Sunday School 1/22/23

The classrooms were full of talk about documents, even before Mike Pence found some at his house, but I did find some folks discussing the debt ceiling.  

We'll start with Dana Bash and her guests on CNN's State of the Union. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) thinks President Biden shouldn't negotiate with the Republicans. 

...the MAGA Republicans should note one important fact. Almost 25 percent of all of the national debt accumulated over the history of the United States, 230 years, was accumulated during the four years of Donald Trump.

He says they need to accept responsibility for paying for the debt, and they need to understand the consequences of not doing that.

And if we play games with this, if we delay this, if we have short-term extensions of the national debt, we run the very risk of a recession in this economy, millions of Americans out of work and interest rates going even higher, denying people an opportunity to buy a home or a car. And this economy will be stalled. We shouldn't play games with the national debt.

Bash recalled when Senator Biden was "the lead negotiator" on spending cuts in exchange for a debt limit; Durbin thinks it's different now, because of "the Trump years" and the "15 ballots to choose the speaker."

... he gave the authority to each member of the House to initiate a vote of no confidence on a daily basis. I mean, this is a House of Representatives which is under control of the MAGA Republicans at this point. And I'm fearful that very few constructive things will emerge.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who disagrees with Durbin, thinks not negotiating is a "mistake." 

...we should be able to talk and find out where our differences are. And if they are irreconcilable, then you have to move on from there and let the people make their decisions. Using the debt ceiling and holding it hostage hasn't worked in the past, OK? And anyone who wants to look at what happened in 2011 and 2013, then go ahead. It didn't work out well. 

Bash asked who was holding it hostage; sounds like the GOP. He said 60% of retirees in West Virginia are on Social Security and Medicare, and he doesn't like people scaring "the bejesus out of them" by putting cuts on the table. Rather, they need to "set a target" and look for wasteful spending that can be cut. 

Everybody believes -- I mean, my goodness, when you have $31.4 trillion, and we have thrown caution to the wind, and to blame the Republicans, Republicans to blame the Democrats, who's at fault? Everybody's at fault. We don't have a process. I have been there 12 years, no budget.

He thinks that's wrong. After all

...every American has to live within a budget. If they don't, they're in trouble financially. Every business that is successful has to live within a budget. Every state has to live within a budget. Shouldn't the federal government have some guardrails that say, hey, guys, you're getting over -- you're overreaching here and you're overspending? 

He says we have to pick the priorities, including "the security of our country, opportunities for people and taking care of the most vulnerable, and making sure the people that have earned it through basically their Social Security and Medicare are protected."

He doesn't want cuts to benefits; rather, raising the income cap for the FICA tax is "the easiest and quickest thing" they can do. And the last thing we need is a committee to look at this stuff; he agrees with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on that. 

Can't you look and find out in government where you can be more efficient, more basically prudent with the taxpayers' money and quit wasting it, don't you think? And we all talk about waste, fraud and abuse. That's an easy thing to do. But no one looks at it.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), who voted to raise the debt ceiling three times since '17, says if they don't do it again, there'd be "catastrophic economic consequences." And, we don't have any time to waste.

The fact is, we should be having these conversations right now. We know that Secretary Yellen is going to put -- she can put this off until June. June's going to be the target month. But the speaker of the House is willing to sit down today with the president of the United States and try to work this out. And I would encourage him to do that.

In the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan asked Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) if it's a mistake for the White House not to negotiate with the Rs. 

We should have a "clean lift of the debt ceiling," he said, and he doesn't think anyone should "flirt with not paying" our credit card. The Republicans should come out with what they want to cut.

Is it the cutting Social Security and Medicare that Rick Scott wanted to, is it cutting aid to Ukraine in the middle of a war between a democracy and an illegally invading dictator? Let them put on the table what they want to cut so that the American public can see what their priorities are.

Kaine and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have sponsored the Protect Our Credit Act; it says

the president has got to cover the debts of the United States. And if that includes raising the debt ceiling, the president can do that. But if Congress disapproves, then you can have an expedited up or down vote in Congress.

It's similar to an Obama-era move by Sen. Mitch McConnell back in the day, Kaine said. Maybe that means it'll get bipartisan support?

See you around campus. 

Wondering on Wednesday 1/11/23

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm wondering today, on a couple of fronts, about Rep. George Santos (Fables 'R' Us). 

On the one hand, the Nassau County Republicans are not pulling any punches in their criticism of him. Calling him "a joke, a disgrace, abnormal and a pathological liar," the GOP officials 

said the newly elected congressman needed to immediately resign, saying he ran a campaign of “deceit and lies.”

And while Santos threw a defiant "na-na-na-boo-boo" to the party bosses back home, he seems to be quite comfortable with the party bosses in DC. According to Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), Santos "addressed some of the concerns that we've had." Does anyone wonder if that went any further than "do you solemnly swear to go along with us, so help you whoever you believe in?" 

Santos-endorser Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Humiliationville), whose top aide was impersonated by a Santos campaign worker, doesn't appear to have concerns about him sitting in the House chamber, but committees are another issue. 

...McCarthy said Wednesday that embattled freshman GOP Rep. George Santos, who is facing growing calls to resign after admitting to fabricating much of his personal biography, should not be seated on any top committees.

Why, you might be wondering? Well, some think Santos is a national security risk, mostly because of his shady finances. There's chance he might not get any committee assignments; if that's the case, there will be no wondering needed as to why they're keeping him around: 218 votes are way more better than 217. 

Now, I can't help wondering if the reason he's adamant about not resigning is that he feels a responsibility to his former co-workers at Goldman Sachs who may be laid off? The company's letting as many as 3200 people go.

The cuts, totaling about 6.5 percent of Goldman’s workforce, stem from a restructuring plan the investment bank announced in October and the reintroduction of a ritual year-end culling of underperformers that was suspended amid the pandemic, the person said.

I wonder how many of them Santos could help develop kick-ass resumes, find great jobs, start their own companies, or even - dare I say it - run for office? 

I'm investigating wondering if it would be worth wondering if the new House Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating - oh, never mind... 

If you're wondering whether the Biden document thing (and the late-breaking new Biden document thing) is the same as the Trump document thing, I'm comfortable saying that the issue - classified documents not being turned over to the National Archives as required - appears to be the same, but much of the rest of it doesn't.  And unless and until we have evidence of Biden 

• ripping up documents and trying to flush them down the toilet, 
• or burning them in the fireplace, 
• or eating them with ketchup, 
• or declassifying them by thinking about them, 
• and ignoring a months-long effort to get documents turned over before he left the VP's office, 
• and saying repeatedly that he had turned all of the documents he had over already, dammit, leave me the hell alone, 
• and after documents were found he argued about giving them back, 
• and that he had his lawyers attest that all the classified documents had been turned over,
• and that the National Archives identified that documents were still missing, 
• and asked to come and get them and he let them into his house but still didn't turn everything over, 
• and that he ignored a subpoena requiring him to turn them over, 
• and then his office was raided, 
• and we still don't know if everything was turned over,  
• and then he buried a relative on the front lawn at his summer home
• and then he claimed attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, and locker room privilege over the documents, 
• and demanded a special master be appointed to review the documents, 
• and had a court limit the review by the special master, 
• and had a court throw out the special master, 
• and then, hoping to forestall any further investigation, he declared himself a candidate for president conveniently just before a special prosecutor was appointed, then nope, it's not the same.

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sunday School 1/8/23

The Sunday School classrooms were full of House members: I counted three Ds and eight Rs - there may have been more.

We'll hear from three of them, starting with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who earned unanimous support from his caucus during the Speaker vote-a-rama. He stopped by the MTP classroom, where he said his concern with the 'dysfunction' of last week is that it's just the beginning. 

Holding Congress captive is one thing; it's something else entirely doing that to the American people. He said that "the extreme MAGA Republican agenda that apparently has been negotiated into the House rules" could jeopardize our "health, safety, and general well-being," and

(i)t may undermine national security and a robust defense, and undermine our ability to actually advance an agenda that is anchored in kitchen table, pocketbook issues and not extremism.

He's "going to extend the hand of partnership" to the Rs, and look for common ground whenever and wherever possible - but that can't be one-sided. 

We will oppose extremism, of course, whenever necessary. And there are Republicans who are interested in governing. And they're going to have to break from the extreme wings of their party at times around some important issues. And we'll see how that all unfolds.

He and McCarthy "have had some positive, forward-looking conversations" recently, and he hopes they can "agree to disagree without being disagreeable." That's similar to McCarthy's comments upon receiving the gavel. 

Finally, on the historical aspect of his leadership role, Jeffries said, in part, 

... I do think that it is another data point on the journey in America, which is we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And that means that folks from a working-class neighborhood in central Brooklyn like myself should have an opportunity to participate in American governance, particularly in the House of Representatives, which is the institution designed to be the closest to the people.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) - not one of the "MAGA Republicans" Jeffries mentioned - chatted with Jake Tapper on CNN's SOTU. 

He talked about last week's activities and his disagreement with the 'anti-Kevin' folks he referred to as 'terrorists.' He apologized anyone he offended, even as he was surprised at how sensitive they were. Crenshaw provided some transparency into why the rest of the caucus was upset.

...before we had taken a single vote in a conference with everyone there, Kevin McCarthy had asked one of the leaders of this group, what else do you want? Let's make this work. What else do you want? And they couldn't answer in that moment. And that was a real turning point for a lot of people. That was what created all of that animosity...

He also said there was no reason to keep voting throughout the week if they didn't have the agreement they wanted.  

There was no reason for us to keep voting... keep allowing these speeches that just degraded and diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy. We didn't have to keep doing that. We could have just adjourned for the whole week and just kept negotiating...  And it seemed very, very pointless.

Based on what he knows, Crenshaw agrees with the upcoming rules changes, and said no matter what people might thing, there's not a lot of disagreement on them. He said the changes to start with a budget and build the 12 appropriation bills from there is the right way to do it. He also agrees with members being able to bring amendments to the floor. The process will be "messy. It will be time-consuming..." but it will make all members feel as if their voice matters. 

Now, let's hear from Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); he talked with George on This Week, and said all the shenanigans last week were about power for the American people. 

You know, the American people are very, very tired of this gang of seven, gang of eight, literally seven or eight people, or just a few people in Washington, DC, running all of the policy for the American people. So, when we had a framework of an agreement where the American people can be in charge, when their representatives can actually bring amendments to the floor in good faith, I said, sure, if we can do that, then I'm all in.

What else was included in the "framework of an agreement" they worked out? Accountability, and a budget "that doesn't just continually increase spending," and "single-subject bills."

George, the American people, among other things, are tired of these Christmas tree bills with all these ornaments on them coming for -- in the middle of night, 4,000 pages, $1.7 trillion, 7,200 earmarks. Everything works perfectly for Washington, D.C., but there’s no presents under the tree for the American people... restraining those things and getting those things in order, it's an entire package. It’s not just one thing.  

I'm not sure who he thinks those 7.200 earmarks are for - are they just to keep Perry and the rest of them getting elected?

He said they want a debt limit that works to limit our debt; "(w)e can't just keep doing the same thing under the same conditions with the same management and expect different outcomes." Perry said since he's been in Congress - ten years now - the debt has doubled from around $15T to $31.5T. 

Finally, Perry doesn't think he should have to forego participating on a committee to "investigate the investigations," as George called it, simply because he's part of the investigation into the insurrection. He asked 

why should anybody be limited just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in America is innocent until proven otherwise. And I would say this, the American people are really, really tired of the persecution and the instruments of federal power being used against them...

I'm suddenly feeling very sleepy, after listening to Perry tell me how exhausted I am. 

See you around campus. 

Sidebar: Mr. Speaker

Before we get all gaga over the Republican caucus coming together and electing Rep. Kevin McCarthy as their Speaker, it's important to remember that this is still the Republican caucus, and we know who they are. 

Lest we forget, they're happy to remind us at every turn, as McCarthy did in Saturday's wee hours. As I noted in my Mr. Speaker post, he told us

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.

Their first order of business is worse than a solution in search of a problem - it's a solution in service to a lie.

There are no plans to hire 87,000 IRS agents to "go after you" or to go after anyone else. There are plans to hire additional staff for the IRS, according to Time.

The Inflation Reduction Act... includes roughly $78 billion for the IRS to be phased in over 10 years. A Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that such an investment would enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and wouldn’t be new positions. (All emphasis throughout the post I've added.)

There are many good reasons for the funding, which will bring on IT staff and customer service folks - the government employees "who should help you," as McCarthy said. And yes, there will be auditors, who "would be largely tasked with cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders." According to folks at Treasury, 

It is wholly inaccurate to describe any of these resources as being about increasing audit scrutiny of the middle class or small businesses.  

So, what is accurate?

There's a big wave of attrition that's coming and a lot of these resources are just about filling those positions.

More than half of current IRS employees are retirement-eligible, and expected to leave in the next few years. The new funding might lead to a net employee gain of 20,000 - 30,000 people. That will bring staffing back to levels last seen over a decade ago.

The IRS currently has roughly 78,000 employees. According to John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, that’s down from around 100,000 when he first started. By the time he resigned four years later, he said, it was clear that the agency was in the grip of a systematic attempt by the GOP to weaken it. 

When the GOP took control of the House after the 2010 election, Koskinen says, they "immediately instituted a series of crippling cuts..." Overall funding has "fallen further, by more than 20%" since then. And enforcement funding? That's dropped by 31%, making it easier now for "high-net-worth tax cheats and major corporations" to avoid paying their fair share, costing us billions.

Audit rates on the largest companies dropped from nearly 100% to 50%; audits on the wealthiest individuals dropped from 8.4% to 2.4% from 2010 to 2019, according to Janet Holtzblatt of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

All of us agree a non-responsive government is a bad thing.

McCarthy's right - government should help us. But how can they do that on something as important as the income taxes we pay, if there's no one to answer the phone or process our tax returns? Or if the IT systems are so out-of-date, they can't find qualified folks to work on them, making it necessary to use manual processes instead? 

Back in August, about the same time the Rs started threatening us with the 87,000 auditors lie, the Washington Post Opinion page shared an eye-opening piece, with photos, on why the IRS needed this funding. It showed the cafeteria at the IRS center in Austin, jam-packed with paper files as far as the eye can see.

 It’s part of what the IRS calls the “Pipeline”: a 1970s-era assembly line used to process tax returns at several locations around the country. And it might give you a sense of why Congress is on the verge of handing the agency $80 billion through the Inflation Reduction Act — not only for more enforcement but also for tech modernization.

There's a massive backlog - over 10 million individual returns as of last July, partly from the pandemic, but also from

the agency’s embarrassingly outdated, paper-based system, which leaves stacks and stacks of returns cluttering shelves, hallways and even the cafeteria. 

On the Pipeline, paper tax returns aren’t scanned into computers; instead, IRS employees manually keystroke the numbers from each document into the system, digit by digit.

All of this happens - the lack of audits on the people who have the most to lose if they get caught cheating, the lack of access to taxpayer assistance, the old technology and the mess of paper - all of this happens

despite the agency receiving evermore responsibilities: stimulus checks, child tax credit payments, Obamacare enforcement, foreign bank account tracking and, lately, hunting down Russian yachts. Without reliable, long-term funding guarantees, the IRS has struggled to upgrade its systems.

What will the service, technology, and audit programs be able to do if the funding is maintained? The Congressional Budget Office estimates the IRS will "increase revenue by $204B over the next decade." That money will help pay for all the programs the government creates - programs championed by Democrats and Republicans alike. 

One more thing.

Should you be angry because the IRS is going to be able to better perform all aspects of its job, if it gets the funding? Nope.

I used to say there’s no Democratic or Republican way to run the IRS,” Koskinen says. “The people who are significantly disadvantaged are the average taxpayers who have a simple question and can’t get through. Those are Republicans as well as independents and Democrats.” 

McCarthy's starting his tenure with a lie; I'll end this post with a truth. In a December 15, 2022 report, the Government Accountability Office said the IRS

... addressed its backlog of 2021 paper returns. However, as of late September 2022, IRS had about 12.4 million returns to process, resulting in refund delays for millions of taxpayers. 

That's a two-million-plus increase in the backlog - since last July. It's only going to get worse if this funding is cancelled. 

In Case You Missed It (v113)

Is it really possible that I haven't given a weekly post recap since sometime in October? Ugh. Here's what made it out last week, with snippets and links.

Instead of a Sunday School post, I offered up Happy New Year, Leo McGarry Style. McGarry, many of you'll remember, was the first Chief of Staff to President Jed Bartlet on The West Wing. 

After recovering from a heart attack, he was invited back to the administration in a role that was not at all well-defined. Everyone wanted him, but no one really knew why - and he had to figure it out for himself, and for the rest of them. He did just that, after watching old Bartlet speeches. At a somewhat contentious dinner, he hit Bartlet - on the day after his final State of the Union speech - with a critique not only of the SOTU but of the state of his administration in general. 

The show wrapped up with the senior staff summoned back to work by the President, and led to Leo's office. After a brief explanation from Bartlet on why they were there - to hear from an old friend - Leo updated his whiteboard from 365 days to 364 days left. He pointed out that they had all spent their days reacting to things, not proactively doing things.

He asked what they thought was important, and started listing their ideas: things left out of the SOTU, or that had been dropped over time. Things that motivated, energized, and inspired them. The things that mattered to them. 

I'm hoping to use Leo's message to set the stage for this year.

Next up was a note from the Update Desk on my Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v46) post about the Democratic-controlled New York State legislature and their pay raise.

Many New Yorkers are struggling right now, trying to come up with money to pay their rent, their utilities, to buy groceries, and to scrape together money to put even a fair-to-middling holiday celebration together for their families. 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

The reason for the update? I had hoped Hochul would veto the raise; alas, that didn't happen,

even though the raise was more than she had expressed support for, and so was the outside income limit. There have been suggestions that she didn't veto it because she needs the legislature to get things done with the budget and all the legislation they pack into it. There've also been suggestions that she should have gotten a guarantee for having her pick to be the chief judge on the Court of Appeals approved, which may or may not happen.

I'm not sure about either of those, but I wish if she was going to approve it anyway, she had made them wait and stew in it for as long as possible. 

Mid-week, I was Wondering on Wednesday about the drama surrounding the Congressional Republicans and their attempts at electing a Speaker of the House. 

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. 

Of course, there was encouragement (pressure?) from Mar-a-Lago as McCarthy floundered.

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. 

There was wondering, too, about who could help break through the squabbles, and about Rep. George Santos, the lying Congressman-elect from Long Island who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him. 

And finally, in the wee hours of Saturday morning, the debacle came to an end, as I noted in 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. 

McCarthy offered a taste of what's to come (more on that later today); sadly,

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.

One thing's for sure: McCarthy will be

hammering away with the smaller-than-usual gavel. 

I've got a Sidebar on the GOP's agenda ready for you, and I'll have highlights of Gov. Hochul's inaugural, our standard weekly posts, and more for you this week.

I hope you stick around.

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.

Sunday School 11/27/22: Extra Credit

This week's Sunday School was all about the classroom panel discussions. For your Extra Credit, I'll nose around a few of the 'usual suspect' interviews, starting with Dana Bash and Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) on CNN's SOTU.

"A former president, an antisemite, and a white supremacist walk into Mar-a-Lago. There is no punchline." That was Bash's intro to her discussion with Hutchinson - and I love it. Now - on to the recap.

• Hutchinson said he hopes "someday, we won't have to be responding" to stuff Trump has said or done. About the dinner, it "empowers people when you meet with them... you want to diminish their strength, not empower them." He also said "You have got to be absolutely clear in your communication that this is not acceptable dogma, it's not acceptable conversation, it's not acceptable history, and you have to disavow it. it's as simple as that."

• In his upcoming speech at the Reagan Institute, he's going to talk about things that Republicans "historically" don't do: "attack America's democracy...denigrate our political system...undermine confidence in America...attack those institutions that are fundamental to the rule of law." He said the party "is in a good position coming out of the midterms," but his remarks are for "the individual candidates that strayed from" Republican principles.

• He signed a bill banning biological males from competing in women's sports, so he's "comfortable" with Herschel Walker's attack ad about trans athletes just days after the shooting at a LGBTQ+ bar in Colorado Spring. He also passed anti-hate legislation and said "we shouldn't be targeting anyone because of their race or their gender." He closed with, "What happened at that nightclub is a human tragedy... These are challenging issues. And what happened is just simply wrong."

On MTP, What's-his-name (WHN) talked with Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO). Colorado's been the site of several mass shootings over the years. 

• Polis said everyone's voices need to be heard to fix this. "I think what you really need to do if you're serious about reducing these kinds of gun violence events and mass violence events is try to take the best ideas from all sides that work." That means mental health, and gun policy, and dealing with anti-LGBTQ stuff. "We need to, as a society, as political leaders, walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to look at all the evidence and the facts and try to make decisions that lead to a safer country."

• He said it looks like "this would have been a good instance" for the use of Colorado's 'red flag' law. It's been used "several hundred times, but could have been used even more" to prevent mass shootings, self-harm, or suicide." He also said "it's never comfortable" to get involved in someone else's business, particularly when it's a mental health issue, but "it's certainly better than the alternative," which is doing nothing.

• We need a national solution on guns. One example? Colorado has universal background checks, but neighboring states don't. He also was "generally supportive of national efforts towards closing the gun show loophole, towards having a conversation about. having a "process where you need an additional license or background check for some of the most high-powered weapons, I did support that as a member of Congress."

Finally, Jon Karl talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in ABC's This Week classroom. 

• Unbanning Trump from Twitter is "a terrible mistake" and that Elon Musk did it via a user poll "further contradicts Musk and his claimed concern about bots on his own platform."

• Appointing a special counsel for Trump investigations is the right move, and "if the same prosecutors that have been investigating the former president and others can be moved on to the special prosecutor's team, then there is every reason to do it, no reason not to do it..." 

• Yes, we could have a trial of a candidate during a presidential campaign. He thinks the position that you can't indict a sitting president "is flawed as a constitutional matter," and he said DOJ can't now say "you also can't indict a former president who wants to run again."

• He doesn't want to "get ahead of" the decision the January 6th Committee issuing any criminal referrals. "I think the evidence is there to make a referral and we just have to decide whether that's the course we are going to take."

• Similarly, the potential for holding Trump in contempt for ignoring the Committee's subpoenas "is being discussed." He expressed frustration with the DOJ, saying "...even where we have held people in contempt, we're only batting 50 percent with the Justice Department in their willingness to enforce it."

• Kevin McCarthy probably will strip Schiff of his Intelligence Committee seat. "I suspect he will do whatever Marjorie Taylor Greene wants him to do. He is a very weak leader of his conference, meaning that he will adhere to the wishes of the lowest common denominator."

• He said the Ds "continually face a variation of the same question, which is should the Democrats do the right -- do the appropriate thing when Republicans have consistently refused to. I think we maintain the high ground. We follow the law. We follow our responsibilities under the separation of powers," and so yes, they should comply with "appropriate oversight."

• And finally, should now 80-year-old Joe Biden run for re-election? "I think he should. I think he's extremely capable. What he's been able to do in the last two years is an unprecedented level of accomplishment. If he wants to continue, I'm for him."

See you around campus. Chime in if you want - my office door's always open.

Sunday School 11/27/22

Back at it after a longer-than anticipated writing break. I hope all who celebrated the American Thanksgiving holiday did so with an appropriate balance of moderation and exuberance. 

For this week's Sunday School, I meander through the panel discussions, starting off in CNN's SOTU classroom, where Dana Bash hosted Hillary Rosen, Ashley Allison, and Kristen Soltis Anderson, all tied to the network in some capacity, and former Pence chief of staff Marc Short. Here are some highlights:

• Soltis Anderson, on turnout in the Georgia runoff: she thinks the drop-off here will be greater than the 10% turnout drop-off from the '20 general election to '22, and that "it's going to be a harder lift to get them back out to the polls." 

• Rosen, on the midterm election: losing the House is "nothing to celebrate. We're still going to have really horrible committee chairmen taking on issues that the American public do not care about. We're going to have divided, ugly government for the next two years." She thinks the Rs "depended too much on kind of the culture wars." Ultimately, she thinks all of them failed all of us "a little bit on the economic discussion."

• Short, on Trump and that dinner with Ye and Nick Fuentes: "it's incredibly poor judgment... ever since the election in 2020, I think the (former) president's descended deeper into heart of darkness here." He thinks that's why the Rs "are looking in a different direction" for '24. 

• Allison, on 2024: "Donald Trump is homophobic. He is an anti-Semite. He does racist things. And if he's the candidate for 2024, I think it will just not be bad for Republicans. I think it will be bad for our country" because of the polarization and "this heightened tension of hate and violence in our country that we - people are sick of."

Next up, we've got the gang at MTP. What's-his-name had Susan Page (USA Today), Reid Wilson (Pluribus News), Matt Gorman (GOP consultant) and María Teresa Kumar (Voto Latino), and they talked about Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the man who will most likely be the next Speaker of the House. Here's how the panelists looked at things, building off an interview with Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY).

• Page, on McCarthy's chances: Comer made it clear McCarthy doesn't have the votes now, and she said "that doesn't mean he won't get them, but if he gets them, he'll get them by making concessions that he will have to live with for the next two years."

• Wilson, on the Freedom Caucus: they're looking to the future, he said. McCarthy "has within reach the goal he has chased for his entire career, and yet it could be so short-lived. If he's not in service to the Freedom Caucus or in an election if the House Republicans become Joe Biden's bad buy, then you know, this could be an extremely short-lived majority." (Here's how the Freedom Caucus handled the Speaker election in 2015.)

• Gorman, on the new Republicans from Biden-supporting districts: he thinks they're going to provide a check on the far-right members. On things like Congressional oversight, he said they're taking a position of "Wait a minute. We are going to DC to do other things, not just investigate full time." He also suggested that looking into the origins of COVID might rally both the newbies and the right-wingers, if they take a "Look how do we prevent another global pandemic" and, when it comes to China, "what are they covering up?"

• Kumar, on the bigger picture: this is all about being a 'politician,' "trying to figure out, who is, what are the concessions that we can get in trading whatever you want for speakership?" And, she said, with the Rs in charge, there'll be lots of investigations, "but it's all machinations behind the curtain... How do we control the ways and means? How do we actually control the mechanics of legislation?" These are things most Americans don't understand, she said, but there'll be long-term effects "we will feel later."

And finally, a quick stop with Jon Karl and his panel on This Week: Ramesh Ponnuru (National Review and Bloomberg), ABC contributor former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-SD), Mary Bruce (ABC News), and Rachel Bade (Politico). Much of the conversation was about the Rs and the orange elephant outside the room, desperately trying to get back in. 

• Ponnuru on Trump's announcement: he thinks Trump still has strong support with the base, but maybe not a majority of support, and the launch of his '24 campaign was "lackluster." He noted Trump attacked his magazine, the National Review, and in response, people started sending donating to it, not the kind of reaction Trump expected.

• Heitkamp on the lack of GOP support: she figures Trump is pretty unhappy with the lack of support, and the pointed comments from Rs in Vegas. "Can you imagine how angry he is right now, with all these people on the stage... basically saying, move over?" As the self-described deal maker, he's getting nothing, and he's calling everyone to stand with him, to no avail - or worse. 

• Bade, on scaredy-cat critics: that they won't even say his name when criticizing him "is really telling... still clearly afraid of Trump." And, she thinks, that could lead to a repeat of '16, when everyone thought he was weak and they all joined the fray. If that happens in '24? "Trump still has his core base and he could very easily, you know, run away with this nomination... So yes, it's tough."

• Heitkamp on whether Dems should be rooting for Trump: similar to how the Ds went "all in on more conservative, more Trump candidates," there's some of that now. "Trump is the candidate that keeps losing. If you are going to pick someone to run against, why wouldn't you pick Donald Trump? He's the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats."

See you around campus. And feel free to chime in on McCarthy, Trump, Georgia, or anything else; the comment box is always open.