Sunday School 10/28/18

I focused on a single classroom today - Face the Nation with John Dickerson on CBS, instead of trying to make it to a variety of the discussions.

Not surprisingly there was a lot of talk about the recent violence - pipe bombs sent to critics of the president, none of which detonated, and the horrible shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh in which 11 people were killed and several more wounded.

Dickerson engaged all of his guests on the issues of partisanship, political rhetoric, and tribalism, and the answers were about what you would suspect from two of his guests, Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and Republican Senator James Lankford; the two are co-chairs of a weekly prayer breakfast in the Senate.

Coons, for example, thought that it would be helpful when leaders appreciate that some of their arguments may have "inspired or encouraged deranged individuals to take actions" not supported by the politicians themselves to denounce hatred and to step away from the type of arguments that inspire bad acts.

It is important for us to recognize that there's more work that we can and should do to lower the temperature and tone in our national politics. 

Coons noted that the president had denounced anti-Semitism recently. Lankford echoed that, noting that the Pittsburgh shooter condemned Trump for being a 'globalist - both Lankford and the shooter must have missed Trump's declaration of being a 'nationalist' which many have said is coded language for being anti-Semitic and supportive of the White Nationalist movement, they of "Jew will not replace us" fame in Charlottesville. That argument may or may not be true, it's being made in an accusatory fashion from the left, and in a congratulatory one from the right. Go figure.

There is no disputing  Lankford's description of the shooters, whether at Mother Emmanuel or the Tree of Life synagogue or the Republican baseball practice as being done by "hate-filled individuals that are very deranged."

I'll have more from these Senators, and several other people, in an upcoming post on equivalence, or the lack thereof, in rhetoric.

Dickerson also played an interview from a couple of weeks ago with outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan on the lack of bipartisanship in the media. Ryan basically says that it doesn't sell, so the media doesn't cover it.  He referenced bills passed in the House, including some aimed at reducing human trafficking, and the opioid crisis as examples, and I would agree with him those are subjects that should be party-blind. He also referenced rebuilding the military, which is significantly less bipartisan, because historically that build up comes at the expense of much-needed safety net programs, education, the environment and others.

It-- it doesn't sell. So I, honestly, think, John, it's the hits and the clicks and it's the ratings chased that's on display in America today that says when they're fighting each other, that's when you cover it.

Dickerson went along, asking if the media accepts some portion of responsibility for it, what about the president, his rallies and

Do those rallies accentuate things that unite us - the bipartisan achievements, or are they, do they do something very successful in politics -- wildly successful - which is so division in the country?

Ryan noted that "sometimes" Trump hits the right bipartisan tone, but no always. And then pretended that tribal politics was "sort of a left wing, Alinsky thing." And

Unfortunately, the right practices identity politics now as well. It's the day and age, it's technology and everything else - identify politics, which is now being practiced on both sides of the aisle, is, unfortunately, working. 

And then he pretended that Trump, when speaking about economic growth, tax reform, the military and veterans, is being "inclusive" - which is literally laughable. No one takes even the most benign bipartisan policy and turns it into a partisan war cry like Ryan's leader.  

Ryan went on to say

So to me the best way to combat tribalism is to starve it of its oxygen, which is anxiety: economic anxiety, security anxiety. And if we can pass policies that help improve people's lives, make them more confident about the future, then they'll be less prone to be - to be swayed by the kind of tribalism identity politics we see these days. 

Turning to the panel discussion, here are a few highlights. 

Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic) on the Pittsburgh shooting, noted that while it was 

...not to say that Donald Trump is responsible for the shooting. The shooter is responsible for the shooting. But we live in a climate right now in which the president himself abets or creates a climate in the air in which this - this sort of incident, this sort of tragedy, becomes more imaginable. 

Lanhee Chen (Hoover Institution), on whether the politicians "lack the ability or they are just the wrong people" to talk about cultural issues: 

I think they are the wrong people. But I think they also have to realize that they have been put into a position that requires them to accept additional responsibility... politicians need to start taking this more seriously, that they are public officials whom people will look to as moral leaders as well.  I know we often say we don't elect politicians to be more leaders. Well, maybe we should take that a little more seriously. Maybe they should take that role a little more seriously.

Susan Page (USA Today), on the same topic:

...in particular, we like Presidents to step up at times of great national trauma to bring us together. That is one of the things that Presidents are in a unique position to do and that this president has declined to do, by and large. ...president Trump didn't create -- didn't begin it, but he has certainly increased it.

Goldberg again, on Trump's attempts at projecting the right tone:

Bat as we see in his rallies, he quickly veers from those statements (denouncing anti-Semitism) and goes right back to division. So it, it really is remarkable to me to see how quickly he pivots away from the message he understands or someone has told him he should be delivering, back to division.

Page, on the Senate prayer breakfast chaired by Coons and Lankford:

You know, I think that's great. I am glad they are co-chairing a prayer group. But think of how small our politics are that they are not coming to a reasonable agreement on immigration that could help de-escalate that issue, or on some other big issue that we expect Congress to deal with.

And finally, we'll leave it with Jamelle Bouie (Slate), on the difference in rhetoric or in the type of rhetoric of a Maxine Waters or Mitch McConnell and of a Donald Trump:

I think distinctions are really important. I think there's a qualitative difference, especially in the society that has a history of racialized violence, in a society that is driven by racial division, I think there's a qualitative difference between sort of getting angry and apocalyptic about policy issues and getting angry and apocalyptic about identity issues... I think we have - I think it's important that we don't conflate those two - these two different kinds of incivility. One of them is unfortunate, makes compromise difficult. One of them is an existential issue for people, for people living in the society. 

Thoughts on any parts of the discussion?  Chime in.

See you around campus.  

TGIF 7/27/18

What kind of week did you have? Was it better or worse than these folks?

How about that Michael Cohen, the president's 'fixer', the deal maker's deal maker?  It seems like just a short while ago that Rudy Giuliani was saying Michael Cohen was an honest, honorable lawyer and yet, last night during an interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN, the messer-upper (Rudy) was now contending that Cohen has been a liar from the beginning, lies all the time, which lie can you believe, and so on. And I thought, wow - when the lying president's lying lawyer calls you a liar, that's a pretty bad week, right?

Who else had a bad week?  Mark Zuckerberg and anyone who owns Facebook stock, and anyone who owns Twitter stock, and maybe anyone who owns any other social media stock  Yesterday, Facebook took a huge hit, and in two days its stock has dropped around 20%. Today, Twitter took a huge hit as well, dropping in similar fashion. Both companies have been trying to address bad actors, purging fake accounts, and the like, and also dropping 'real' or 'active' users or at least not growing as fast as investors would like. Facebook faced some particular wrath lately due to its decision not to ban holocaust deniers from the platform. Sure, they're wrong and history deniers and all that, but we have to learn from them and teach them what's right and we can't do that if we shut them down or something. Infowars was another beneficiary of that thinking.

On the good week side of things, there was happy baby news from the Animal Adventure Park, outside of Binghamton, NY: Internet star April the Giraffe and her zoo mate Oliver are expecting another baby in the spring!. Folks will recall the frenzy when the park streamed live footage of April pretty much doing nothing except eating, and sleeping, and eating, and sleeping, for what seemed like weeks on end last spring, with all of the excitement culminating in the birth of baby Tajiri. We're set to go through all of that again early next spring, although owner Jordan Patch noted that while the average or normal gestation period for giraffes is around 15 months, April likes to go longer.

Rod Rosenstein could have ended up on the short end of the stick this week, after the House Freedom Caucus decided to file a resolution of impeachment against him - but that was foiled when lame duck House Speaker Paul Ryan indicated he was not supportive of their shenanigans. The HFC gang decided to table their request and instead will maybe give Rosenstein a contempt of Congress citation if he doesn't start playing better in the sandbox with them.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday (v129)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll Watch: All About the Donald

The folks at Quinnipiac released a poll  on February 21st that looked at national opinions on the president.

Here's a look at how we think things are going -- and we know, don't we, that how we think things are going isn't necessarily the way folks in Washington or in the statehouses think things are going, or how they act.

Small print stuff: the poll was conducted by live interviewers over land and cell phones from February 16 - 19, and included 1249 voters.

First up? Presidential approval.

• 37% of respondents approve of how the president is handling his job; only Republicans (86%) and white men (51%) have a higher percentage of approvers; all other demographics disapprove more than they approve.
• The 37% approval has fallen 3% since the February 7th survey.
• 67% of Republicans strongly approve of Trump's handling of his job; all other demographics strongly disapprove more than any of the other options (strongly disapprove, disapprove somewhat, approve somewhat, and don't know/NA).

Approval rates for Congressional Republicans, who of course have a majority in both houses, are even worse. 72% of respondents disapprove of the GOP in DC; in every age group, over 70% disapprove. The greatest disparity is with the 18 - 34 year olds, with a 64 point gap, 79% to 15%. Democrats (94%) and blacks (97%) disapprove the most - no surprise there.

Similarly, approval rates for Congressional  Democrats are not good, but slightly better -- 'only' 66% disapprove. And  while Republicans support the Congressional GOP 55% - 38%, Dems support their party in Congress only 53% - 41%. And for both parties, the disapproval rate is going in the wrong direction.

People don't like Trump (59%) more than they like him (37%): the same is true for Mike Pence (46% to 36%), Paul Ryan (51% to 28%), Nancy Pelosi (52% to 29%), and Mitch McConnell (51% to 15%).  Chuck Schumer would be appalled to know that 34% of respondents don't know enough about him to form an opinion; his disapproval rate is 37%.

Trump's policies are disliked by all but Republicans (89%) and white men (53%); as a person. only Republicans like him more than they dislike him. Even white men dislike him (51% to 40%).

When it comes to Trump's fitness for office, 57% think he's not fit. Republicans (90%) and white men (55%) think he is, as do whites without a college degree (57%).  Men overall are torn -- 49% say yes, 49% say no. Women (65%) and white women (58%) think he's not. 

Only Republicans believe Trump respects women just as much as he respects men (72% to 21%); everyone else - including all men (58%), white men (54%) and whites without a college degree (56%) disagree. 

How about the bonds of marriage?  Everyone -- every single demographic, even Republicans -- believes that loyalty to one's spouse is important. And every demographic except one thinks that president Trump has not been loyal to his wife. On this question, Republicans say yes, he's loyal to Melania (42%), no he hasn't been (14%) and 44% don't know. That 'don't know' percentage is 14% higher than for any other demographic. 

There were some other questions, about Rob Porter, Jared Kushner, and Russia, and the trends - all demographics except the usual suspects being on the negative side - were generally consistent on those questions as well. 

The last question was interesting: "As you may know, the definition of an autocrat is a ruler with absolute power.  Do you think that president Trump behaves more like an autocrat or do you think president Trump behaves more like a typical US president?"

• 56% overall think he acts like an autocrat.
• As you would expect, Republicans (76%) and white men (49%) think he acts like a typical president.

If you're the president, how would you respond to this overwhelmingly negative survey?  Officially announce your 2020 campaign!

This should have been  a shock to literally no one, since he filed the paperwork on the day he was inaugurated, has been holding campaign rallies for months (some blatant, some under the guise of being presidential), and the Republican National Committee has been paying rent -- in Trump Tower, of course -- for months. 

But hey  - when you have 158 million followers on social media, the sky's the limit!

Some, All, or None of the Above

Pretend, for the sake of argument that this was the school shooting that is the one that changes everything. Columbine didn't, and Sandy Hook didn't. So pretend this is the one.

Pretend, for the sake of argument,  that we actually are inspired and want to make changes, across a wide spectrum, to try and make a difference.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that your elected representatives at the school, local, state and national level are motivated to listen to you and do whatever it is you suggest to keep your children safe.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are in control. I know, I know - that's a huge bit of pretending, I get it -- but just pretend.

Here's your list of options, based on what I've seen on various news and social media platforms. Know that none of these will work, because if a person really wants to commit mayhem, they'll find a way - that's what we're told, anyway, when some suggests changing gun laws. 

Know that  individually,  these might have no impact, but that collectively, they might make a difference --and choose as many as you think we should try.

1. Ban large-capacity magazines, clips, etc. so that a person would have to load their gun more often, making it take longer for them to commit mass mayhem and giving people more time to, hopefully, escape.

2. Ban new sales of the 'mass-shooting' rifle -- the AR-15 and similar weapons, and implement a buy-back program to get as many of them off the street as possible.

3. Ban sales of bump-stocks and similar items that make it easier to kill more people in a short period of time.

4. Ban sales of guns to anyone who is not old enough to purchase alcohol.

5. Ensure that the military is reporting all less-than-honorable discharges to the national background check system, and do not allow them to purchase any kind of gun, and that this reporting is timely - as in, immediately upon discharge. And fire anyone in the military hierarchy who failed to ensure this reporting occurred as required.

6. Close the 'boyfriend' loophole, which allows a person who commits violence against a partner to whom they are not married to purchase a gun, and treat these people the same as those who abuse their spouse.

7. Establish a ten-day waiting period on the purchase of all guns - handguns, medium guns, long guns, whatever - to bring consistency to the process, and to allow sufficient time for the background check process to occur.

8. Pay gun manufacturers not to make guns, just like we pay farmers not to grow crops.

9. Tax packages of ammunition the same way we tax packages of cigarettes. Add a user fee on the sale of every gun. Use this money as startup cash to pay for whatever needs to be paid for (see #11 and #12, for starters).

10. Close all background check loopholes. Private sales, gun shows - whatever the gaps, close them.

11. Secure our school buildings: locks on external doors, cameras, badge readers, metal detectors, security offices and security officers - real ones, not the kind you see at many offices - at entry doors, double door entries, limited number of doors with external handles, etc.

12. Secure the classrooms: bullet-proof glass in the windows and doors; panic buttons for teachers to warn the office and local police of a threat; doors that truly lock from inside and cannot be forced open.

13. Arm teachers, if they are willing, provided that the weapons they're assigned can be secured in their classrooms so that they don't fall into the wrong hands, and that they're carefully screen and can prove proficiency with their weapons (something that is not required for purchasing one, by the way).

14. Go back to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools every day.

15. Re-institute school prayer.

16. Ban violent video games, television shows, lyrics, movies, poetry, fiction and non-fiction writing, and any other art forms which can project violence.

17. Enter mental health records into the background check system, regardless of the patient age, and never allow anyone who has had any mental health issues to legally purchase guns or ammunition.

18. Stop prescribing medications that can have mental health related side effects (depressions, thoughts of suicide, hyperactivity, manic behaviors and so on).

19. Ban contributions to politicians from any gun rights groups.

20. Wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and as Paul Ryan said, count our blessings, whatever that means.

Have at it -- some, all, or none of the above?

WWYD: Disaster Tax Relief

As we wait for the House to re-approve the "massive tax cut for the middle class" today (after yesterday's SNAFU on a handful of provisions not meeting Senate reconciliation rules), and wait for another 'excitable boy' gavel bang from Paul Ryan, I thought it would be fun to put some of the changes through the What Would You Do? meter.

The Rs have said their plan 'reforms' and 'simplifies' our tax code; they did that by tinkering or massaging a tax benefit here and there. Tax benefits, for the purpose of this discussion, includes those things people derisively refer to as loopholes - things that benefit only certain Americans, primarily 'other people' (hence the derision).

One of these benefits extends to people who suffer losses from disasters such as floods and fires.

Right now, disaster victims can deduct losses that aren't insured and that amount to more than 10 percent of their incomes.

So, think about friends, family and others living in the Gulf Coast or Puerto Rico who were impacted by the hurricanes and floods earlier this year. Think back to Sandy, Irene, Katrina, and Andrew and all of the other storms we remember by name.

Think about all of the people who were impacted by the flooding right here in NY along the Lake Ontario shore, for months. The official declaration was made for most of counties along the shore back in November, but some were left out and are waiting for a review to be finished to know for sure whether they'll be included in the declaration.

It's easy to picture losses from those and other disasters far exceeding 10% of a homeowner's income, isn't it, especially since flood insurance is prohibitively expensive for many people? And, especially since in many cases (my own backyard included) the flood maps don't make a whole heckuva lot of sense outside coastal areas, major rivers, and other obviously flood-prone areas.

Think about all of the people who have lost their homes in the California fires this year - epic and historic wildfires, still burning. Sure, some of them are celebrities, but most of them are just regular folks, right?

So, what's different after the GOP's massaging of this loophole? Well,

Under the new tax plan, the deduction could only be claimed for those disasters that the president declares a federal emergency. The proposed change would go into effect January 1, 2018, meaning disaster victims could file one final deduction this year if they experienced a loss that did not receive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) support.

What's the impact of the change? It's hard to say for sure, but we do have some historical info.

In 2015, more than 72,000 people filed a casualty or theft deduction resulting in $1.6B in claims, according to the IRS' Statistics of Income Division (The IRS lumps casualty and theft deductions together in its count). 

Most of us can pretty readily recall the big ones, the national disasters that do receive the presidential declaration, but unless we are paying particular attention or are personally impacted, it's harder to remember the ones that don't. Here's a reminder of just one that didn't make the cut.

The historic wildfires that hit Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado last March, however, did not receive a federal disaster designation, meaning those affected would not have been able to utilize the personal-loss deductions if such an event had occurred under the new tax plan... 

Losses to the High Plains wildfires last March were significantly less (than those associated with Harvey and Irma). The fires burned 2100 square miles in the four states, causing about $55 million in fence losses. In Texas alone, the personal losses to farmers and ranchers was estimated at $25.1 million.

While farm and ranch losses to wildfire, tornadoes, etc., pale in comparison to damage from major hurricanes, losses to individuals from either event are the same. 

So,  if you were making the decisions about how our tax plan should work, what would you do about deductions for disasters?

1. Allow deductions, with no percent of income limitation, regardless of whether a federal disaster is declared.
2. Allow deductions, with a percent of income limitation, regardless of whether a federal disaster is declared.
3. Allow deductions, with no percent of income limitation, only when a federal disaster is declared.
4. Allow deductions, with a percent of income limitation, only when a federal disaster is declared.
5. Do not allow deductions, but offer low interest federal loans to everyone to cover uninsured losses.
6. Do not allow deductions, but offer low interest federal loans only to those households with income under $200,000.
7. Do not allow deductions or federal loans; the homeowner, rancher, businessman, etc. would be responsible for either having enough insurance to protect themselves, or being able to secure loans through state or local governments or their financial institutions.

Have at it, legislators.

They Said It 12/19/17

Some random quotes from people who matter. Or, maybe not.

First, in international diplomacy, we've got this:

At the UN we're always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names. ~UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

 And on the GOP Christmas present, we've got a few:

I oppose this conference report with every bone in my body. This tax bill is a $2.3 trillion holiday gift for Wall Street, the rich, and the wealthy, Conceived in darkness and birthed with the help of donor and funders. This bill is not for the people. It is not tax reform. ~Georgia Democrat Rep. John Lewis

If people are out there on TV telling mistruths, disguising the facts of this thing, that's going to make it unpopular. When you have a slingfest - a mudfest - on TV when pundits are slamming each other about this tax bill before it passes, that's what's going to happen. But when we get this done, when people see their withholding improving, when they see the jobs occurring, when they see a simpler tax code, that's what's going to produce the results. And results are going to be what makes this popular. ~House Speaker Paul Ryan 

While the bill agreed to in conference today makes some improvements, unfortunately, the changes do not go far enough to guarantee tax relief for constituents in my district. Californians need tax relief now more than ever, especially as the tax factory in our State Capitol continues looking for ever increasing ways to take more of our hard-earned paychecks.  Yet I still fear that, even in the revised proposal, many in my area could face higher taxes under this plan. Californians have entrusted me to fight for them. I will not vote to make the incredible tax burden they already endure even worse. California Republican Rep Darrell Issa

We think a lot of good provisions got left on the cutting room floor after the Senate Byrd bath there, so we're going to assess each of them to decide what the path forward is. ~House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady, talking about the provisions that got dropped from the Conference tax bill when it went to the Senate. 

CEOs aren't waiting on a tax cut to "jump-start the economy" -- a favorite phrase of politicians who have never run a company - or to hand out raises. It's pure fantasy to think that the tax bill will lead to significantly higher wages and growth, as Republicans have promised. Had Congress actually listened to executives, or economists who study these issues carefully, it might have realized that. ~Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg

And finally, as if the news wasn't odd enough, I'll close with this.

Saying the animals would not pause for a second if given the chance, a new study published by the University of Wisconsin on Tuesday found that chickens would have absolutely no qualms about caging and eating humans. "All the evidence  clearly suggests that chickens would absolutely stuff human beings into poorly ventilated cages and then eat them without any hesitation whatsoever," said lead author Aliyah Carter, adding that the domestic fowls would not waver at all if the opportunity arose to cram people into windowless, disease-ridden coops and overfed them to the point that their legs literally could not support their bodies. ~The Onion

The Speaker Speaks to NPR (Pt two)

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

Highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the history lesson from Ryan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more bit of Ryan's interview to come.

The Speaker Speaks to NPR (Pt one)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there was the math. As in

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

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

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

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

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

OrangeVerse XXI: How Far Away?

This morning, in advance of a meeting with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders, the poet in chief offered this warm welcome:

In response, "Chuck and Nancy" released a statement of their own:

Given that the president doesn't see a deal between Democrats and the White House, we believe the best path forward is to continue negotiating with our Republican counterparts in Congress instead. If the president, who already said earlier this year that 'out country needs a good shutdown' isn't interested in addressing the difficult year end agenda, we'll work with those Republicans who are, as we did in April.

And then, after a "love fest" with Republicans, there was poetry.

So Far Away

...Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi

did not show up

for our meeting today.

I'm not really

that surprised.

We have a lot of differences.

They're weak

on crime,

They're weak

on illegal immigration. 

They want

the illegal folks

to come pouring 

into our border

and a lot of problems

are being caused, 

although we've stopped it

to a large extent as much

as you can without

the law,

which we're going to get.

Before this meeting and

before this missile launch,

they've been weak

on military. In terms

of spending they're

very hard to get

the military -- they 

want it for a lot

of other things but

the military is always secondary

to them. The military

to me is number one...

It Would Be So Fine to See Your Face at My Door

They want tax 

increases and we want

major tax decreases so

they decided not to show up.

They've been 

all talk and they've been

no action and now it's

ever worse now it's

not even talk so

they're not showing up

to the meeting.

It Doesn't Help to Know that You're So Far Away

Well, we are very

far apart

because our views on crime

and our views on immigration

and the military - 

so many are different.

But a lot of things

 have happened, even

over the last two hours

with respect to the 

missile launch.

We want

our military funded and

we want

it funded now.

It's going to be

bigger, better, stronger

-- it already is -- 

than ever before. But

we want

to get going on that

now. So that

is a difference

in all fairness

from this morning

when I told them that

we're way, way

far

away.

Nothing Else to do but Close My Mind

If you look

at the military we

want strong funding

for the military. They don't.

So many things.  As an example

they want

high taxes

We want

to cut taxes.

We're going

to cut taxes.

We're going

to reform.

We're going

to simplify.

They want

 high taxes

We want

low taxes.

...nothing to them

is important other

than raising taxes.

That's the

only thing they like

doing is

raising taxes.

Cue the Applause

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. 

Sunday School 11/5/17

So what were the hot topics in today's classrooms? Russia, Donna Brazile, and taxes.

On Meet the Press, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary tomorrow, Chuck Todd talked first with Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, asking if the Mueller indictments would have any impact on the truthfulness of folks testifying before the Senate Committee. Here's Warner's response.

Well, the committee itself has been aware of some of this information... What we did see this week, though, was one more example of at least where the Russians had what appeared to be a fairly organized effort in terms of trying to reach out to folks affiliated with the Trump campaign to share 'dirt' or emails about Hillary Clinton... We've got a lot more questions to get answered. 

Todd wondered if the threat of more indictments would make people more cooperative with the Committee, or more fearful of testifying. Warner noted they had talked with a couple hundred people (with the press being kept in the dark many times) but he was generally pleased with the cooperation they were getting.

Then, Todd asked four  times, trying - and failing - to get more details on who the Committee has been talking to or whether there would be any collision with Mueller's work.  Here's Warner's fourth deflection.

Chuck, again, the way we get the kind of cooperation with the witnesses is frankly, to not share the kind of weekly box score of who we've seen and who we've not seen...And at the end of the day, what we owe the American people is the truth and, most importantly, how we make sure we don't have a foreign power like Russia intervene again in our elections.

Senator James Langford (R-OK), also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, shared a similar response to the question about the two investigations running into each other.

I'm actually not concerned about that at all... they're focused on criminal investigations, we're focused on armchair quarterbacking, making sure every witness has been seen, every fact has been checked, and we're going through the policy aspects, because long-term, we have policy issues we have to discuss on how we handle elections, how we handle social media, how we're handling classified information, how that's getting out into the public sphere. Those are uniquely things that we will work on. The special counsel has things that he will uniquely work on as well.

Langford also noted that there was no threat that Mueller's work would be shut down, by the White House or by the House of Representatives, and that there was no need at this point for any Congressional action to prevent that from happening.

On Donna "Hey Look at Me, I Wrote a Book about the 2016 Election" Brazile's allegations that the Clintons and the DNC rigged the election against Bernie Sanders (who has never been a Democrat), there were two good comments, the first from current DNC chair Tom Perez:

When I hear the word "rigged," let's be very clear. Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary by four million votes. The DNC does not run elections for primaries. The RNC does not run elections. States run elections - and those elections were run by the states.

The other was from Tom Brokaw.

Well, I think this is a manifestation of all that's wrong with the Democratic party, frankly. I mean, this is a time when they ought to be talking about the future and they ought to be organizing themselves about what they want to do for the country...

Donna is well known, as you all know, for 'ready, fire, aim' on a lot of the stuff that she does. But to go back over this now, when they're trying to win Congressional races and trying to get ready for '18 seems to me to be beyond counterproductive. 

Quickly, over to Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace talked to House Speaker Paul Ryan on the DNC issue as well as on the Trump Dossier, about which it was revealed that the Clinton campaign kept this initially Republican donor initiative going as part of their 'opposition research.' (Opposition research, of course, is what the Trump team has said they were lousy at getting on Clinton).

Ryan was nonchalant on the latter (yeah, our investigation was discovering that too); not so much on the former.

The second thing -- that story just broke. I've never seen anything like that. I mean, we all said that the Clintons thought they lived above the rules. So, this takes the cake. I mean, this is pretty amazing. For them to basically be running the DNC in a primary. To see such a deck stack is really pretty jaw-dropping to me. No wonder the Democrats are ticked off. I would be, too. It's amazing to me on the Clintons, this live above the law or above the rules in this thing. 

I understand why the Democrats are mad about this. They should be mad about this, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like this frankly. 

We are fortunate that he got to the tax plan (file on a postcard, death tax, keep your money, special interest loopholes, just don't pay taxes in the first place) and why he's no longer a deficit hawk.

Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also knows that you have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take home pay -- that means higher tax revenues. 

Wallace pressed him on the $1.5T deficit spending allowance that the House passed in their budget bill. Oh that? No big deal.

The reason we did it that way is because we believed that the Senate parliamentarian won't let us use what we call dynamic scoring which - that figures out growth. So, we basically did not want to take the chance that some bureaucrat, unelected, would deny our ability to bring a tax bill through that is pro-growth and that reflects those pro-growth estimates. That's why it's done that way.

But we are absolutely convinced -- and we all have economic models that will show this - that this will help the economy grow... we are going to make sure that we actually get this economy growing and this tax reform bill does that. 

Assuming their economic models are even half as accurate as weather models... But that was a whole nother post.

See you around campus.

What They're Saying: The Manafort Shoe Drops

So, Paul Manafort and his right hand man, Rick Gates, were indicted on a variety of charges, from money laundering to conspiring against the United States. And some overzealous Trump campaign foreign policy advisor volunteer named George Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty and is now a source for the Robert Mueller investigation.

Against that backdrop, what are people saying? Here's a sampling.

But look, today's announcement has nothing to do with the president, has nothing to do with the president's campaign or campaign activity. The real collusion scandal, as we've said several times before, has everything to do with the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Russia. There's evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president to influence the election. We've been saying from say one there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, and nothing in the indictment today changes that at all. ~ Sarah Huckabee Sanders

They've made an indictment. I really have nothing to add because I haven't even read it, so I'm not going to speculate on something I haven't read. So there's just no point in doing that. ~ House Speaker Paul Ryan

The special counsel has found a reason on criminal violations to indict two individuals, and I will leave that up to the special counsel to make that determination. It doesn't change anything with our investigation. We received document from and had interest in two of the individuals named, but clearly the criminal charges put them in the Special Counsel's purview. ~ Richard Burr, (R-NC), Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. 

The president must not, under any circumstances, interfere with the special counsel's work in any way. If he does so, Congress must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues. ~Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary and the Dems the focus?????

... Also, there is NO COLLUSION! ~Donald Trump 

And finally -- you thought I was going to close with the president's profound punctuation, didn't you?  Nope - not tonight. 

And finally,  I'll leave you with this:

It's clear from Mueller's court documents -- if you read between the lines with your head in a microwave - that the Russia-connected "overseas professor" who met Papadopoulos was actually Clinton wearing a costume. She is known as a master of disguise, which explains how she hid her identity while killing President John F. Kennedy, raiding the US consulate in Benghazi and being Charles Manson. ~Rex Huppke, Chicago Tribune

TGIF 10/27/17

Time to put another week to bed.

We'll have a tax bill to look at next week, it seems, and it can pass as long as there no more than a couple of Republican defections, even though many Americans don't think it's a priority. 

The House this week narrowly approved  their budget bill, kicking off the opportunity for the Senate to do tax reform as part of 'reconciliation' instead of through regular order, which would require the participation of Democrats to reach the 60-vote majority needed for passage. It'll be fun to see how well Mitch McConnell herds his cats this time, after the debacle on health care.

So, other than yet another opportunity for vice president Mike Pence to cast the most important vote of the day, what does the tax reform plan really mean? If rumors are true, folks like me in blue states are apt to lose, while folks in deeply red states are apt to win - no surprise there. And those other people, the bricks and mortar ones, will win as well. it seems.

I'm doing my best to remain patient and see what actually ends up in the plan, though isn't it kinda cool that we mere citizens in the cheap seats are being treated the same as most members of Congress, who also have no real clue what's headed their way? Stay tuned on this one.

What else did we have this week? Well, there was the fascinating tale of the two-dude energy company from Whitefish, MN who landed a $300M contract to restore power to Puerto Rico. There is no reason to think that the company being from the hometown of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke had anything to do with their getting the contract, but there are LOTS of reasons to look into the deal, including these little nuggets:

• it was a no-bid deal
• it contains a no-audit clause
• it contains a 'no claim against the contractor' clause if work is delayed
• it includes a $330+ per day per worker accommodation payment
• the Governor of Puerto Rico says he wasn't involved in the deal
• FEMA says they weren't involved in the deal

Zinke said he had nothing to do with it either, although he did talk to someone at the firm and that relevant documents would be turned over to the "appropriate officials." Can't you just hear Trey Gowdy (R-Benghazi) saying Whitefish! Whitefish! Whitefish!  Nah --- me neither. 

Rumor has it that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, the longest-serving Senate Republican since sliced bread, is not going to run again -- and that Mitt Romney, who is the most popular politician and possibly the most popular human in the entire state of Utah will be his replacement. One good thing about Romney? I've already got a Mittenverse tag in the veritable pastiche inventory.

And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't wish Lee Greenwood a happy birthday. 

I know pretty much nothing about Lee Greenwood, except his Proud to be an American song, but because I follow the Tweeter in Chief, I now know it's his birthday. 

In case we missed it the first time, there was a second tweet to remind us.

I'm proud to say TGIF.

Poll Watch: Taxes, Politics and More

The House of Representatives passed a budget bill by a slim but safe margin, making for the government to borrow up to $1.5 trillion bucks to pay for their "middle class" tax reform program.

How do everyday Americans think about the plan? Well, we don't know any more than Congress does about what will actually be on the table - loopholes will be closed, and we'll be able to file our taxes on  a postcard, or at least on a single sheet of paper depending on whether you listen to House Speaker Paul Ryan or president Trump - but we don't seem to be very excited about it.

According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, we really wish our elected officials would do something completely different. First, some information about the poll itself.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English in all 50 states. It gathered responses from 1862 people, including 1079 who said they were aware of the Republican tax plan. It has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points.

(I feel kinda like the small print voiceover lady on car commercials.)

Here are some highlights, first looking at the relative importance of deficit reduction and tax cuts for the three populations: poor, rich, and corporations:

• more than two thirds of registered voters said reducing the deficit was more important than cutting taxes for the wealthy or for corporations;
• even 63% of Republicans favored reducing the deficit over corporate tax cuts, and 75% felt that way about tax cuts for rich people;
• more than 50% of adults in the survey said cutting taxes on poor people was more important than reducing the deficit; by party affiliation, both Democrats (68%) and Republicans (47%) agreed 

About the tax plan itself, what did respondents think?

• only 15% of registered voters think Congress should be working on tax cuts instead of other priorities; 
• of those who said they had heard of the plan, only 28% support it; 41% oppose, and 31% don't know;
• a small 14% thought their taxes would go down; 30% thought their taxes would go up, and 35% expect no change;
• unsurprisingly, Republicans (56%) are more enamored of the plan than are Dems (9%)

We'll have to wait to see what the tax plan actually ends up bringing us middle class tax payers - I do know that a couple of the 'no' votes in the House came from my neck of the woods, in Central New York. That makes me feel a little better.

Did you hear about Dubya's speech, and Obama's comments, on our current political climate? The folks at Rasmussen Reports asked a question about that, and got an interesting answer. First, the fine print:

The (national) survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted (by telephone and online) on October 22-23, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence. 902 of those surveyed were white.

In the part of the poll you can see outside the Rasmussen pay wall,

63% of likely US voters agree with Obama's statement: "If you have to win a campaign by dividing people, you're not going to be able to govern. You won't be able to unite them later if that's how you start."

That one's kind of curious, I think. Rasmussen trends more conservative than many other polling outlets, so that's a pretty big number who appear to think that Trump won't be able to govern. And since we know Paul Ryan has little control over the House, and Mitch McConnell has little control over the Senate, who, exactly, is supposed to be governing?

Finally, let's look at another hot topic, discrimination. A new poll has come out, showing that people from all races, including whites, believe their group faces discrimination.

The NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health survey sampled 3453 adults in the US from January 26th to April 9th.

Results for whites show that 55% believe there is discrimination against whites in America today,and further that

19% say they've personally been discriminated against because they are white when applying for jobs; 13% say they experienced discrimination regarding fair pay or promotions, and 11% have felt discrimination when applying for or attending college.

There is some fascinating first-person information accompanying the survey; the information is being reported in the NPR series you, me and them: experiencing discrimination in the US.

I have never felt discriminated against for being white; I'm curious -- what's been your experience?

Complicit No More

Arizona's other Republican Senator, Jeff Flake, announced today he would not be running for re-election. Flake had long been a lightning rod for the Tweeter in Chief,  but in an emotional speech on the Senate floor, he lit into the president like a man who had just found his cojones voice.  

Here are a few excerpts.

...let me begin by noting the somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours indefinitely...Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office...

I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret because of the state of our disunion. Regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics. Regret because of the indecency of our discourse. Regret because of the coarseness of our leadership. 

That we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue with the tone set up at the top. We must never regard as normal the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country. The personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms and institution, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency. 

The reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have been elected to serve... 

...we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as 'telling it like it is' when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified. 

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength... It instead projects a corruption of the spirit and weakness...

... I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it...We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that..

Were the shoe on the other foot, we Republicans — would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course, we wouldn’t, and we would be wrong if we did...

...And as a matter and duty of conscience, the notion that one should stay silent — and as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters — the notion that we should say or do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is...profoundly misguided.

...Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops... Humility helps, character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly or debased appetites in us...

... politics can make us silent when we should speak and silence can equal complicity. I have children and grandchildren to answer to.

...To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess that we’ve created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal by mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle...

We were not made great as a country by indulging in or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorifying in the things that divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake...

.. A political career does not mean much if we are complicit in undermining these values. 

Some may say this was a self-indulgent act; some will say it's easy to have cojones a voice when a man is walking away from a re-election fight he was apt to lose, thanks to his enemy in the Oval Office. But even some Republicans applauded Flake's message, not just his leave-taking.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has been looking for his own cojones voice since before the election, said this today:

All this stuff you see on a daily basis, on Twitter this and Twitter that, forget about it.