars. You have your child tax credit go from $1,000 per child to $1,600 per child. So things like that clearly produce tax relief for middle-income payers. 

So, how cool would it really be if taxes actually worked that way? Zero taxes taken out of your paycheck for the first $12K or $24K, then the right amount of taxes taken out for for each of the income brackets you move through, so that people actually have more money in their paychecks, and in their pockets?  Because that's what people need, right?  That's what the Speaker says.

Our goal here is to give people living paycheck-to-paycheck a break. More than half of the people in this country on the surveys show that they're living paycheck-to-paycheck. A lot of other people in this country are about $500 away from living paycheck to paycheck. So our goal here is to give people relief and to grow the economy. 

So, if that's the goal, why not make it happen? Why do we need to wait until the spring to fill out the postcard and then get money back from the government, which has absolutely zero impact on the paycheck-to-paycheck issue? 

Coming next - cutting taxes for the people who are concerned the most -- major corporations.

He Said (She Said): Ryan 'Endorses' Trump

House Speaker Paul Ryan (he) and yours truly (she) discuss Ryan's announcement today that he'll vote for Donald Trump. His words come from his actual statement in the Janesville Gazette; my words are the ones that he was thinking as he made the luke-warmest party leader endorsement I can remember.

He: When Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for president one month ago, many Republicans like me faced a big question.
She: How the HELL did that just happen?

He: Six months earlier, in October, as I was taking the job as House speaker, my colleagues and I were discussing an equally important question: What could House Republicans do to give Americans a clear choice about the future of the country?
She: Remember last October, how I saved the party from a certain demise? Yeah, that was me! And way back then, I knew that if I was ever going to have any real power, I'd have to interject myself into the Presidential race. But I sure didn't want to run - heck, I wasn't even going to be Speaker unless they let me spend weekends at home, and I sure couldn't do that if I was running for POTUS.

He: Sure, count us among the majority of Americans upset with the direction our country is headed. But that's not enough. We agreed we must focus less on what we're against and more on what we're for. So, long before we knew who our nominee would be, we decided we would present the country a policy agenda that offers a better way forward. We know what we believe in, so let's bring it to the country.
She: What  I mean is, once Scott Walker and the other hard-core candidates started to self -destruct, we knew it was going to be a slug fest between Trump and someone, we just weren't sure who. I never in a million years thought it would be We Hate Cruz and No One Cares Kasich - wow! But with the tough guys out of the way, we started cooking up a plan that, oops I mean a policy agenda that needed to be ready before the convention, just in case we got lucky. (And boy, I suck at the nickname thing. Trump's really good at that, I have to hand it to him there...)

He: That's how I've always looked at it. I've spent most of my adult life pursuing ways to help protect the "American Idea" - the notion that the condition of one's birth does not determine the outcome of one's life. The first step is always putting it on paper and having a real debate. And with the Obama presidency nearing an end, we have a real opportunity to get big things done in the next four years.
She: You know of course that we have no intention of having a real debate, right? I mean, if the malcontents in the Senate hold their majority, everything should be fine. That Mitch McConnell - "make Obama a one-term president" my ass.  I will not allow the House to go over to the other side -- I'll be right back here in Janesville before that happens, I promise you that.

He: That's why next week my colleagues and I will start introducing a series of policy proposals that address the American people's top priorities.  These plans are the result of months of work by House Republicans.

He: The concept from the start was simple: If we had a Republican president ready to sign bills, what would we do?
She: My wildest dreams from October have come true! We've got the candidate who knows nothing about being president, he's clueless!  Putty in my hands!

He: This month, we'll show the country what a better tax code looks like. We'll outline a plan not just for repealing Obamacare but replacing it with a better system, more focused on patients, choices and lower costs. We'll offer a plan to restore the Constitution and the separation of powers that decades of executive overreach have eroded. We'll present the ideal national security and foreign policy to keep Americans safe.  We'll show how we can reform rules and regulations so they're spurring the economy and creating jobs, not destroying them.  And we'll offer a better way to help lift people out of poverty and into lives of self-determination.
She: Don't you love the part about 'separation of powers' I put in there? There's no chance of executive overreach with Trump - he doesn't even want to be president! He can win, and I'll run the show! He won't need a Trexit -- bahahahaha! The guy wants nukes in every garage -- anything short of that will be "the ideal national security and foreign policy" to make people happy. This is going to be easy!

He: It will be a positive, optimistic vision for a more confident America.
She: and it won't be even a little bit racist, I promise.

He: It's short of all that's required to save the country, but the goal was to focus on issues that unite Republicans. It's a bold agenda but one that can bring together all wings of the Republican Party as well as appeal to most Americans.
She: We didn't want to seem greedy, so we only put down enough for a single term of a Republican House, Senate and White House.

He: One person who we know won't support it is Hillary Clinton. A Clinton White House would mean four more years of liberal cronyism and a government more out for itself than the people it serves. Quite simply, she represents all that our agenda aims to fix.
She: Besides, I'm hoping she'll be so underwater with investigations, she might not even notice we have a plan. 

He: To enact these ideas, we need a Republican president willing to sign them into law. That's why, when he sealed the nomination, I could not offer my support for Donald Trump before discussing policies and basic principles.
She: Yeah, the key is having a willing, and as I mentioned, clueless GOP figurehead in the Oval. So when I talked to him, I made sure he knew what it would take to get my endorsement.

He: As I said from the start, my goal has been to unite the party so we can win in the fall. And if we're going to unite, it has to be over ideas.
She: We'll unite over my ideas, just like in the House! Unite with me, or die without me!

He: Donald Trump and I have talked at great length about things such as the proper role of the executive and fundamental principles such as the protection of life. The list of potential Supreme Court nominees he released after our first meeting was very encouraging.
She: There I go again, reminding the nominee what his 'proper role' is, and when I told him he had to show me a sign that he understood his role, he did a great job with that list of SCOTUS guys. He did almost as good as that Gary Busey guy, or that old rapper, what was his name? Flavor Stick? Flavor Favor? Can't remember... or was that a different show?

He: But the House policy agenda has been the main focus of our dialogue. We've talked about the common ground this agenda can represent. We've discussed how the House can be a driver of policy ideas.  We've talked about how important these reforms are to saving our country. And we've talked about how, by focusing on ideas that unite Republicans, we can work together to heal the fissures developed through the primary.
She: We'll spoon feed him 'common ground' and we'll drive the policy ideas - no more of his loose cannon, say one thing this morning and contradict it this afternoon crap. We're done with that. And we're done with that stupid wall, too. That's never going to happen. 

He: Through these conversations, I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people's lives.  That's why I'll be voting for him this fall.
She: What I mean is, he agreed to promote my agenda starting at the convention in Cleveland in return for my voting for him so he didn't have to bail out. I took his cojones right out of his fancy pants and he said thank you, I tell you! Oh, wow, it was awesome. Never felt better in my life. I held them right in my hand, and told him he could have them back after he was out of office. 

He: It's no secret that he and I have our differences. I won't pretend otherwise. And when I feel the need to, I'll continue to speak my mind. But the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement.
She: I'll make sure he says some stupid stuff every now and then, and then I'll pretend to be alarmed like everyone else is, so that it looks like everything is the same as it was in the primaries. 

He: For me, it's a question of how to move forward on the ideas that I - and my House colleagues - have invested so much in through the years. It's not just a choice of two people, but of two visions for America. And House Republicans are helping shape the Republican vision by offering a bold policy agenda, by offering a better way ahead.
She: Holy crap, I almost forgot to mention "and my House colleagues" -- good save, man. Good save! I wonder if his voters will recognize that it's a different agenda?  Wait -- no worries there.  Trump wins the uneducated hands down, he said he loves the uneducated. They'll never notice.

Donald Trump can help us make it a reality.
She: Screw you, Mitt -- trying to draft me to run. You're on the sidelines, and me? You'd almost kill to be me right now, and we both know it.

The Update Desk 10/21/15: Joe, Paul, and Dough

Back on September 13th, I suggested that Joe Biden shouldn't run for President. Today, he agreed with me.

In a brief Rose Garden speech, Biden conceded that it was now simply too late for him to mount a realistic campaign, as his family's grieving process took the time that Biden would have otherwise spend building a campaign structure, raising money, and getting everyone's skin thickened up for the inevitable landslide of attention, both good and bad.

I'm glad he's out - and I appreciate his intention to not sit idly by, but to speak out on issues as his term as Vice President winds down.

While I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent. I intend to speak out clearly and forcefully, to influence as much as I can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation. 

He might not be in the race, but at this point I'll take help from anyone who can help shape the debate.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, has decided to put his hat into the ring to be Speaker of the House, a job he does not want, does not need, and won't take unless the entire Republican contingent in the House agrees to his terms.

Which is kind of funny, when you think about it, given that Crying John Boehner is out and the heir apparent Kevin McCarthy is out because they did not agree to the terms of the alleged Freedom Caucus, a group of some 40 hard line conservatives who are trying to shift the House to, oh, I don't know -- what's further right than the Pacific Ocean?

One of his big 'requests' is that he needs more time with his family, including his three young children. The Speaker historically has spent a lot of time criss-crossing the country raising money for the party and House members, something which Ryan will not do in the traditional way, should he be selected for the leadership role.

At least in that regard, he has something in common with Biden.

And now for that guy Dough. In my post Big Money in Little Politics earlier this week, I shared some info from a NY Times article on a relative handful of folks, some 158 families, who (through June 30th) had given $176,000,000 to candidates or their super PACs, and lamented, as I have before, the role that money plays in taking folks like you and me out of the political game.

That little $176M is a mere drop in the bucket, folks.  According to OpenSecrets.org, there are huge sums of money going to candidates in the 2016 cycle.

As of October 21, 2015, 1,207 groups organized as super PACS have reported total receipts of $303,520,383. 

Here's just a sampling:

• Right to Rise USA (Jeb Bush): $103,167845
• Unintimidated PAC (Scott Walker): $20,022,405
• Conservative Solutions PAC (Marco Rubio): $16,057,755
• Priorities USA Action (Hillary Clinton):$15,654,457
• Keep the Promise III (Ted Cruz): $15,000,000
• Keep the Promise I (Cruz): $11,007,096
• America Leads (Chris Christie): $11,003,304
• Keep the Promise II (Cruz): $10,000,000
• Opportunity and Freedom I (Rick Perry):$10,000,000

$303,520,383. So far. And that's just this bucket of contribution, it's not all of it.

It's kind of fun to note how much money has gone to folks who are either doing poorly (Bush, Rubio, Christie and even Cruz) or are out of the picture completely (Walker, Perry).

What's that saying about a fool and his money? 

Is There a Speaker in the House?

Great balcony. Wonderful guests. But that's not enough, it seems, to get a Speaker.  

www.ethioscoop.com 

Crying John Boehner doesn't want the job anymore; he announced that right after he hosted Pope Francis on the balcony.

Kevin McCarthy doesn't want the job anymore. McCarthy was next to Boehner, not crying at the time but almost certainly doing that now, especially after his confession about the Benghazi committee being a 'defeat Hillary' plot, and allegations of an extra-marital affair with a fellow Representative.

Paul Ryan is the front-runner for a job he doesn't want. He'd much rather be Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, which is probably a more important role than Speaker of the House, even though the office is less ostentatious. 

Actually, the only people so far who want to be Speaker are the ones who likely can't get enough votes to actually win the job -- and they're also the ones behind Boehner stepping down in the first place. 

Members of the Freedom Caucus, the 40-odd rightest of the right wing, have created a questionnaire for potential Speaker candidates, and that might be the reason why people don't want to play. Among the issues addressed in the questionnaire:

• making sure that conservatives have appropriate representation on House committees and some changes to House rules allowing for more transparency
• ensuring that conservative members are not retaliated against - stripped of committee spots, for example - if they don't toe the line 
• ensuring that amendments put forth by the conservatives are accommodated (even though they will almost certainly doom legislation)
• supporting another vote to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act by the end of 2015
• putting forth budget bills which include 'structural entitlement reform' and which defund Planned Parenthood, the ACA, immigration amnesty, and the Iran nuclear treaty
• impeachment of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen
• support for the First Amendment Defense Act, which allows the federal government to be sued for damages if a person (and by that I mean person, corporation, not for profit organization church or any other entity that can hold a personal belief) if said person believes they were discriminated against because of the opposition to marriage equality

While some of what they're asking about seems reasonable - committee representation, transparency, and the like -- what they're also asking for is the Speaker to relinquish power, commit to unpassable legislation, refuse to engage with the other side of the aisle, and so on. In effect, they want a Speaker who listens only to them.  

Is it any wonder no one wants the job?