Quick Takes (v74): What I'd Ask Todd Blanche

Todd Blanche, a key FOTUS personal attorney (FPA) and current acting Attorney General of the US, is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today as it considers his nomination to lose the 'acting' tag and assume the AG role for real.

I expect he'll get many questions about the Epstein files; that's fine. After all, his predecessor (and fellow FPA) Pam Bondi said all things Epstein were in his portfolio.  And, as we all know, the one thing our highly partisan DC politicians can agree on is that all publicity is good, and asking Epstein questions will guarantee them the attention they crave.

Me? With very few exceptions, I'm much less interested in questions about Epstein (I'll tell you why in another post) than I am in hearing him differentiate his work as an FPA from his work in the DOJ. Here's what I'm interested in as far as Epstein goes:

• The Federal Bureau of Prisons maintains strict rules that generally disqualify sex offenders from serving time in white-collar-crime type 'prison camps. Do you agree with those rules, yes or no?

• You interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison, for nine hours. Shortly after, she was transferred to a prison camp in Texas, putting her closer to family members. Her transfer appears to go against the rules.

Yes or no, did you promise her a transfer in return for her testimony?

Yes or no, did you ask that she be transferred or considered for transfer?

Yes or no, did you approve her transfer?  If you didn't approve her transfer, who did?

• How many other convicted sex offenders has the DOJ transferred to be closer to their family members?  Were you involved in any of those decisions?

• Yes or no, did you make any promises to Maxwell for her testimony?

• Yes or no, did you have any discussions with the FOTUS in advance of your interview with her? If yes, what was the nature of those discussions?

• Yes or no, have you been involved in any discussions regarding a potential pardon for Maxwell? 

Other questions I'd love to have answered, regarding the FOTUS lawsuit against the IRS:

• Generally speaking, in your current role as Acting AG, who is your client, the United States or the president?

• Do you believe there is enough separation between the president as an individual and the president as head of the Executive Branch - and your boss - that a lawsuit such as his against the IRS can meet the requirement that the plaintiff and defendant must be truly different parties?

Based on your answer to the 'who is your client' question, do you believe it was appropriate to be personally involved in settling the president's IRS lawsuit, yes or no?

Why did you not wait until the Courts determined the legitimacy of the lawsuit before proposing the settlement you did? 

Did you believe, or do you believe, that the fund you proposed to award taxpayer money to people not involved in the settled lawsuit was in the best interests of the United States?

Did you believe, or do you believe, that barring the IRS from completing any open audits, or opening any new audits on taxes filed before May 2026, was in the best interests of the United States?

Would you have approved either settlement provision with any other taxpayers?

• When the president's taxes were leaked by an IRS employee, how many other individual or corporate taxpayers also had their information released - was it hundreds of people? Thousands of people? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

Not counting corporate taxpayers, how many of those whose taxes were released, including the president, sued the IRS for the unauthorized disclosure?

How many of those who sued were successful?

And how much money, on average, did each receive as a result?

How many of those suits were you personally involved in?

• Yes or no, are you aware of The Judgment Fund, established by Congress in 1956, to pay people who have successfully sued the government and been awarded a monetary judgment? 

Since that Fund already exists, and doesn't place any cap on payments, why was it necessary to create a special fund as part of the deal with the president?

You have said that the DOJ will not be moving ahead with the so-called 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,' but you've refused to put that in writing. Why is that?

Yes or no, is it your intention to use The Judgment Fund to handle payments to the alleged 'weaponization' victims?   

 If that is the intention, yes or no, will you require that the alleged victims follow the process and obtain a court judgment before releasing any funds?

I would not waste more than a few seconds thanking him for appearing before the Committee before diving into this list, and I'd likely have to reclaim the couple of minutes of my time he would have wasted in his efforts not to answer me. 

And then, hopefully I'd be turning it over to a colleague who'd ask different questions, so the American people can see and hear for themselves how awful a choice he is for this position.

What would you want to ask him? Drop a comment! 

Wondering on Wednesday 2/7/24

Ready... set... wonder!

When the media reports that Joe Biden "easily won" a Democratic primary, I wonder why we don't know who he defeats. I know other candidates are in the race, but you'd think the media was totally unaware, given how infrequently they're mentioned.  And I wonder why they always mentioned other folks on the Republican caucus and primary ballots (at least until yesterday's meaningless primary in Nevada). 

The primary was meaningless, you see, because Nevada has both a Republican primary, which doesn't result in delegates being awarded, and a Republican caucus two days later, which does. Obviously, I can't help wondering why the state GOP thought it was a good idea to have both; the Dems don't. 

Haley lost to 'none of these candidates' - the first time any candidate has lost to 'none' since the option became available in 1975.  My last bit of wondering on this is simply this: why don't we all have that ballot option?

This morning, former president Trump woke up for the first time having been told he's not special - he's just a citizen, like the rest of us. And I wondered, briefly, if there's any ketchup left at Mar-a-Lago. Nah, I'm kidding - I know there's not. Seriously though, I do wonder what the Supreme Court will do if Trump files an appeal of the Yes, You Have No Immunity decision by Monday's deadline. I sincerely hope that they don't take up the appeal on this one, but we can't be sure of that.

In my Ranting and Raving post yesterday, I included a link to an article in which Tennessee's Rep. Mark Green was named as the guy who called Trump 'Orange Jesus'. I don't wonder if someone said it, and it doesn't matter to me whether it was Mark Green, or Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, or someone else. What's more concerning, and what causes my wondering, is the number of people who seem to believe the name fits.

Yesterday, the House failed to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS Secretary. Rep. Al Green of Texas left his hospital bed and, with some medical people tagging along, cast the tying vote, which was enough to kill the measure. The final tally was 214 -216, allowing another vote later. Speaker Mike Johnson said that the vote was a "setback" and that "democracy is messy," and "sometimes when you're counting votes, and people show up when they're not expected to be in the building, it changes the equation." I'm wondering how big Rep. Al Green's smile was after hearing that!

Not to be outdone by the mess in the lower chamber, the Senate failed to advance the bipartisan immigration bill, which fell 49-50, with both Rs and Ds voting 'no.' And, it postponed a vote on a bill that would provide aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. I'm wondering if the actions we've seen over the last few days are what people are talking about when they say America looks foolish and inept in the eyes of the world.

There's always more, but that feels like a good place to stop. What's on your wondering minds these days?

Ranting and Raving (v10): How Deep is the Deep State?

I shouldn't be shocked that "leaders" like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Why Didn't I Retire?) would cave to the pressure and stop supporting the immigration bill that the Senate has been working on, for months - although I was surprised it took him only three hours to do so.

I am definitely not shocked that my Congressman, Brandon Williams (R- MAGA Truffle Farm), is going along with the rest of the cult in the House and declaring the bill "dead on arrival" even though it's supported by the Border Patrol union.  And 

Heck, I'm not really even shocked that evangelical House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Last Best Hope to Lead) suggested that the union supports the bill because it gives the members a raise; after all, we know his coat has only one color.

But I should be mad, and I am, and you should be, too.

We should all be mad at, and sick and tired of, elected officials pissing and moaning about all of the problems we face, and how horrible things are in the country right now, and how the American people are almost as concerned about everything as Sen. Susan Collins is on any given day, and how the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket because Joe Biden is the president, Democrats control the Senate, and the House GOP majority is so stinking small that (dear lord, It's The Big One, 'Lizabeth) they might have to (gasp!) work with the Democrats to get something done. Clutch those pearls, baby!

Good lord, give me a break already.

The same people who pretend they don't need to do anything because the other guy can do something. Unless of course he does, in which case they'll challenge his every move, doubt his every motivation, and keep everything ground to a halt so they can claim they can't get anything done because the other guy, blah bippity blah bippity blah blah blah.

Or, they'll propose something so extreme even they know it won't pass muster in the other chamber - not that they care - because they can say, look, we did something, and everyone's ignoring us and so it's their fault that nothing's getting done, blah bippity blah bippity blah blah blah.

And all this time, for the last several years, we've been told that if only the 'deep state' - the George Soros-funded shadow government that's keeping the unelected, unmanaged, Democrat bureaucrats in place - was not in control, everything would be better and America would be great and people would be happy and our margins of victory would, you know, actually be margins of victory. 

And yes, you always blame the nonagenarian, Hungarian-American who fled Nazin Germany as a child for everything wrong in our country - that's the MAGA way. Well, you can blame Hollywood. Or black football players. Or white female singers. Or school librarians. But you can never speak ill of the Orange Jesus. That's right - Rep. Mark Greene (R-Not Half as Smooth as Tennessee Whiskey) or maybe another one of his ilk, referred to Donald Trump as the Orange Jesus.

Yep. The Orange Jesus, the OJ. The man who led the charge against the Soros Deep State, the unelected bureaucrats who he thinks should be 'his' people, who should do whatever he wants, regardless of, you know, laws on the books, or what Congress wants to do on our behalf, regardless of what they're required to do. (And who, by the way, the OJ has promised to fire.)

In his kingdom, everyone loves him, works for him, bows to him, kisses his ring (blecch), and if they don't, well, they're part of the Soros Deep State that's trying to subvert him and drive our country down a path that is decidedly not leading to the MAGA Camp. 

I'm not at all afraid of the Soros Deep State - but the other one, the orange one, scares the crap out of me, and - and it's hiding in plain sight.

Hell, it isn't deep at all - it's as shallow as a droplet on a rose petal in my garden. And, not only does it not subvert his will and desires, it actively, openly promotes them - they don't even hide it anymore. Maga Campers - the Deep State soldiers - ignore us, and rub our noses in it when they do.  

We elect these folks to state and national office because we're looking for solutions to the problems we've all been complaining about - often, for years. But now, they do the bidding of an unelected, unmanageable, in-it-for-himself, convicted sex offender who never should have been in office in the first place, and who should never be in office again? 

Really? Is that what they think is the right way to do their jobs? Is that any way to run a country?

It's like we shouldn't even bother having an election this year, since the OJ can just issue pronouncements from his gold-plated golf cart and his minions will all scurry off and do his bidding. (Not to mention, no one can steal the election if we don't have one, right?)

Where's the accountability?  What happened to country over party? How on earth do we find ourselves where we are right now?

What the actual hell? 

What the ever-loving actual hell.  

Sidebar: Sunday School 1/28/24

One more thing before I leave the immigration discussion and move to greener pastures: it's been reported that the Oklahoma Republican Party (OKGOP) has voted to censure US Sen. Jim Lankford, one of their own, for his efforts on the bipartisan bill we've heard so much about recently. 

(I didn't have room for Lankford in the recaps you can read here and here.)

Lankford has represented Oklahoma in the Senate since 2015, but apparently collaborating with the Dems and trying to solve a problem that legislators have either failed or refused to solve in decades is too much for them to take.  

According to the censure resolution, 

Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger. 

I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it? 

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Lankford noted

It is interesting, Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in law. And now, it's interesting a few months later, when we're finally getting to the end, they're like, 'Oh, just kidding, I actually don't want a change in law.'

Other comments about the resolution were reported by KOKH, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City. The station's report noted the resolution said

Lankford's 'open border deal' directly conflicts with the GOP's values... We oppose a 'path to citizenship' that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens faster than to immigrants who have come to the United States through legal means.

And, it included a statement from the (We're Not) OKGOP, signed by Wayne Hill, the party's Vice Chairman, which had this to say about the censure.

The State Committee of the Oklahoma Republican party, the Supreme Authority of the OKGOP, has condemned the actions of Senator James Lankford. The resolution calls on Senator Lankford to "cease and desist jeopardizing the security and liberty of the people of Oklahoma and of these United States." Further, "until Senator Lankford ceases from these actions, the Oklahoma Republican Party will cease all support for him.

Today's meeting was attended by 172 active Republicans from all across Oklahoma. the 124 voting members of the State Committee resoundingly approved this resolution and others as their first official act of the 2024 election year.

The OKGOP State Committee is committed to holding elected Republicans accountable to the standards set forth in the OKGOP Platform which supports limited legal immigration. It is our hope that Senator Lankford will acknowledge the direction of the State Committee and do all in his power to defend our border from the current invasion.

Interestingly. there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting. 

More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:

The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.

Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

Sunday School 1/28/24

For your Sunday School this week, I'm focusing on the immigration conversations in the classrooms.

Donald Trump doesn't want Senate Republicans to help get a bill to the House, and he doesn't want the House to pass a bill if one makes it to them. We know that because Mitch McConnell said the first part, and Trump himself has made the second part clear. 

We'll start with Face the Nation where Margaret Brennan (Interrupter-in-Chief, CBS) talked with Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), one of the negotiators of the Senate bill. Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.

So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.

He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.

That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos... 

With this bill, we can "turn those folks back around to Mexico," he said, which "gives the authority to the United States and to law enforcement, rather than...the criminal cartels." He said 'humanitarian parole' remains an issue, because it's "attracting more people" here, and we end up turning them loose without knowing if they even qualify for asylum.

Brennan wondered if the bill would pass without Trump's support. Lankford said he's looking forward to Trump being able to read the bill before he makes a decision, adding

... there is no question, no matter what your political persuasion is, we would not have had the immigration crisis we're experiencing right now if President Trump would have been president the last three years...

But even Trump wanted more authority on immigration, and what "he was specifically asking Congress to change" on asylum, and deportation funding, are included in the bill. 

 So, if he were to be president, this would be new authorities that he had actually asked for when he was president before.

Eventually, the interview turned to the obligatory talk of endorsing Trump. I believe there's a rule - think I saw it on Walter Cronkite's Facebook page - that every Republican must be asked the question.  

Lankford said he hasn't endorsed anyone, but Trump would "be a much better president than what we're dealing with right now, definitely on national security." Brennan asked if the $83M verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case gives him "any pause about (Trump) returning to office?" Nope.

I don't want to jump in the middle of a legal case. It's been interesting the number of legal cases that have come up against President Trump and then have failed and have been dropped or have been kicked out of the courts on it. This one has actually went through. He's already said he's going to challenge it. So let the courts actually make their decisions and let the American people make their decisions.

And then, of course, because he couldn't help himself, he added

We got states like Colorado that are trying to be able to block the people of Colorado from being able to choose who they vote for. Let the American people decide this in November.

Brennan didn't mention the 60-odd election fraud cases that Trump lost or that were tossed, but she did point out that the Supremes might be making the decision on the ballot case.

Next up? Dana Bash and her State of the Union classroom conversation with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), another senator crafting the bill She asked Murphy if they have a deal. He said the same as Lankford: there's a bipartisan deal, they're working on the text, and

the question is whether Republicans are going to listen to Donald Trump, who wants to preserve chaos at the border because he thinks that it's a winning political issue for him, or whether we are going to pass legislation which would be the biggest bipartisan reform of our border immigration laws in 40 years.

He said the bill gives whoever is president "new, important power to be able to better manage the flow" of people crossing the border. He's glad Biden came out "forcefully in favor" of the bill, and noted that "Republicans have said they will let - they will let Vladimir Putin march his army in and through Ukraine if we don't pass a bill that includes border provisions and Ukraine funding."

That would be "catastrophic" not just for the US but for the "whole world." The stakes are high, and

The consequences of failure are enormous. And I do have confidence that enough Republicans in the Senate are going to join us to pass this bipartisan legislation, potentially as early as the next week or two, and we can show that Washington can still stand up and work on these big problems, even if Donald Trump is rooting for chaos.

He confirmed some of the bill's provisions, including the ability to temporarily close the border when crossings "reach catastrophically high levels." It also shortens the timeframe for hearing asylum cases from "sometimes five to ten years" to "six months in some cases." It also speeds up the process for getting people work permits.

Murphy disagrees that Biden already has the necessary authority, calling that "a political talking point." The people who say that are the people who introduced those same tools in HR2, their "massive border reform bill." And now?

...they want to keep the border in a chaotic situation for political purposes. Remember, Donald Trump didn't do a much better job. Presentations reached a 10-year high ... The only reason that fewer people started to show up was because COVID hit... So, when Donald Trump says,' I didn't need any new powers,' that's just not true. 

Also in the classroom with Bash? Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD but I really want to be VP). Noem thinks Texas should defy the Supreme Court's ruling that the federal government can cut down Gov. Greg Abbott's razor wire, and enforce their state rights to control their border.

She told a story she heard when she was in Texas, about a mom from Nicaragua who "had been told that America is open, please come." 

She brought her daughter, her 6-year-old daughter, and was facilitated through by cartels and said where she was so mistreated was in Mexico, that she sat in Mexico for three months and was put through horrific work conditions and terrible conditions for her and her daughter for three months before they then brought her across the river and forced her across into a dangerous situation.

Later in the interview, though, here's what she said about keeping people in Mexico.

Why doesn't President Biden take action today? I mean, today can be 'day one'. He can immediately announce that he's reinstating the stay-in-Mexico policy...We have a president that has all the tools that he needs to protect our country today, and he's refusing to do that.

So, do we make them stay in Mexico, or no? I'm so confused. 

And what does Noem think of some of the comments in a video Bash played?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): The question is, do you want to get something that will help us stem the tide of humanity coming across the border and drugs, or do you want to get nothing? SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): I just reject the idea that we should reserve a crisis for a better time to solve it. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think the best thing for the Republican Party to do right now is try to work with Democrats. 

Noem thumped her chest and accused the senators of "casting aspersions that they do not have the knowledge and the facts to speak to." 

Because they weren't around when Trump was president? Because they didn't support his border policies? Because she wants to be Trump's VP so badly, she can taste it? 

She also this about the esteemed Republicans:

So you can say a lot of things and talk a lot of talk. And U.S. senators are really good at spinning a story to make themselves look good. 

Not that job-hunting governors would ever do that.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/15/23: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson, from the CNN SOTU classroom, was all about toeing the party line. 

For your Extra Credit this week, I chose to spend time in the MTP classroom, where What's-his-name talked with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). We'll start with the senator. 

The Biden document issue was front and center. WHN asked if the White House, by not coming clean right away, puts Dems in a tough spot of "not knowing what to defend and what not to defend." Stabenow didn't have an issue here, and she made a distinction between what's happening now and what happened with former president Trump.

They take it very, very seriously. And they're talking to all of the right people. They're not going to defy subpoenas or require FBI raids to be able to get the documents. The president isn't saying that somehow magically when he thinks about classified documents that he can declassify them. I mean, it's totally different right now. Both serious in terms of having classified documents. But the president is doing the right thing.

Stabenow said it was "certainly embarrassing" that they found a "small number of documents, certainly not on purpose," but reiterated they're working with DOJ and the National Archives to correct it. And, she said, her concern is the "chaos" the Rs love to create.

Let's not talk about the fact that we have a manufacturing renaissance going on in this country. More jobs created, lower unemployment rate, higher wages. And what they're proposing to do that would interfere with that would really put us on the edge economically. They don't want to talk with us about how to move the country forward. And I can tell you people in Michigan, they want folks that are going together, get things done, that care about their families and aren't interested in all of this just chaos and investigations. Which is where the Republicans feel comfortable, unfortunately.

WHN wondered if there were any issues Stabenow wanted to work on, now that she's free from the political pressures of reelection. She said she'll continue working across the aisle, as she has "on issue after issue." She pointed to the upcoming five-year farm bill, which has bipartisan support, and said it's about more than just farms.

It's the largest investment we make in land and water conservation for the country. And so that's incredibly important. And frankly, we need workers. And one of the things we need to do is comprehensive immigration reform so that our farmers have access to a legal system for their workers.

The next question - whether Dems should support Kyrsten Sinema's reelection bid - seemed to come out of left field. Stabenow said she and Sinema have worked together, including on gun safety and mental health, but said "we'll let that play out a bit," and that "it's very, very early" to be talking about that.

Stabenow says she finds it interesting that so many people think that Washington DC and Congress are 'broken.' Even given "all the division and chaos and everything that's happening and trying to pull the country apart, (to) stop us from governing," 

we actually, in the last two years with a 50/50 Senate, you don't get closer than 50/50 in the United States Senate, Democratic House and President Biden got more done than at any time, literally in our lifetimes. And that's not an exaggeration.

She believes the reason the Dems gained a seat in the midterms, and why they'll keep the majority in 2024 "is because we are actually focusing on the things that people care about." 

Sunday School 1/8/23: Extra Credit

In your Sunday School, I promised a punditry recap for your Extra Credit. In the interest of our collective sanity, I'm only going to cover one classroom - This Week with George Stephanopoulos. 

The panel included regulars Donna Brazile and Chis Christie; Susan Page (USA Today); and author Maggie Haberman.

A. McCarthy's bid for Speaker.

Christie said Kevin McCarthy's victory, in a town where "winning is better than losing," he showed his toughness; he held onto 200 votes over the long slog, but now, he has to govern.

...the challenge is going to be, how do you lead a group like that to getting to 218 on a number of issues that you care about and a number of issues you want to play defense on? And that's going to be interesting to watch over the next two years.

Page noted that Nancy Pelosi won with fewer than 218 votes, too, but she did it behind closed doors - and without the concessions. 

I think the new speaker's problem is, he didn't resolve the divide in the Republican Party, he empowered the insurgents so that Scott Perry... is almost as powerful as Kevin McCarthy in this next Congress.

Brazil, noting Perry referenced Frederick Douglass, had a Douglass line, too: 'it's easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.' And, she maintains, McCarthy's caucus is broken.

It's broken because it has a split personality. The Freedom Caucus, unlike the Progressive Caucus that Nancy Pelosi could bring to the table, the Freedom Caucus held out because they want committee slots, they want to run the Rules Committee, which is a very powerful committee, they want to make sure that they're on... the Budget Committee. They are going to create havoc, not just for Kevin McCarthy, but for the United States of America.

Haberman was asked about her friend Donald Trump helping McCarthy across the finish line. She's not sure he had "a lot" of influence, but he definitely had some. She said Trump made his early "public push" for McCarthy not because wanted to, but "because he gave some mealy-mouth comment to an NBC reporter," but it didn't do much to shift the dial. In the end, though,  

he did make calls to people like Matt Gaetz and he did have some influence there. That's a problem for Kevin McCarthy... it’s not just Scott Perry and the House Freedom Caucus, it’s this Matt Gaetz group. And Matt Gaetz he kept his folks together. And he is now in a pretty strong position with McCarthy.

B. Can they govern?

On the looming battle over the debt limit, Christie thinks negotiation will be necessary, no matter what President Biden thinks.  

He lost the House. He's got to negotiate. And so, to say that the Republicans would be the obstructionists, well, now you have divided government and you have to -- both sides are going to have to give. Chuck Schumer is going to have to give. Joe Biden is going to have to give. And Kevin McCarthy’s going to have to give ultimately. So, if we have a fiscal disaster because of some of these things, it's going to be us judging who's been willing to negotiate and who hasn't. 

I think Biden said is he's not willing to negotiate on Social Security and Medicare, which is not the same as "refusing to negotiate" on anything; we'll have to see what happens. 

Brazile thinks it may be hard to get a majority of the House to come together on critical legislation. 

I do believe that Kevin McCarthy is going to have a very difficult job maintaining the unity of the Republican caucus – I don’t even know why I can put “unity” and “Republican” in the same breath. I mean Hakeem Jeffries is going to have a unified caucus. I don't believe that Kevin McCarthy will be able to get the votes he need on the debt ceiling, on the functioning of government, which is to keep it funded, and on any major crisis that might come before us. 

Page addressed the question of whether House & Senate Rs will be aligned. She said they don't often align "in either party," which I think we've seen to be true. She also said there might be a better question to ask than whether McCarthy can keep his caucus together. 

Could there be a coalition of the more moderate Republicans and the more moderate Democrats to get things through in the House? That's not something we saw happen in the speaker's fight. I think that is possible that we could see it...

Stephanopoulos seemed doubtful, since it didn't happen during the Speaker voting, but I think that was a different situation. That was the Rs having a family feud; it wasn't anything as universally important as financing the government.

C. What about 2024?

Trump's in, of course, and Haberman thinks Biden's in, too: "I think anybody who is questioning that Biden is actually running right now is kidding themselves." She says Trump "definitely still has influence; he's definitely still important, but he's not president anymore, and he's not what he was." That was made clear when representatives didn't want to take his call last week.

She said she's "certainly never seen anything like this," where some declares their candidacy and "then basically does nothing."

...he is still commanding a decent chunk of the Republican primary electorate. So, you can't say that he's done. But he is certainly not being handed anything. And as we saw over the past week, he just doesn't have the same fear factor with his party that he had once upon a time. I don't know if it's going anywhere or not.

And, she said we won't really know until we find out if any of the investigations will yield charges. 

Christie doesn't think any of this impacts people who might be considering running. He expects a "slow-moving race," and that Trump's early announcement gave everyone else time to wait and see what happens. He also doesn't expect a crowded field.

I don't think it's going to be more than seven or eight people, max. And so all that's going to take time to develop. I wouldn't expect a field to fully develop until the end of June. Because the RNC has said the first debates are going to be in July, in Milwaukee. And I don't think anybody is going to feel any compulsion to get in... 

He thinks folks will wait it out, and he said "to go in early, huge political strategic mistake." 

Feel free to chime in: who are your picks to challenge Trump and Biden? Will folks like Elise Stefanik - and Kevin McCarthy - continue to support Trump if any of the 'witch hunts' result in charges? Is Kamala Harris automatically the front-runner if Biden decides not to run?  

See you around campus.

The Election Eve Post, 2022 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my absolute best to encourage you to vote.

If you’re not motivated this year, I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to convince you how important it is, but I’ll try. 

We have people running for office - over 600 of them across the country – who are ‘election deniers’ in some way, shape or form. They’re running for local, state, and national office, including critical positions responsible for overseeing elections. Imagine that – people who deny the outcome of the last presidential election, in charge of the next one? 

It's possible we could have a Congressional majority that would have us back away from our leadership on the world stage, who would have us walk away from our support of Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. 

It's possible there could be changes not just in the House, but in the Senate as well, which means it is possible, no matter what they say, that women will not be able to receive vital medical care. It’s possible, that we’ll see more states move to subjecting women to bounties, or parents to bounties, depending on the level of risk they’re willing to take for their trans children. Is this what 'small government' means?

No matter what they say, it’s possible that contraception could be made illegal, and that marriage equality could fall by the wayside. It's possible we could see significant cuts in a variety of benefits including Medicare and Social Security, a variety of safety net programs, including health insurance, in our educational funding, and more. Change isn't inherently bad, but change without compassion and without thoughtful consideration isn't inherently good, either. 

If you're not of childbearing age, or you're not gay, or you're not trans, or you don't rely on government programs for your insurance or your income, or you don't have kids in school, does this stuff matter?

You might say no, but I'd ask this: when they’re done going after other people’s rights, do you think they won’t come for yours?

I understand inflation stinks; I also understand it’s a global problem. I understand we have significant issues with illegal immigration problems; I also understand that the problem is much bigger than border crossing, and that immigration, too, is a global problem.

I understand that crime is rising in some areas, in red states just as in blue states; I also understand simplistic solutions and soundbites are not the answer.

It’s going to take more than that to solve our problems, and it’s going to take more than voting, too. Voting is just the first step; after that, we have the power to hold elected officials accountable, and the responsibility to do just that. 

If you're an early voter, and have already done your civic duty, thank you. If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you. And if you're planning on voting the old-fashioned way - showing up at your polling place on Tuesday, like I do, thank you. 

Use your voice. I don't care if you and I don't agree on a single thing - I still want everyone who is eligible to vote to do so. The thing that's most frustrating to me is that the people who don't show up are often the ones making the decisions for the rest of us. We can't continue to allow that to happen. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you're still on the fence about voting.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." (1) Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help on 

your ballot, or any other assistance,  

contact your local Board of Elections. 

Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

Sunday School 10/16/22

Here's a look at a couple of the Senate races at play in November. First up? Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom with the candidates for the Colorado seat, Joe O'Dea (R) and incumbent Michael Bennet (D).

O'Dea was up first; he was asked what he'd do about inflation if he gets elected. Mostly, "we have got to get our energy policy back on track" and that means "getting the permitting out of the way" 

so we can go back to work here in Colorado and flood the market with increased supply. It'll cause the price to come down. Inflation will go away. That's how you do it.

Bash didn't follow up on that, or on data showing that the Biden administration is approving 96% of the lease permits it receives, or about approved leases not going into production. Instead, she moved on to guns, asking if O'Dea thought any new gun laws were needed. 

He said Dems in his state are ignoring the laws on the books, that we "need more cops on the street" and to "make sure we're enforcing the laws we have." And, specifically on red flag laws, like the one in Colorado that's focused on mental health? Sheriffs tell him it doesn't work, "it puts them at risk. They're not happy with that law," and it needs to be rewritten.

...We need to do more with mental health here to get these people off the street. But we have hundreds of laws on the books. We need to enforce them. We need more cops on our street right now. If you talk to Chief Pazen here of the city and county of Denver -- he's the chief of police -- he will tell you he's short 250 officers. That's because Democrats across the state of Colorado have defunded, demoralized the police. And we need to do better.

Bash followed up, noting that Colorado's approved 146 applications to take guns away from dangerous people in two years, and asked if that didn't make his state safer.

He said no, citing stats saying it's the "the third worst state for violent crime in the United States," and "they just deemed Denver as one of the most unsafe cities in the nation." He said they have record crime everywhere, cashless bail issues, and again, the laws on the books need to be enforced.

Moving on, O'Dea said January 6th was "a black eye on the country" and that Trump "should have done more" to "keep the violence" away from the Capitol. Anyone who was violent needs to be held accountable. Trump should not run again, he said, and he'll "actively campaign" against him and will make sure the Rs have viable choices.

And finally, on abortion, he believes "for the first five months, that decision should be between a woman and her doctor. After that, for rape, incest, life of the mother, medical necessity, I believe that decision should also be between a woman and her doctor."  He says his position "is where most of America is."  

Bash started her interview with Sen. Bennet asking why the Inflation Reduction Act isn't reducing inflation. Bennet pointed out that some pieces "are going to take a while to put into place." He also explained that it's "a global problem," something other Dems forget to do. He blamed oil prices that skyrocketed during the recovery and Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 

Bash interrupted him to note that the media's favorite economist, former Dem Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, said that spending Bennet voted for, "particularly $1.9 trillion for the American Rescue Plan" is making inflation worse. Like other Dems who are paying attention, Bennet noted that other economists disagreed. And, he said, the ARP 

kept 30,000 Coloradans from being evicted... it has funded law enforcement all over the state, mental health services that we desperately need. It cut childhood poverty in half last year because of a bill that I wrote. I'm concerned that the Federal Reserve kept their interest rates at zero for too long and that their quantitative easing was too aggressive. But that's looking in the rearview mirror.

The senator said we can fix things by bringing supply chains back to the US, and "by making sure we are benefitting from the Inflation Reduction Act" by being the leader transitioning away from fossil fuels over the next 25 years. He thinks we're perfectly positioned to do that, and he thinks "that's an amazing place for us to be."

Bash turned to an ad run by a Dem group to help boost O'Dea's primary opponent "because they thought he would be easier" for Bennet to beat - and she wondered how Bennet would paint O'Dea as a "far-right Republican." Bennet said O'Dea does that by himself: he would have voted for all of Trump's SCOTUS picks; he opposes codifying abortion rights; he voted for a ballot issue that banned all abortions; and he doesn't think Trump bears any responsibility for the insurrection. 

Bash asked if it was a "mistake for fellow Democrats to prop him up as" Bennet's opponent. Bennet said we need to reform the campaign finance system, noting he's "got a racist billionaire who's funding a super PAC" that's supporting O'Dea - from Wyoming. 

That's not helping voters in Colorado. But I want, Dana, you to know and I want your viewers to know how out of touch he is with Colorado... not just on the abortion issue, but the idea that he would not support any additional gun laws, including a law Mitch McConnell voted for in the U.S. Senate. He thinks that our red flag law in Colorado after Columbine, after Aurora, is -- is out of touch.

Meanwhile, down the hall in the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with Evan McMullin, the Independent running against Republican incumbent Sen. Mike Lee. Notably, the other Utah senator, Mitt Romney, hasn't endorsed Lee. What's-his-name wondered if McMullen had spoken to Romney; McMullen said he hasn't, and said he respects and appreciates Romney's decision to sit this one out.

Lee has said a vote for McMullin is "a vote for the Democrats to keep their majority," and W-H-N wondered if that was correct. McMullin said no.

... look, I'm building a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and members of third parties to better represent Utah and to help lead our country forward. And I'm not going to Washington to join a party or to caucus or to play the party power game. I'm going to represent our coalition. 

If he serves all six years, he wouldn't join either party's caucus? He said he'll maintain his independence, and that would help Utah and give it "an added value of influence." After blasting Lee ("He sits on his hands until it's time to vote no and then he goes and complains about our country on cable news."), he said he thinks we've seen

... that the senators in the chamber who are willing to act with greater independence, serving their constituents, standing up to party bosses, standing up to extremist factions and special interest groups, they have the most influence in the chamber. They're more influential, I think, even than the party bosses. And I want that for Utah. 

W-H-N asked about McMullen tweeting in January 2021 that "Not only should Mitch McConnell never be majority leader again, he shouldn't be minority leader either. It's time for something new." He said he wouldn't be involved in choosing the leadership, because it's up to the parties to make that decision.

Next, he was asked whether he would have voted for the Inflation Reduction Act. There were things in it he liked, and some that he didn't like, and he would not have voted for it "as written." He thought it didn't do enough about inflation in the short term, and thinks more needs to be done on that front.

...we need leaders and need a Senate who is going to focus on actually delivering more results to lower inflation. I did like the fact that it started to allow Medicare to negotiate on prescription drugs. We pay far more for prescription drugs than we need to in America...

McMullin favored Roe being overturned, but he's expressed concern that extreme laws were being created since that happened; most of the bills that have surfaced since the decision have been designed to make a political point, and that the extreme positions are "tearing the country apart." 

...we've got to stand up to those extremes. But more importantly, we've got to find a more constructive way forward. And that's about making contraception more available, doing more to support women, children, and families, and improving education on this matter. And that's where I'll focus my time.

Of the three candidates we heard from, I prefer McMullin's approach. We do need more people who are there to represent us, not just to stand with their party or protect their own longevity. 

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/5/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's on my wondering mind tonight? Let's dive in.

First and foremost, I'm wondering what the heck is wrong with the national media - not the crazies, the regular old media - who can't seem to stop asking each other if they notice how amazing it is that the president, a Democrat, is collaborating with the Republican governor of a storm-ravaged state, and how amazing it is that's happening, this close to the midterms and all the rest. 

I'm not kidding - it was a topic on NPR, and on ABC and CBS and NBC and probably all the other networks I didn't check in on. I'm wondering exactly what they were expecting to happen; was Gov. DeSantis going to swallow his pride and refuse to ask for help for residents of his state? Where was he going to get help, from Martha's Vineyard or something? And what about President Biden? Was he to pretend he didn't know a storm had hit? Was he to blindly ignore Americans in a disaster because their governor's a jerk?

It's embarrassing, and insulting, that they are so gaga over this natural, totally expected partnering at a time like this. And, speaking of embarrassing, I wonder how I missed what was happening. I was having a hard time with all of this until I remembered the most recent president was a total jerk who wouldn't work with people who didn't suck up to him, or with anyone who said anything bad about him, or who laughed at him for things like throwing paper towels to disaster victims. So, in that context, I guess I should give the gushers a break. 

Donald Trump, who spent years calling CNN 'fake news' and 'the enemy of the people,' has sued the network for defamation, and is seeking $475M in damages. I wonder if his lawyers filed it with a straight face, or how the folks at CNN could have received it with one. And I wonder how he even still has lawyers?

Former Congressman Newt Gingrich has said that serial liar Herschel Walker is the most important Senate candidate in the country. He has a deep commitment to Christ, Newt said, and lots of concussions. I can't help wondering about the connection between either of those and the United States Senate, or why Gingrich talked so glowingly about Walker's concussion (and PTSD) as being among his qualifications for the Senate.

And, I can't help wondering which senator will be assigned to babysit Walker, should he be elected. If I had to guess, I'd say it's gonna be Coach Tommy Tuberville. During his tenure as head coach at Auburn, he managed to have a 5-5 record against Georgia, the school Walker left to pursue his pro football career. They'll speak the same language, if nothing else.

Finally, I'm wondering, in the back of my mind, if this post was meant to be all about disasters, or if it just worked out that way.

What are you wondering about? 

Sunday School 9/25/22

I decided to spend some time in the Fox News Sunday classroom, to check in on new host Shannon Bream, who was tapped to fill the seat held by Chris Wallace for nearly two decades. 

One of her guests was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-They're ALL My Friends); it was his 'yes' vote that led to the passage of the dangerously named Inflation Reduction Act way back in August. Here's Bream's into to her chat with Manchin. 

She introduced him by noting the bargain he struck with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would "reform the tedious federal permitting process for new energy projects," something Schumer's trying to find a way to go in order to "avoid a potential government shutdown." And, she quoted a Wall Street Journal comment about Manchin having "had political leverage but the bill shows he traded his voted on the cheap." Did you, she asked?

Nope - he didn't, he said, and he's got a response being published today in the WSJ; he said it answers "every one of the things which they basically have evaluated wrongly." And, he said,

But this is a chance in a lifetime for us to have energy independence, Shannon. For us to have security in this nation, which we need, and making sure that we can take care of the American people with low energy prices, producing more oil, producing more gas. But we have to have permitting reform if you're going to deliver it. You have no way of infrastructure to deliver it. So, everyone knows that. My Republican friends know that.

Much of the conversation centered around Republicans who are mad at Manchin because he struck a deal and the IRA passed. It seems most of them thought that he would be a no, and the Rs could hit the Biden administration with a loss just a few months before the midterms. 

For example, Bream brought up an amendment to the IRA from his fellow WV Senator Shelley Moore Capito that Manchin voted against ("hers is a messaging bill"), and ("she's totally supportive of my approach basically as it incorporated many of the things she and 46 other Republican senators had endorsed").

Not only that, but "Well, certainly, you understand where Republicans don't think they should be the ones to come across the aisle to vote for a measure that primarily benefits you, which was done in exchange for your vote on a measure they didn't support -- not a single one of them vote for the Inflation Reduction Act." 

And there's more - she quoted something in 'Politico' from Sen. John Cornyn, "Given what Senator Manchin did on the reconciliation bill, it's engendered a lot of bad blood. There's not a lot of sympathy on our side to provide Senator Manchin a reward." The point of that? Why should the Rs help him now?

Manchin handled it all as well as can be expected, starting by saying "this is not about me." He spoke of the twelve years he's worked with the Rs on their top priority - permitting reform. 

We can't build anything in America. It takes five to 10 years. The developed world takes one to three years. And why should we so behind the developed world bringing products to market, to be able to have the infrastructure to move energy around? And we're asking people around the world to do things for us, we won't do for ourselves? My Republican friends know exactly where we are. This is not about the previous legislation. This is something, a high priority that we have for our country.

His point? It's bigger than partisan stuff or hurt feelings  - it's about time, and history. 

If we don't, Shannon, take advantage of this and come together as Americans, we're going to look back five or 10 years from now and wonder why we're not able to meet demands, why are we allowing Putin to kind of control, dictate our energy policies, and what we are trying to respond to and not able to do it in a timely fashion because we can't move the energy in America -- whether it's going to be new transmission lines for renewables or basically for fossils and oil and gas that moves the products we need today. That's what this is about. And we need to come together as Americans.

Bream brought up a letter from a group of senators asking Schumer to separate the permitting reform piece from the federal spending bill. The senators - including Booker, Warren, Duckworth, and That Guy from Vermont - are concerned Manchin's bill will make the climate worse, and that it "would actually disproportionately hurt low-income Americans and communities of color if it does get passed."

Manchin's not surprised that TGFV and the others are against his plan - they've never been for it, and "that's why we've never had it." Even with the folks behind the letter, Manchin said "overwhelmingly, Democrats in both the House and the Senate are supporting" the bill, and he hopes that's enough to swing the Rs

We have a golden opportunity and we have a majority, overwhelming majority of Democrats supporting it. And they're doing it because this is the right time and the right thing to do for our country. But, also, it's a time we basically can bring Democrats and Republicans together as we've done with the bipartisan infrastructure bill... with the CHIPS bill. And we continue to do things when we need to do something for our country. 

He echoed the same line of thinking when Bream asked him if, as Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said, he didn't have all his ducks in a row when he went along with Schumer on the IRA. The Rs have had a ton of input on his bill, because he's been working on it with them for over a decade. 

... they have tremendous amount of input in this. But the process has come down to party line vote which is unfortunate, but it is what we're dealing with in a toxic political atmosphere. But I can assure you, everybody, we try to take everyone's input on this and my Republican friends' input is in this piece of legislation. So, I'm just hoping that and I'm very optimistic that we have the opportunity, they realize this opportunity and they'll never pass again in our lifetime.

He gently reminded any Rs watching that they weren't successful last time around.

When they had everything, when they -- in 2016 to 2020, Shannon, they had Republican president, Republican House, Republican Senate, we couldn't -- we couldn't move it because I was the only Democrat. Now we're in a position where we have a majority Democrats and our Republican friends can take it across the line.

After sharing some gloom and doom from Carl Icahn, who, Bream said, compares U.S. inflation to the fall of the Roman Empire, she asked Manchin "what regrets do you have at this point in voting for the Inflation Reduction Act...?"

He doesn't appear to have any regrets. He said the bill "puts more energy back into the markets" - and cleaner energy, too. Similarly, when you allow Medicare to reduce the price of drugs, that's helping inflation, and he said 300,000 of his constituents rely on Medicare.

The bottom line, for the folks who say the IRA will have little impact on inflation, in his view? They might not see a reduction in inflation right now, but they'll definitely see it.

because this does nothing but gives us a chance to reduce inflation... I have worked very hard to make sure we had an opportunity to be energy-independent and secure and fight Putin's war. 

And, in closing, he said "And I sure do put the country first and America. It's all about America, not about Democrats or Republicans," to which Bream replied, "That's what Americans are hoping for."  

Yes, it is. 

See you around campus.

Sunday School 8/7/22: Extra Credit

The Sunday School lesson came from Meet the Press, winner of the lucky classroom drawing. For today's Extra Credit, we're wandering down the hall to the CNN State of the Union classroom to catch Dana Bash and Sens. Dick Blumenthal (D-CT) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC).  I know, I'm breaking with my new 'one classroom policy' but I thought this one was interesting.

Bash asked Blumenthal how the Inflation Reduction Act would help Americans. He spoke about cuts in drug costs, energy costs, and "greater tax fairness" because corporations with assets or earnings of more than a billion dollars "currently paying nothing will have to pay at least 15%." He said gas prices will continue going down, and "necessities" will also decline. Altogether, he said, "I think Americans will see historic results."

Graham chimed in, saying "this is not the bipartisan part of the interview," and proceeded to slam the American Rescue Plan ("it became a recession plan") and the new bill, which he said "is going to make everything worse." And even though he voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the gun bill, he's a no on this.

... If a company buys a piece of equipment, they could expense it under the 2017 tax cut in the same year they bought it. That goes away. So, CBO says it disincentivizes companies for building factories, buying equipment, which would help us get out of recession. There's a 16.4% tax on imported barrels of oil that are going to increase cost at the gas pump. Subsidies for Obamacare go to families making $304,000 a year, which I think is ill-conceived. And the bottom line, it's not going to help inflation.

Bash didn't question Graham's claim on the subsidies, nor did she ask if the Rs have an alternative for the estimated 3 million people who would lose insurance, or the 10 million who would see a sharp increase in their premiums this fall.

Graham is upset that the deficit is only being reduced by $100B, while the spending is about $750 trillion. And, about the subsidies, he said "we all know they're not going to go away. So, if they stayed in place for 10 years, it would add $280 billion to the deficit. So, it's a gimmick.... no Republican is going to vote for it."

Blumenthal said "one thing where I think we can agree... is the IRS is going to have resources it needs to go after the highest-income Americans that are cheating on their taxes right now. And that will mean more money for the government." And, he continued,

 ... the average American sitting at their kitchen table deciding whether they can buy medicine, pay their mortgage, or go to the grocery store and get the food they need, they're going to be able to get that medicine much more cheaply…Overwhelmingly, the American people want to cut the cost of prescription drugs. This measure does it through enabling Medicare to do what the VA does, what the Department of Defense does, negotiate for lower prices. And that will affect the entire course of inflation.

 Graham wasn't having it.

... They take 15 drugs, and they put a limit on what you can charge. That sounds good, until pharmaceutical companies invent less new drugs. Remember COVID? Well, it was the American pharmaceutical industry that got us the drugs that keep us out of the hospital and keep a lot of us alive. This is price-fixing. It has never worked for us. It's not going to work now. Hiring 86,000 more IRS agents, if that makes you feel better, you have missed a lot. They're coming after waitresses, Uber drivers and everybody else to collect more taxes. So, if you think growing the IRS is good for you, you're wrong.

Blumenthal thinks that's just silly. Uber drivers and "everybody else" is going to be OK, because the IRS will be targeting the "highest-income Americans." 

The idea that there's going to be this army of IRS agents defending -- descending on the average American is just preposterous. Tax fairness is what we need. And for the biggest corporations in this country to pay no taxes, for them to do stock buybacks that benefit the shareholders, but, for example, in the case of oil companies, they are making three to four times what they did just last year. What are they doing with those excess windfall profits? Lowering gasoline prices? No. They aren't doing stock buybacks. They ought to pay a tax on it. And I think there ought to be rebates to consumers from those excess profits.

Let's move to the bipartisan part of the interview, where there's agreement that:

• we should label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, that we need to provide more military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and we need more sanctions on Russia. 
• Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan wasn't a mistake; Blumenthal said "...the Chinese can't tell our legislators or any American citizens where to travel." Graham suggested her visit sends a message to Iran and Russia, not just China, adding we need Taiwan economically, and we need to provide it more economic and military support.
• we need to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, but not with a national red flag law, with incentives to states to help them to what they need to do - and due process must be a part of whatever that looks like.
• they'll both support their team's presidential candidate in '24; Graham wants Trump to be the candidate, as long as he doesn't talk about 2020, while Blumenthal wasn't definitive in whether he wanted Biden to run.

I'll leave it here

Graham: So, there are plenty of us up there (DC) who fight and work together. I just want the country to know that all is not lost in Washington.

Bash: Well, that's why we have you on... we all agree this is good for the country to see that you can disagree without being disagreeable, but also work together where you see those issues.

Blumenthal: And working together is what the American people really want. 

That's it, in a nutshell: work together, on behalf of the American people, not on furthering you party's interests.

See you around campus.