Sunday School 4/18/21

I'm going to cover two interviews with former Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, who's written a book - On the House: A Washington Memoir - that he wants us to read. 

First up? His chat with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union; she called his book  "definitely the funniest and probably the most candid" political memoir shes' ever read. Having said that, she dove right in, pointing out we've had 47 mass shootings already in this year, and reminded him of his failure to get any kind of gun control passed after the Sandy Hook shooting. First, did he have regrets about that, and second, does he want to see the Rs coming to the table "to at least pass something?"

He said back in the day, "we couldn't find common ground with the other side" but hopefully that'll be different now, because "this - it's - frankly, it's heartbreaking. I think it's embarrassing our country to the rest of the world. And we have got to find a way to deal with the problem." He agreed it would be a "top priority" if he were still Speaker, and he noted that it's "not about what everybody wants. It's a matter of what can be accomplished in a bipartisan way."

Pointing to the many names he used to refer to some of his former colleagues ("political terrorists, knuckleheads, the chaos caucus"), Bash said he was kind of "like a doctor who is identifying a disease, but not giving a prescription" for fixing it, and wondered why he didn't tell us how to fix it in the book.

Boehner said he thinks "governing in America today is far harder than it was when I was there. But what I have suggested here over the last several months is, Republicans have to go back to being Republicans," which means focusing on fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense. They'll need a plan they can all agree on if they're to get back into the majority in the House and Senate, or to win back the White House.

But still, Bash said, he talks in his book about misinformation and lies, both from right-wing media and from GOP lawmakers, including perpetuating the big lie, that the election was stolen. She asked if they were eroding democracy. After a bit of pressure, he said both parties have fringe members, and

remember, there are good members on both sides of the aisle. You know, 90% of Congress are good, decent, honest people trying to do the right thing for their constituents and for the country. But, in my case, on any given day, there were two or three dozen what I call knuckleheads who just wanted -- they wanted chaos. They wanted it all their way or no way.

And on bills related to how Americans exercise their right to vote, some 360 of them, according to the Brennan Center for Justice? Boehner noted that before he was in Congress, when he was a legislator in Ohio, election issues were bipartisan issues, "because people need to have confidence in those systems," but after "the challenges that the last election proved out," states are "trying to figure out a way to make it more fair, more secure." 

And, he said, those folks who want chaos? They have a bigger platform to "make their points and, frankly, create chaos."

It brings more attention to them. They're able to raise more money. And the idea of governing is something foreign to most of them.

Finally, on 2024, 

...what I want to happen is somebody that stands up and represents all the principles of the Republican Party, somebody that can bring the Republican Party together and win elections.

And, here are some highlights from his interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Their conversation started with a question on what if any responsibility Boehner has, or that he holds himself to, "for the change in the party" as it lurched rightward during his tenure as Speaker. He said that some of them just didn't want to join the party, they wanted it "100% their way or no way." He also said he didn't think he could have done more,

You know, hindsight's 20/20. It's easy to look back now, ten years, six years ago and wonder. But I can tell you that I did everything every day I could to bring them into the party, make them part of the party, but some of them just frankly didn't want to come.

On white supremacy, and the attempt to start what's effectively a white supremacist caucus, Chuck wondered how this worked its way into the Republican party.

I have no idea how this even showed up. I wouldn't call it mainstreamed in our party, but I can tell you that this so-called America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen. Listen, America is a land of immigration. We've been the world's giant melting pot for 250 years. And we ought to celebrate the fact that we are this giant melting pot. And to see some members of Congress go off and start this America First Caucus is -- it's the silliest thing I've ever seen. And Republicans need to denounce it.

Boehner has said he voted for Trump's re-election; Chuck wondered how he feels about that post-January 6th.

I was disappointed in what happened after the election, the president continuing to make claims about the election being stolen. And I kept looking for evidence, like most Americans did. Where's the evidence? How can you keep saying something that -- without providing any proof? And there wasn't any. And clearly on January 6th, it was one of the saddest days in my life, watching the place I have worked -- watching a place where I and my team did everything we could for that institution -- being trashed by a mob.

That said, Boehner refused to say if the actions of the former president were disqualifying from leading the country again. 

Listen, Chuck, I'm not in office any more. What he does or doesn't do really is of no interest to me. I'm trying to make sure that Republicans understand, as a Republican Party, we need to go back to the principles of what it means to be a Republican...things that hold Republicans and the Republican Party together and has for the last 150 years. Let's go back to being Republicans.

And, in case you're wondering, here's Boehner's answer on any potential future political campaign.

I'd rather set myself on fire than to run for office again.

No comment on that last part. See you around campus.

Shaming the VA on Memorial Day

At the end of last month, congressional Republicans released a video commemorating Memorial Day, honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice -  and, in one case, blasting the VA. Because that's how they roll, I guess.

Here's Rep. Jeff Denham of California, an Air Force vet, speaking in the video:

This is a day of remembrance and honoring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. But for the last several years, far too often, we're spending time talking about the inadequacies of the VA. 

Sure -  in between solemn ceremonies of remembrance, and collective breath-holding as high school buglers play Taps in cemeteries or at veterans' memorials, and 21-gun salutes at parades in just about every small town in America, and thinking about friends and family members who were lost, we bitch about the VA.

Or, maybe, we do that when we're test-driving mattresses, I don't know.

New VA Secretary David Shulkin, an MD who was appointed as undersecretary by President Obama in 2015, has been making concerted efforts - and progress - since then, well before he was nominated by president Trump to head the agency earlier this year.

In a White House briefing on May 31st, Shulkin vowed

to turn the VA into the organization veterans and families deserve and one that Americans ca take pride in. 

 He mentioned several priorities, such as reducing the backlog of vets waiting for care; the high suicide rate; quality improvements;and faster disability claim processing, and noted

Though we are taking immediate and decisive steps, we are still in critical condition and require intensive care. 

And, he made clear, there was no question he had support from the West Wing, including both Trump and Mike Pence.

Shulkin, the first non-veteran to head the agency, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate to lead the VA. He's also got a long track record of innovating in the healthcare world, usually successfully but sometimes not - which is OK, because the only thing worse than failing is not even trying, right?

In this NY Times story, we learn a lot more about Shulkin and his plans for the VA. For example, Shulkin regularly sees patients, in person and remotely via telemedicine. And he was more than a handful down Trump's list to lead the agency, having been in the VA leadership during the time candidate Trump regularly trashed the agency. 

He's already had the VA facilities post wait times and quality information, and this month the VA will start offering mental health services to vets with less-than-honorable discharges, a group full of folks living with PTSD. He's also working on changing employment practices to allow for quicker hiring and firing; he wants more vets to see private physicians; about a third do now, but he wants to increase that number. And, things like hearing aids and eyeglasses (the latter, Shulkin notes, you can get in an hour in any mall) should be handled outside the system so that more time and resources can be put into treating vets who have been wounded. 

That kind of thinking is consistent with how he handled himself in his previous VA role; it was as under-secretary that he challenged suicide prevention leaders to do more. After being told it would take a "summit meeting" and "10 months" Shulkin gave them one month - by showing them that some 6,000 vets would kill themselves while the VA studied things. They ended up getting it done in a month.  Remembering that meeting with the leadership, Shulkin said

For me, it was a very important day. It taught our people you can act with urgency, and you can resist the temptation to say we work in a system that you can't get to move faster. I think they learned that you can. 

So why does all this matter?

I was looking through old posts, and it was on May 31, 2014 -- three years to the day before Shulkin's briefing -- that I posted about Congress ignoring repeated reports, going back more than a decade at that time, from the VA about the scheduling issues, and how Congress responded to the resignation of General Eric Shinseki, Obama's VA secretary.

From my 2014 post:

Since 2005, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued 18 reports that identified, at both the national and local levels, deficiencies in scheduling resulting in lengthy wait times and the negative impact on patient care...

Apparently these "well documented and systemic issues" which the VA OIG has been complaining about for years, were not important enough for Miller's committee to jump on, like they jumped on VA travel expenses, for example. Spending taxpayer dollars on conferences is one thing, but years worth of information on poor treatment of veterans, well that's something else entirely. 

I ended the post quoting former House Speaker John Boehner, and noted that while Shinseki fell on his sword, as usual, Congress pointed theirs at someone else.

General Shinseki has dedicated his life to our country, and we thank him for his service. His resignation, though, does not absolve the president of his responsibility to make things right for our veterans.  Business as usual cannot continue...One personnel change cannot be used as an excuse to paper over a systemic problem. Our veterans deserve better, we'll hold the President accountable until he makes things right.

Fast forward to this year, and we learn that Denham has sponsored or cosponsored bipartisan bills to help move things along at the VA. In essence, he's doing exactly what he should be doing.

Which leaves me to think that everyone would be better served - those we have lost, whom the Memorial Day video was intended to honor, and vets who are still with us and in need of quality services of all kinds - if he just continued to work to make improvements, instead of slamming the agency that is finally, with Congress's help, at least moving in the right direction.

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?

My Apologies

Regular readers may have noticed that I've not been posting frequently these past couple of weeks.

It's not because I don't care about His Hairness any more. It's not because I stopped being concerned about Hillary's baggage, or about Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and all the rest of them. I certainly am interested in the papal visit, and of course now we understand why Crying John Boehner was blubbering so much when he was with Pope Francis.

There's a new TV season starting, and that's always fun to talk about; and that pesky Kim Davis, well, she's still milking her 15 minutes of fame, as are so many others.

All of that going on, and I've not been posting?

Yep.  Because, while that's been going on, I've been focusing on today, September 26, 2015.  Because today is the day I marry My Sweet Baboo.

We met on a winery bus tour thirteen years ago next month, and we've been together ever since.  And finally, thousands of laughs and significantly fewer tears later, we're getting married.

I'll start posting again in the next few days, and I'm sure there'll be lots of fun stuff to catch up on.  But today, it's all about that dress, and those flowers, and our families and friends, and great food and perfect weather and hearts filled with love and joy.

See you soon.

When in the Majority: Express Disapproval

Congress has left town for their President's Day recess, without solving the problem of how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be funded.

You'll recall that the budget deal that was worked out last year funded the rest of the government through September but left out DHS, because the Republicans wanted to make a statement about their dissatisfaction with President Obama's executive action on immigration.

Orange John Boehner and Grumpy Old Mitch McConnell, or their minions, came up with this great plan to push the Dems against the wall and force them to vote separately on DHS, which the Rs would castrate with anti-immigration language.  Because castration, as we know, is something revered in Congress now.

So the budget passes and we go into January, with an end of February deadline looming on DHS funding, and what does the Republican controlled Congress do?

• Vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which they did some 50 times while in the minority, with exactly equally dismal chances of happening. 
• Vote to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline, which "will help secure our energy independence" by taking crappy dirty Canadian tar sands, run them in pipes through the center of the country down to the Gulf of Mexico, where they will be refined and sent to Europe and China. The bill will almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama, the Boehner signing ceremony notwithstanding. 

With that auspicious start to basking in the overwhelming majority given by the 37% of people who weren't too fed up with the process and actually voted in the mid-terms, the Rs are off to the races. Except on the DHS funding.

Senator Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Republican, noted that

We need to resolve it. We need to fund DHS and also find a legislative mechanism to express our disapproval with the President's executive order. 

Here's a thought: do exactly what you say you need to do. Both houses need to work together  to pass a clean DHS funding bill; don't pull a Cruz and shut any part of the government down.

And  then, draft an immigration bill. Get your party together and come up with an immigration plan that the majority of you in both houses can support, and that will entice some Dems to participate with you. Allow reasonable debate and related amendments in both houses, and pass an immigration bill.

If you want to express legislative disapproval on the President's executive order, try and pass a bill that limits executive actions.

Or, if that's not 'disapproval' enough, or too risky, since it would limit your own guy should you ever find one who's electable, start every session (in both houses) with a vote on a statement of your disapproval.  Here's some draft language for you:

We, the minority-elected Republican majority in the [House] [Senate], hereby express our strongest disapproval of Executive Actions taken by President Obama and all of his predecessors on immigration, believing as we so strongly do that only we have the right and the duty to make laws on this issue.  So say we all. 

Read the darn thing into the Congressional Record, and then get to work.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v17)

Here we are, just a few days into the new year, and instead of being filled with hope and anticipation, we're sharing grief and anger and agony with our friends in France,we've got a new Congress in Washington, and we said goodbye to an icon here in New York.  It's been a busy few days.

Paris was devastated by an attack on their boldly satirical magazine, 'Charlie Hebdo'. The magazine, which gained notoriety for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed was fire-bombed in an earlier incident, and today a dozen people were killed in the horrific attack; meanwhile we are still a bit indignant about the brazen technical assault last month on Sony Pictures for their somewhat ill-advised comedy about killing North Korea's Kim Jung Un.

In that attack on free speech,  Sony lost emails, data, credibility and money by not having the opportunity for a big Christmas-day premiere of The Interview. In Paris, they lost lives for publishing cartoons.  I'm left wondering, this Wednesday,  if we'll ever really understand that kind of extremism, and more importantly whether we'll ever collectively have a way to manage it and the people who bring it upon us.

The 114th Congress took over this week, with an extreme kiss from Crying John Boehner to the head of Nancy Pelosi; a more awkward kiss has not been seen in DC in who knows how long. Boehner managed to get re-elected as House Speaker, although it wasn't easy. It wasn't easy for a few of the folks were were not firmly in his corner, either - those folks lost their committee posts in a swift reaction by Boehner. He's going to have a long battle these next two years, but starting out by smacking down the opposition has to feel good, don't you think?

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Mitch McConnell actually talked about finding agreement with his Democratic counterparts:

I always like to remind people that divided government is not unusual in this country. When the American people choose divided government I don't think it means they don't want us to do anything, I think it means they want us to look for areas of agreement. 

And then, reminded us that this first order of business is to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline bill, which according to McConnell is a key component of the 'energy revolution' in this country.  That would be the same energy revolution that has gas prices tumbling, which would be good, except that OPEC countries are not propping up their own oil, and so the price is in free fall, which is messing up the stock market and the world economy, which is scaring the bluecheeses out of us.  I'm wondering if Mitch wants to reconsider his first big vote?

And finally, we said goodbye to Mario Cuomo this week; I wonder who will be the real voice of progressive reasonableness, or reasonable progressitivity, going forward? That person, whoever he or she is, will have a huge opportunity in 2016, one that shouldn't be wasted.

Trustiness is Next to Truthiness

I really did not want President Obama to act unilaterally on immigration. 

Unlike 99.999% of the people who are commenting on the constitutionality of his action, I freely admit I don't know if he had the authority to do it; the Constitution (and the Bible, by the way) can be interpreted to mean what you want it to. That's one thing that 99.999% of us do know to be true. 

The argument that a boatload of Presidents before him have taken some kind of executive action on immigration doesn't really matter all that much to me, because (as noted above) I cannot speak with any authority on the legality or constitutionality of those actions either, and because, as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. And two rights don't necessarily make a right either, because of that whole interpretation thing.

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone

Even though I think we need some kind of action on immigration, and pretty much everyone admits that, even the staunchest, most hate-spewing, build-a-giant-fence-around-the-country right-winger and the most open-armed-give-them-all-citizenship-welfare-and-healthcare-on-day-one left-winger, I do not believe this was the right way to go about it. Why?  

Because within the current Congress, or with the 'mandated by the majority of the 37% of voters who actually gave a damn and bothered to show up on November 4th' Congress that will start in January, there seem to be very few folks on either side of the aisle who can keep the gang from going any further off the rails because Obama 'stuck his finger in their eye' or because he 'played with matches' and so has to get burned, or because he 'poisoned the well' on immigration reform (and tax reform, and climate change, and jobs and trade and the economy) for the rest of his presidency, or because he won't be able to 'build trust' with the new Congress. 

Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country - and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians. ~Charles Krauthammer

He is not going to be able to build trust with the new Congress, in part because they neither seek nor want his trust, but mostly because:

• The leadership of the new Congress is the same as the old: Crying John Boehner is still somewhat in charge of the House Republicans, and Grumpy Old Mitch McConnell is still somewhat in charge of his cadre in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi is still in charge of her troops, and Harry Reid of his. And we all know, nothing says "trust me now" like a long history of not trusting me yesterday.  
• Because the first thing Boehner wants to do in his chamber is (drum roll please) vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act! He's already led his troops to do this some 50 times, at a cost of about $1.5 million each time he does it. Yep. $75,000,000 of your tax dollars trustfully put to work. 
• And oh, by the way, they just sued Obama over the ACA, something they have long planned as a trust-builder with the President. 
• Because this Congress just released its seventh report on Benghazi(or as they say on Fox News, BENGHAZI!) which found that there was no failure of the CIA and the military. But wait -- there's still one more investigation to go, she said trustingly.
• Because over the years, there have been bipartisan efforts galore - Simpson-Bowles on a host of financial reforms, and the Gang of Eight, who did immigration reform - which have been ignored by Congress and the President with equal relish. Gee, that trust stuff is tasty, isn't it?

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of words.Trust movement.~Alfred Adler

Had President Obama come out immediately after the midterm election and moved towards action, had he embarked on a campaign of his own, about his agenda for the next two years (including comprehensive immigration reform), I would have heartily approved.

Our distrust is very expensive.~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Had President Obama stood in the White House this past Thursday and asked Crying John to set aside his first plan of action for the new Congress (voting to repeal the ACA yet again) and instead make holding a vote on the the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill the priority, I would have supported him.  

Had President Obama used his personal Twitter feed, and the White House Facebook page, and all of the other communication vehicles at his disposal to address the lack of action on the part of Congress, and begged them to do the job they were elected to do - to serve the American people -- he would have me in his corner. 

We're all born brave, trusting, and greedy, and most of us remain greedy.~Mignon McLaughlin

At this point, I guess we have to hold out hope that there are enough people in Congress who are greedy enough, who want to be successful, who want to have a positive legacy, who want to be the ones to actually accomplish immigration reform, and that they can exude enough 'trustiness' to convince their colleagues to go along. 

Government is an unnecessary evil. Human beings, when accustomed to taking responsibility for their own behavior, can cooperate on a basis of mutual trust and helpfulness. ~Fred Woodworth

Knock Knock. Who's There? Tone-deaf Politicians

Tone-deaf politicians who?

Tone-deaf politicians who are so out of touch with reality that they actually think what they say they're going to do, or threaten to do, or promise to do, or promise to NOT do, makes sense.

There's practically a cast of thousands to choose from, so I can only provide a sampling. And, given that I'm an equal opportunity kind of gal, I promise we'll have representation from both political parties.

Ready?

I have to start with Dems in Washington, who are not allowing one of their members to vote by proxy for the upcoming House leadership positions.  Tammy Duckworth, who represents folks in Illinois, is eight months or so pregnant, and her doctor has restricted her travel.  Duckworth asked to be allowed to vote by proxy; this is simply not done, apparently. Seems the thinking is that once you do it for one person, it'll open the floodgates of proxy-vote-wishers and heck, Congress will be a mess. Or something.  The congresswoman is being the better person in this one, I think. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Dems the party of women? The ones who are all about workplace equality?  The party that brought us the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ? Not for nothing, but it seems if you want women to be treated fairly in the workplace, perhaps you should set an example by treating them fairly in your own workplace.

Staying in Washington, let's talk about our tone-deaf President and Congressional leaders, Barack Obama, Crying John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell.  For someone who was such a strong communicator and messenger in the beginning, POTUS is demonstrating a clear lack vision, and a lack of understanding of what people want, or don't want, in the shadow of the mid-term elections.  Remember, Mr. President, turnout was only 37% - so no, you don't have a mandate to do something on immigration at this point, and the the Republicans don't have a mandate to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The three of them need to share more than a glass of bourbon - they need a leadership seminar instead. I can't imagine they'd come out worse than they went in.

And lest you think that tone-deafness is a Washington-only affliction, let's turn our attention to New York Republicans. You recall that the Rs gained a slim majority in the State Senate, holding 32 seats now.  Naturally they re-elected Dean Skelos as their leader, and also continued with Southern Tier area senator Tom Libous, who is under indictment for lying to the FBI, as second-in-command. Apparently having ethically-challenged leaders is OK with the Republicans. But the real winner for the Rs is that Skelos believes it's time for a pay raise for the politicians in Albany. That's right -- their part-time base pay of over $79,000 (and average pay of around $100K) is not enough, and they haven't had a raise in 14 years, and well, it's about time, don't you think?

Um, no. It's not time to keep pregnant women from fully participating in elected office, and it's not time for crazy action by leaders in Congress, and it's not time for a pay raise for New York legislators.

It is time for these folks to start treating women fairly, time to listen and collaborate instead of bloviating all over our nation's capital, and time o pay attention to the people who can only imagine in their wildest dreams what they'd do with an income close to that of an Albany politician.

Thoughts on the New House Tax Credit Bill

A couple hundred House Republicans and five handfuls of Democrats passed a tax bill yesterday. The bill tinkers with the federal child tax credit, in part by eliminating the marriage penalty, which means that couples with children can earn more money and still qualify for this kind of credit.  According to Mother Jones, the bill would cost the federal government some $115 billion over 10 years, which even in Washington is not chump change.

According to House Speaker Boehner, on the other hand,

Making the tax code simpler and fairer is good for jobs and economic growth, and for American families barely treading water in the Obama economy. The child tax credit legislation we passed today supports working families by eliminating the marriage penalty and better aligning the tax credit with the higher costs parents face. 

That sort of ignores the fact that (again according to Mother Jones) lower income folks, including single parent families, will be hurt by the change and that might not  be so good for jobs and economic growth. And I wonder if two-parents-working families making $150K really need a tax credit of a couple thousand dollars?  I mean, I get that every little bit helps us as individuals, but is that the kind of help our overall economy needs?

I'm wondering something else, too: If not having kids is a lifestyle choice, isn't having kids also a lifestyle choice?  And if lifestyle choices should not be supported by the Federal or State governments, why do we support those who choose to be parents through income tax credits, college tuition tax credits and even 'school choice' tax credits?  Not to mention paying for the parent lifestyle choice through health insurance coverage for things like infertility and erectile dysfunction drugs?

If, as Crying John noted, the goal is to help the families that are "barely treading water in the Obama economy" would it be better to reduce the income tax rates for everyone, rather than providing tax credits just for some people, who get them simply based on their lifestyle?

I've posed this question before, and will continue to put it out there, particularly now that we're getting closer to election season, when politicians on both sides of the aisle will ramp up their rhetoric on taxes, families, and what Americans want.

What I want, if anyone's interested, is fairness and tax equity, where we reduce the amount of taxes that are needed, because we limit the amount of personal welfare that's provided, whether it's going to deserving people who have very little or who have much. And where we limit corporate welfare, the kind that goes to new companies but not to old ones, or the kind that provides tax credits (that you and I pay for) to businesses to offset the minimum wage increase that was passed here in New York. These are but a few examples; I'm sure wherever you live, you can identify similar ones that don't make any sense.

I'm not anti-parent or anti-child or anti-tax break. I just think we all could use a break, across the board, not through piecemeal tinkering that politicians pass off as 'simplification'. We need to overhaul the tax code if we really want to get to fairness and tax equity, and we need to be bold about it.

Is it time for a flat tax? Time for us to have more money in our pockets each payday vs. having to plow through income tax software trying to find ways to put more money back in our pockets each spring? Time for everyone to be treated fairly across the board? Is it time for us to tax income like income, and stop fiddling around passing judgement, via tax credits, on how people spend that income?

What do you think? Is flatter fairer?

Only One Head Will Roll

The hundred or so folks in Congress who have been calling ever more loudly of late for the head of General Eric Shinseki should be feeling quite proud of themselves. Shinseki, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, offered his resignation, and President Obama  accepted it, "with considerable regret," to no one's surprise.

Of course, I'm not convinced how much regret there really was, as Obama stuck with the script that most in his position follow when they desperately want to be rid of the albatross-of-the-day, but rarely come right out and officially ask for the resignation.

Shinseki had offered up some information (in a column that ran in USA Today on Thursday) on what he was doing to both investigate and respond to allegations of delayed appointments and falsified records at several facilities, including the one in Phoenix where leaders were placed on leave based on the accusations there, but it was virtually -- no, Bidenesque literally --  impossible for him to offer enough, to do enough, to keep his job. He knew it, the President knew it, and so did pretty much everyone else.

There were a few holdouts though, notably House Speaker Crying John Boehner.  He noted on Thursday that

The question I ask myself is him resigning going to get us to the bottom of the problem? Is it going to help us find out what's really going on, and the answer I keep getting is no.

Interestingly, this patient wait-time problem, as the MSNBC article cited above notes, has been going on for years. In fact,

Since 2005, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued 18 reports that identified, at both the national and local levels, deficiencies in scheduling resulting in lengthy wait times and the negative impact on patient care.

And this leads me to wonder, will other heads roll?  Aren't there others who should have been aware of this, and did little or nothing to solve the problem?

What about the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs? Chairman Bernie Sanders, the staunchly Independent Vermonter, apparently has not been holding hearings (on anything?) even though minority members allegedly have been calling for them.  The time is now, the minority has said, for oversight to begin. Well, actually, the time has long since passed for Senate oversight hasn't it?

And what about the matching House committee? What about the fine Republican Jeff Miller of Florida?   Here are some excerpts from his statement on the Secretary's resignation:

Appropriately, Shinseki is taking the brunt of the blame for these problems, but he is not the only one within VA who bears responsibility. Nearly every member of Shinseki's inner circle failed him in a major way...shielded him from crucial facts...convincing him that some of the department's most serious, well documented and systemic issues were merely isolated incidents...

Apparently these "well documented and systemic issues" which the VA OIG has been complaining about for years, were not important enough for Miller's committee to jump on, like they jumped on VA travel expenses, for example. Spending taxpayer dollars on conferences is one thing, but years worth of information on poor treatment of veterans, well that's something else entirely.

Where was Miller's oversight?  He certainly doesn't have a problem voicing his disdain for the VA bureaucracy, but what about his own lack of knowledge and action? Should his head be on the chopping block along with Shinseki? Of course not.

In what amounted to an act of self-administered hands-only CPR (Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' alive stayin' alive), he notes that (emphasis added)

...whomever the next secretary may be, they will receive no grace period from America's veterans, American taxpayers, and Congress.

Thump on, Chairman Miller, thump on.

Seriously, you and I know that we have a better chance of seeing Elvis Presley perform this summer at the Weedsport Hotel than we do of anyone in Congress stepping up, and stepping down because they failed to perform their oversight responsibilities, potentially leading to the death of American veterans, which is how the patient wait-time issue has been described.

They'll holler and yell for someone else's head, especially in an election year - but they'll fail to see their own reflections in the mirror. Crying John is proof of that.

He reiterated that the VA's problems are bigger than one man -- or, at least, bigger than one retired Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and clearly they're too big for Congressional accountability. Nope -- only one man is man enough to fix this problem.

Per Boehner's statement on the resignation (again, emphasis added),

General Shinseki has dedicated his life to our country, and we thank him for his service. His resignation, though, does not absolve the president of his responsibility to make things right for our veterans.  Business as usual cannot continue...One personnel change cannot be used as an excuse to paper over a systemic problem. Our veterans deserve better, we'll hold the President accountable until he makes things right.

Shinseki fell on his sword.  As usual, Congress pointed theirs at someone else.

Channeling Andy Rooney

Andy Rooney

Did you ever wonder...

...if the Hobby Lobby folks (who are suing because having to provide certain contraceptive medicines as required under the Affordable Care Act violates their religious beliefs) should interview potential customers to see what the customer's beliefs are before allowing them to spend money in the store?

Because I'm kinda thinking that if the religious beliefs of the company's owner by extension also apply to all of the company's employees, I would think that they would also extend to the customers.

And there certainly would be no reason for a moral business to accept money from people who don't subscribe to the same beliefs, right?  I mean, if I don't agree with the business, why would they want my money?

Here's what that interaction would look like if I was the customer:

HL employee:  Thank you for coming to our store today.  Before I give you this shopping basket, I'd like to ask you a few questions, is that OK?

Me: Uh, sure, go ahead, but I really just wanted to pick up a couple of cheesy picture frames.

HL employee: No problem, we have lots of those.  But first, do you believe that it's OK for a woman to receive the morning after pill if she needs it?

Me:  I don't really think it's any of your business, and I'm not sure what that has to do with me getting a couple of cheesy picture frames from your store?

HL employee: Well, our owners believe that those medications are morally wrong, and we want to make sure that we don't take money from anyone who doesn't share the same beliefs. So to make it possible for our company owners to sleep at night, we need to ask this question of all our customers. Your money is important, of course, and we'd love to take it, but our company owners' beliefs are more important. 

Me: No problem, I completely understand.  I'll go get my cheesy picture frames from the Christmas Tree Shops. I think I remember seeing them right near the Christmas tampons and Christmas toothpaste. You have a nice day.

HL employee: Thanks for almost shopping at our store. You have a nice day too.

Yeah, that would be fun to do, wouldn't it? Or maybe instead of asking customers the question, the store could just post a sign on the window?  Let me know if that's happening at HL now, will you? I went to the store once, long before this whole 'my religion is your religion' issue came up, and finding nothing to buy, haven't gone back.  Although I certainly would give them credit for honesty if they did something like this.

Speaking of honesty, remember the wing-flapping over Chik-fil-A and their support of anti-gay programs and charities over the years? Here's a compilation of issues if you're interested. There's been a lot of noise about these folks, particularly when the head of the company tweeted his thoughts last summer after the SCOTUS released its decision on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8.

In a refreshing burst of of honesty, here's what the company said about the (now-deleted) tweet:

Yesterday, President and COO of Chik-fil-A Dan Cathy tweeted a personal comment upon hearing the Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and Prop 8.  Dan recognizes his views do not necessarily represent the views of all Chik-fil-A customers, restaurant owners, and employees so he removed the tweet to eliminate any confusion. At Chik-fil-A, we are focused on providing great-tasting food and genuine hospitality to everyone. 

Good for Chik-fil-A for appreciating the difference between the owner, the people who work there, and the customers who eat there.

And, did you ever wonder...

...why so many of us, particularly those who scream and shout about getting government out of business, and letting the free market rule the world (with corporate welfare contributions, of course) get so up in arms when a business does what it wants without a lot of interference from the government?

We all know about the Duck Dynasty case, where the A and E Network decided to put the main Duck Dude on suspension because of his intolerant comments about gays and happy black people in the deep south. Suspension, while the show was on hiatus. Which is kinda like the fraternity on Animal House being on double secret probation or something. Or, as I noted previously, like a baseball pitcher being suspended and having games they were officially scheduled not to pitch count towards their suspension.

cvs.com

I'm guessing you've heard the news from CVS/pharmacy, the nation's second-largest well-stocked corner store that happens to have a pharmacy in the back. Like any good corner store, they have all the stuff we need -- sunglasses, sugary and salty/crunchy treats, personal hygiene items for folks of all ages, beer, cigarettes and what not.

Oh yeah, and they have that pharmacy, and they also do flu shots and the like, which in their business model qualifies them as a health care provider. And if you're a health care provider, it doesn't make sense to sell cigarettes. So, CVS  has announced plans to phase out tobacco products by October of this year. Let the games begin, folks.

A classic 'you can't win for losing', they are getting hammered as much as they're being supported, in some cases by the same subset of the population: doctors, business experts, college students, and of course the anonymous chatterboxes on social media.

• You've got the "I'll never shop there again, the bastages, since they took my cigarettes away" theme, as if there weren't a gazillion places to get smokes if you need them. Some 90% of all cigarette sales happen at convenience stores, people, not at CVS and Walgreen's.  And probably some 90% of CVS customers don't get their cigs at CVS.
• Then there's the "what about beer and junk food?" contingent, as if a person (and by person I mean corporation, of course) who makes one positive step deserves to be chastised for not making a million positive steps at the same time.  Can you even imagine the audacity of them, the bastages, not emptying their shelves EVERYTHING? Right NOW?!
• Then there's the 'Nanny state' group, those who believe this is some kind of black-helicopter, NSA-type plot, part of the government take-over our lives. As if this was done by law, edict or fiat, by some Obaman stroke of the pen. This was a business decision, not a government regulation. This was a company decision, not a Bloomberg big gulp chomp out of your personal freedom.
• And that of course leads to the next contingent, the people who question the real motive of CVS in making the decision. Some folks don't believe that this has anything to do with 'health care' and totally has to do with marketing and trying to be more competitive.  

Um, does it really matter why they're doing it?  I mean, if they had come out and said, "after much soul-searching, we bastages at CVS have decided to change our business model and stop selling cigarettes so we would look more like Target" would that make you happy?

If you think they're bastages for stopping selling tobacco, you have the right to stop shopping there, just as a person has the right to stop buying lunch at Chik-fil-A or shopping at JC Pennney or Abercrombie or  watching the Duck Dudes or stop buying knick-knacks at Hobby Lobby.

And that leads me to wonder about the deafening silence from the folks who are always Right There in support of businesses making changes on their own, without being forced to make them, without the government getting involved. Where the heck is Sarah Palin on this?  I checked her Facebook page, but she's pretty busy promoting her new TV show and wishing Ronald Reagan happy birthday, so she probably doesn't have time to jump in here in favor of free enterprise.

Where's John Boehner, chest-thumping and sobbing his eyes out, championing the 'certainty' that CVS has put out there in the market? That's what the Republicans in the House have been crying about for the past five years, isn't it?  The 'lack of certainty' that Democrats made happen?  Well, Crying John is focused on immigration, and the IRS, and the Keystone extra-large pipeline, not on free-market business certainty, apparently.

And Mitch McConnell? He supports "insurance policies tailored to those with preexisting conditions, promoting wellness and reigning in junk lawsuits" in this post on his website. I think the CVS move hits all three of those right on the head, don't you? Smokers with lung disease, cardiovascular disease and other smoking-related health issues fall right in his first bucket, and stopping cigarette sales is in the second bucket, and everyone knows that tobacco lawsuits are junk, right?  This is right up his alley, but he's a little busy focusing on getting the IRS to stop investigating 501(3)(c) organizations and on getting support for hemp-growing in Kentucky to pay attention to CVS right now, I guess.

Did you ever wonder if some of these folks are really just self-serving opportunists? Here's a thought: if CVS had made even the remotest connection to religion in their decision, these three would be all over this.

Let me know what's got you doing the Andy Rooney thing these days.