Sunday School 7/31/22

CBS won the billion-dollar classroom lottery today, so we'll have highlights from Face the Nation for Sunday School and your Extra Credit. John Dickerson sat in for Margaret Brennan. 

We'll start with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and then listen in as Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) chimes in. 

Manchin denied that he had "changed his mind" on anything; rather, the Inflation Reduction Act he agreed to with Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fights inflation, which is what he wanted. And, he said, the bill doesn't raise taxes.

...the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent. They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more don't even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.

He said he "never thought" people (I think he meant corporations) weren't paying at least 21%. Has he had his head in his state's coal dust for the last decade or more? I mean, I did a post on GE not paying any federal income taxes back in 2011, for heaven's sake. And West Virginia's almost heaven, so Manchin clearly should have known about this.

Dickerson explained the "Republican criticism" that closing loopholes increases taxes which hurts supply, and during inflation you need a lot of supply. Manchin, sounding almost like a Democrat, said

In the last two years, there have been massive record profits across the board by these largest corporations, massive record profits. And it's been the lowest capital expenditure in the last two years, so that didn't drive it...

Dickerson said Manchin's GOP colleagues think he and Schumer "did something underhanded" by saying 'no deal' and then making a deal. He quoted Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said this was "a declaration of political warfare." Manchin's reaction?

It's such a shame. John Cornyn is a good friend of mine. He's such a good man. And for the politics to be so toxic right now, first of all, I never thought this would come to fruition. I never spoke with anybody about it, any of my colleagues, because they were frustrated that nothing happened for so long on the other. 

And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.

-- you made certain representations, they would say, to Republicans, then broke your trust... Susan Collins said: "It's a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way," in other words, whether it's on election reform or same-sex marriage, that the well has been poisoned.

Manchin said he considers Collins a "very dear friend," but said he "never told anybody" he wasn't going to do something. 

If I had a chance to fix the energy policy of the United States of America, and I didn't do it, shame on me. If I had the chance to reduce the amount of inflation that people in West Virginia and across the country are enduring right now, shame on me... we were able to provide these solutions. Let's not make them political, John." 

Next up? Sen. Toomey, and Dickerson stayed with the Inflation Reduction Act, asking for Toomey's "principal critique."

Well, it's going to make inflation worse, actually. So, they've got a big corporate tax increase that's going to probably make this recession that we're in worse... this spending is unnecessary. It's going to exacerbate inflation. It is not going to reduce the deficit.

He's a big fan of his friend Joe Manchin, but said Manchin "got taken to the cleaners." He agreed to a bunch of bad policy, and in return he was promised "there's going to be some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bill sometime in the future."

Dickerson noted that The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a "fan" of Toomey's, said that this new bill "would be the first time in many years" that reconciliation was used for deficit reduction. Others have said the same thing, but Toomey disagrees.

... they use the same gimmick that Sen. Manchin said he was opposed to in the past. They claim the revenue over a 10-year window from their big tax increase, and their price controls. And then the expenditure that they acknowledge, they pretend is only going to be for three years. That's the Obamacare subsidies for wealthy Americans. That's an obvious political payoff. The last time they had to do this, they said it would only be for two years. It's about to expire. And they can't - - they can't have it expire before an election. So, they're extending it, but only for three years. They have no intention of ever ending the Obamacare subsidies. Over a 10- year window, that wipes out the purported deficit reduction.

Dickerson didn't question the comment about "wealthy Americans" getting the health insurance subsidies, or the fact that many very much not wealthy Americans would lose their insurance without the subsidies; I wish he had.

Toomey said the supporters of the bill aren't "taking into account how much our economy will slow down from this big corporate tax increase that will mostly hurt manufacturing and domestic investment..." And he explained how the GOP tax cut was supposed to work, how allowing businesses to make capital investments (new plants, new equipment, etc.) and deduct the cost in the same year caused a "huge surge in capital expenditure" and the Dems will "raise the cost of investing in a business."

Folks at the Brookings Institution who studied this would disagree with Cornyn, as would the IMF, but I'm sure he has experts that would say he's right.

They moved on to the PACT Act, which would provide health care to veterans who were exposed to dangerous toxins from burn pits. The Senate shot the bill down, even though they voted for it in June. Cornyn said they want an amendment to "change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans' health care," because the Dems added a provision that's "designed to change government accounting rules, so that they can have a $400 billion spending spree."

Toomey said that the Rs are "fully accepting" the deficit will grow due to the PACT Act - "we accept that as a price we have to pay for people who serve the country." He objects to

a budgetary gimmick, a sleight of hand in accounting rules, that will allow totally unrelated spending of $400 billion over the next 10 years. 

There was more discussion, where Toomey accused Dickerson of being "totally incorrect" in his assessment of Toomey's amendment; Dickerson said "it actually caps annual expenditures for the toxic fund. And after 10 years, it goes away."  However, Toomey argued,

What it caps is how the government accounts for these transfers, but there is no cap on the amount of money that goes over. There is no cap on the total program. Look, if -- honest Democrats evaluating this will tell you, if my amendment passes, not a dime change in spending on veterans' programs. What changes is how the government accounts for it.

Dickerson noted Cornyn may be consistent on the deficit, but many of his colleagues aren't, and asked "why is it important to be fastidious when it comes to veterans, but less so when it comes to, say, supporting chip manufacturers?"

Because, John, once again, you're completely mischaracterizing this... most Republicans think we shouldn't loosen up the budget rules so that Democrats can go on a spending spree on things that have nothing to do with veterans' health care.

To which Dickerson responded,

 Of course, Democrats have to be in charge in the future when that spending happens, and they may very well not be. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v93)

Quite the week the last one was. Here's a recap, in case you missed anything.

I devoted your Sunday School lesson to talks with Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA); they're both involved in the bipartisan talks to come up with legislative changes that could reduce the likelihood of yet another mass shooting occurring. 

Murphy talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union; here's one of the more interesting moments from their discussion.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

Toomey talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. Here's a bit of that.

And what about President Biden? Toomey wasn't kind, saying Biden "might have been" a president able to reach across the aisle, but "he's chosen not to take that approach since day one. He has sided with the far left of his party and really not reached out to Republicans."

He gave a speech on this topic where he advocated policies that he knows for sure have no chance of passing the Senate, probably couldn't even get 50 votes, and hold the Democrats, much less get the 60 we would need. 

So, once again, the president is not being very helpful.

I find it so interesting- that the Rs are mad at Biden for suggesting they do something that most Americans have favored - for years - and he's the unhelpful one? I think somehow the Rs have forgotten that, for better or worse, Biden is the president of the country, not merely the president of the whiny, do-nothing Senate Republicans. 

For your Extra Credit, I focused on conversations on the January 6th Committee hearing that aired last Thursday. Brennan talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Every Committee Investigating Trump). Regular readers know that I'm not always a fan of his, but at least for this part of their conversation, he was spot on.

Brennan asked if the Committee didn't "run the risk of losing the public's attention" if they fail to "deliver a bombshell" on Thursday. Schiff explained, for Brennan and for the people in the back, that the goal is to "present the narrative of what happened in this country, how close we came to losing our democracy, what led to that violent attack on the 6th."

The roundtable on This Week with George Stephanopoulos also tackled the issue. Here's Chris Christie's response to George's statement that he'd "find it hard to imagine at the end of the hearings that former president Trump is not going to be in a worse position than he is today."

..."the battle right now... is between the truth and lies." Trump has been lying "both affirmatively in terms of whether the election was stolen or not," and by his silence on his own actions on January 6th.

Donald Trump talks about everything. He's willing to talk (about) almost anything... you've never heard him talk about what he was doing on January 6th while this was going on. 

Moving on to my weekly Wondering on Wednesday, I noted it was both the day that the House took testimony from mass shooting survivors, gun reform advocates, and others. And, it was the day that an armed, self-described mentally ill person was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. 

In response, the Senate's Grim Reaper, Mitch McConnell (R-Someplace Dark and Cold in Kentucky) declared that the House must pass the Supreme Court Security Bill, because the justices need protection now!

He went on to describe, without irony, his frustration at their 'multi-week' delay in passing the bill. Pretty rich from the guy who has the desk where everything that passed the House goes to die, but anyway, this post is about wondering, here I go.  

The guy was arrested, his weapons confiscated, and no one was hurt. And so, I find myself wondering why we need more laws, when we can just enforce the laws we have? 

If that's the answer whenever we talk about trying to make changes to gun laws to protect innocent children, concert-goers, grocery shoppers, prayer groups, church attendees, movie watchers, doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, and more, why isn't that the answer for SCOTUS justices?  

For your TGIF, shared some thoughts on the hearing that aired Thursday night, and some thoughts on the babble from the right. 

Now, for some specifics: On TNN, Sean Hannity said "the one person who looks good is Donald Trump." Meanwhile, this morning there's a boatload of tweeting about the "FACT" that Nancy Pelosi and the FBI were behind the insurrection.

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, why in the world did Trump tell the insurrectionists that they were very special and he loved them?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Trump be complaining about how the media didn't fairly report the size of the crowd?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would any of the alleged Republicans be asking Trump for pardons?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Steve Bannon have said all hell is going to break loose on January 6th? How would he know?

Those are just a few of the questions I had trying to understand how the Dems were responsible for the Republican insurrection. As you might imagine, I declared it was a bad week for the real insurrectionists - and we all know who they are.

This week, I'll have more of the Yes, We Can Do Something series - I haven't forgotten about that, I promise.

And, of course, we'll have our regular weekly features, too. I hope you'll stick around.

Sunday School 6/5/22

Ready for your Sunday School lesson?

Let's start with Jake Tapper, host of CNN's State of the Union. He described our state being "angry at the lack of leadership." 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the folks involved in the Senate negotiations in response to the school shooting in Uvalde), talked with Tapper. 

He says he's "never been part of negotiations as serious as these," noting there are more Rs "at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook." And, he admitted, he's seen a lot of failed negotiations, so he's "...sober-minded" that they can get something done.

He said red flag laws, background check changes, and "a handful of other items that will make a difference" are on the table. And while he's not sure they'll be able to meet the 'end of the week' deadline from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), they're "trying to put a package together,

because I think Republicans realize how scared parents and kids are across this country. I think they realize that the answer this time cannot be nothing, that it's frankly a test of democracy, it's a test of the federal government as to whether we can deliver at a moment of just fierce anxiety amongst the American public. So we're closer than ever before. Let's see if we land it.

Tapper wondered about raising the age for purchasing semi-automatic guns, something supported by a couple hundred or so Texas conservatives in a full-page ad in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, but not mentioned as "being on the table."

What we're talking about is trying to make sure that dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals don't have their hands on weapons. Sen. Cornyn has also talked about his interest in taking a look at how we access juvenile records for these young men who tend to be 18 to 21, committing these mass murders, to make sure that they can't get their hands on a weapon if they have had problems with the law in the past...

He also said what Cornyn's saying is "consistent" with their negotiations. 

Listen, we're not going to do everything I want. We're not going to put a piece of legislation the table that's going to ban assault weapons, or we're not going to pass comprehensive background checks. But, right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.

Murphy said they're trying to get to something that will pass, and said "that's why the red flag law is probably the most important" piece. 

It's actually about helping states implement red flag laws... not just providing incentives for states to pass new laws, but helping fund existing red flag laws, so that more individuals who are contemplating suicides can have their weapons temporarily taken from them to save their lives.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

He said when he was home last week, 

I have never seen the look on parents' faces that I did. There's just a deep, deep fear for our children right now, and also a fear that government is so fundamentally broken that it can't put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults in this country, the physical safety of their children. And so, I think the possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.

Sunday School 12/15/19

Let's talk about impeachment, shall we? 

Making the rounds today: Chairmen Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Cmte) and Adam Schiff (House Intelligence Cmte) on ABC's This Week; Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) on NBC's Meet the Press; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on CBS' Face the Nation; Senators Rand Paul (R-KY/Canada) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) on CNN's State of the Union. Let's see how much substance I can fit in today.

From This Week:

• Schiff: It was one thing with the president inviting foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn't use the power of his office to make it so. It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from. But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.That told me, this president believes he is above the law and accountable to no one, and that this road was necessary. And I think it very much is.

• Nadler: This is a crime in progress against the constitution and against the American democracy. We cannot take the risk  that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the president, which he is clearly trying to do. It goes to the heart of our democracy. It was the heart of what the constitution meant by high crimes and misdemeanors for the president to engage in self-dealing for his own benefit to put himself above the country and to threaten the integrity of our elections, upon which everything else depends. It is a total threat. And we must meet that threat.

• Schiff: I don't think any of us have any question that had Barack Obama engaged in the activity, the conduct which is the subject these articles of impeachment, every one of these Republicans would be voting to impeach him. And you know something, I have to hope to hell, George, if it were Barack Obama, I would vote to impeach him. 

From Meet the Press: 

• Toomey: I think it's appropriate to make sure that the president gets a fair trial here, and I think that's the idea. I think it would be extremely inappropriate to put a bullet in this thing immediately when it comes over. I think we ought to hear what the House impeachment managers have to say, give the president's attorneys an opportunity to make the defense, and then make a decision about whether and to what extent it would go forward from there.

• Coons: The only reason that Speaker Pelosi changed her position and supported moving ahead with an impeachment inquiry was because what Donald Trump is alleged to have done, and all evidence points to him having done it, which is to invite foreign interference in our next election, undermines the very core of our democracy, which is free and fair elections where foreign parties aren't influencing the outcome. If he is ultimately exonerated in the Senate, if the Senate Republican majority refuses to discipline him through impeachment, he will be unbounded. And I am gravely concerned about what else he might do between now and the 2020 election when there are no restrictions on his behavior.

From Face the Nation:

• Graham: Yeah, well, I'd tell the president, if somebody is ready to acquit you, I'd sort of get out of the way. If you start calling the witnesses the president wants and they're are going to start calling Mike Pence, you know, the secretary of State Pompeo, I don't think that's good for the country. I don't think it's good for the Senate. You need 51 votes to get a witness approved. I want to make my decision based on the trial record established in the House as a basis for impeachment. That's just me, one senator. But I think there's a general desire by a lot of senators to not turn this thing into a circus. I understand the president's frustration by being shut out of the house but I need to do what I think is best for the country.

• Durbin: I could just tell you, we-we present the evidence and let the American people follow this trial in the Senate. You know, it isn't a question of political popularity as far as I'm concerned. For the longest time, many of us said which Republican is going to defy the wishes of their political base and come forward and do the right thing for the country? Same thing applies to Democrats. Will we ignore our political base and look at our Constitution? That's what should guide us.

From State of the Union:

• Paul: You know, we have seen the evidence. We're going to hear the evidence repeated, but we're not going to see any new evidence. So I think all of America has seen this. What we have found is, this is a very partisan exercise. There's not going to be any Republicans in the House. In fact, there will be a handful of Democrats who will vote against impeachment in the House. In the Senate, I think all Republicans will vote against the House. And I think two Democrats have a very good chance of voting against impeachment also. So I think what we have seen is, it is just a partisan thing.This is a disagreement. People on the Democrat side don't like President Trump. They don't like his demeanor. And so they have decided to sort of criminalize politics. But I don't think it is a good thing. And I don't think it's a good day for the country. I think it is a sad day, because I hope it doesn't devolve into that every president, like in different parts of Latin America, we either impeach or throw presidents into jail just because we don't like their politics. I think that will really dumb down and destroy the county.

• Brown: I mean, I have very strong feelings about this president. I supported impeachment. He did things that Richard Nixon never did. He solicited a bribe from a foreign leader. But I don't know if it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, to the level of conviction and removal, until I see the evidence, I hear the prosecution, which is the House managers, until I hear the president's defense. Then you make the decision, based on the evidence. And for the leader of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, to say he's coordinating with the White House to make sure he's not convicted and removed is -- I just -- it really is part of this see no evil, hear no evil. It's why I'm so disappointed in my colleagues, this see no evil, hear no evil attitude, that they don't want to look at anything to -- that might disagree with their world view of Republicanism and this president.

• Hurd: The only thing bipartisan about this process is the opposition of impeachment. We're going to have at least two Democrats voting against this.  And my fear is that you weaponize impeachments for political gains in the future, just like now we have budget debates that become weaponized, voting for Supreme Court justices have become weaponized. And, for me, my standard for impeachment has always been a violation of the law. You have 435 folks in the House, 100 senators. That means there's 535 different definitions of impeachment. And I have sat through those hundreds hours of depositions and hearings, and didn't see any evidence presented of bribery and -- or extortion.

I'm going to leave it there, as they say. Coming up in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit, we'll talk about the FBI, and maybe slide a couple of other things in there, too.

See you around campus.