In Case You Missed It (v116)

The writing was easier last week, at least for a while. Here's your recap of what made it out of my head. 

I opened the week with a Sidebar driven by all the attention received by What's-his-name, the guy who hosts Meet the Press. He "did his job," fans say, by having another on-air argument with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI). 

I'm no Johnson fan; I think he's a partisan hack. Even as I dislike him, I admit he's not wrong on everything. For example, he and I agree, the American people deserve to hear about the bad behavior of government officials, and Congress deserves the chance to provide 'oversight' of the government, even if no criminal statutes have been violated. 

WHN thinks that's ridiculous.

So, I guess the problem that I feel like you run into with that decision is what you're saying is if the Justice Department decides a crime wasn't committed, they're not going to prosecute a crime, it sounds like you still want the information out there because you want to politically damage the person that was investigated?

I suggested that maybe we want these bad actors to be held accountable, even if they're not 'officially' criminals, and it led to these questions.

Would WHN say that if the subject of the investigation was Clarence Thomas? Brett Kavanaugh? Marjorie Taylor Green? Matt Gaetz? Ron Johnson? Has he ever said that about any Donald Trump investigation?

We all know the answer to those questions, don't we?

Next up? A Quick Take inspired by the latest classified document finding - a "small number" of them, at the new home of former VP Mike Pence. I caught wind of that via a breaking news alert, and as often happens, my mind started racing. My former boss and co-workers would call out, "Oh, look - a squirrel!" when this happened in staff meetings. Here's a bit of that.

Shortly after seeing the headline, I had sketched out a perfect solution.

The houses, garages, car trunks, libraries, golf bags, duffel bags, diaper bags, bar carts, and sock drawers of every member of Congress, as well as every living president and vice president, must be searched for classified documents or other absconded-with items; the search must happen as soon as possible, to protect our national sanity, er, I mean, our national security.

And Ivanka's grave, too, must be searched - don't forget Ivanka's grave. I mean, who buries his ex-wife on his golf course while under investigation for missing documents?

Who does that? Donald Trump does, that's who.

If we need that kind of document-hunting effort, we'd need funding, which I figured out; and we'd need people to do the work. I had an answer for that, too.

Call up the Texas bounty hunters.

There's a reason they'd be perfect for the job - and it's in the post.  

I spent some time in the Sunday School classrooms, looking for discussions on the debt ceiling, which seems at least as important as worrying about which potential presidential candidate is hurt more by the politics of their document handling.  

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had some thoughts on the debt, how we got where we are, and a possible solution, which he shared on CNN's State of the Union.

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

He thinks the government needs to have "guardrails" on spending; having a budget, and trying to stick to it, is a good start.  And, while some have suggested forming a commission to develop recommendations, he's not a fan.

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

Hear, hear! 

It took me until Thursday morning to get the post out, but I did do some Wondering on Wednesday, on hypocrisy and indifference, among other things. Here's the hypocrisy wondering.

One thing I don't have to wonder about? Whether the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability will be asking for Mike Pence's visitor logs. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen - but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they asked for Jimmy Carter's. 

The indifference part? Mass shootings, and guns. There were three mass shootings in California in a matter of days. One was plastered all over the news; another was pretty widely covered. The other one?

You probably didn't hear much about the third one; it was likely gang- or drug-related, which means, you know, "it was their own damn fault" that young mom and her baby were executed along with several other family members. I wonder why the media doesn't talk about that kind of mass shooting so much? Is it because they wouldn't have time to tell us about storms headed for the I-95 corridor?

So, that's a wrap on last week; as always, feel free to drop a comment on any of the posts. 

Sunday School 1/22/23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He thinks that's wrong. After all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 10/10/21

Right up front, I apologize for not getting your Sunday School posted timely. There was a baseball game, you know, and it took 13 innings for the Good Guys to put away the bad guys, after all. 

That said, let's head right and visit the Fox News Sunday classroom where Chris Wallace attempted to get House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-n't You Glad I'm Still Here -LA) to answer questions. 

For example, Wallace asked him if blocking President Biden's agenda was more important than helping the people of his state - there's $6B for infrastructure in it for them.  

Look, we put together over $450 billion in infrastructure, with roads, ports, waterways, all the things you're talking about. That's not where they want to go. And, oh, by the way, in this package, they have language that tells the Corps of Engineers they can't do projects if it benefits the oil and gas industry. 

That seems to be the opposite of what the bill does, according to Reuters, but I digress. Whatever language Scalise says is in the bill, yes, blocking the Biden agenda is more important than $6B in aid for his constituents. 

The last question? "Do you think the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump?" It came with a follow-up concerning states that are continuing to make that claim: "Do you think that hurts, undermines American democracy?" The answer to those questions was not forthcoming. Oh, sure, he talked about states that "didn't follow their state-passed laws that govern" presidential elections, and "that is what the United States Constitution says," but there was no answer to the simple question at hand. And Wallace tried a couple more times, to no avail.

And after all of that, Wallace closed the interview with a pile of fluff (with some emphasis on top).

Always good to talk with you, and I appreciate the way you step up and answer questions and the way you choose to. Thank you, sir. 

Good grief. 

Moving down the hall to the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin. He started the conversation on the debt ceiling, and quoted part of the Grim Reaper's message to Biden:

I will not be a party to any future effort to mitigate the consequences of Democratic mismanagement. Your lieutenants on Capitol Hill now have the time they claimed they lacked to address the debt ceiling through stand-alone reconciliation and all the tools to do it." What are the consequences if he keeps his word?

Yellen stated the obvious: it's necessary that we pay the debts we have run up; it would be disastrous - at home and abroad - if we defaulted; our credit rating would tank; US treasuries are "the world's safest possible asset" and that'd be at risk; there'd likely be a recession and/or a financial crisis.  

That said, George wondered if she'd convinced Biden yet that we should eliminate the debt ceiling, something she personally supports, but "it's really up to Congress and the administration" t0 pay the bills that come from their spending and tax plans. 

And that means we have had deficits for most of the post-war period. And that means raising the debt ceiling. It is a housekeeping chore. There is really -- we should be debating the government's fiscal policy when we decide on those expenditures and taxes...  not when the credit card bill from -- comes due.

They also talked about the 'trillion-dollar coin' which Yellen thinks is a gimmick that "jeopardizes the independence of the Federal Reserve." 

You would be asking to essentially print money to cover the deficit. This is a responsibility. It’s a shared bipartisan responsibility. It’s been raised almost 70 times since 1965, almost always on a bipartisan basis. And no one party is responsible for the need to do this. I believe it should be a shared responsibility, not the responsibility of any one party.

George asked about invoking the 14th Amendment, which states "the validity of the public debt of the United States should not be questioned." Again, Yellen pointed to the Congressional responsibility to pay the bills.

We shouldn't be in a position where we need to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That's a disastrous situation that the country shouldn't be in. I wouldn't want to see the president or myself faced with the decision about what to do if Congress refuses to let us pay the government's bills. You know what should you pay first? That's not a -- we have to reassure the world that the United States is fiscally responsible, and that they can count on us to pay our bills. And that's Congress' job to do that on a bipartisan basis.

George pushed, suggesting we'll be in the same place in December, and wonders if the 14th should be on the table. Yellen said she can't imagine we'll be at that point, and that she's got confidence in Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, that they'll "be able to manage this so that we don't face this situation."

It would be completely irresponsible and a self-inflicted wound that would affect businesses and households and the global economy and the status of the U.S. in the world. We shouldn't ever be in that position.

Damn straight, Skippy. 

Good for her for pinning the tail on the donkey - and the elephant. If only the talking heads would focus on that, and the failure of both parties, rather than on their sound-bite generating grandstanding...

See you around campus, if you're vaccinated.

Quick Takes (v39): Help for Student Loans

Quick Takes

We're a few days away from the next Democratic debate, where (I hope) we'll learn more about what the candidates want to do, and how they want to do it.

At least a few of them have come out with plans for free college and/or to wipe out existing student debt; both of those ideas have strong support from some quarters, and equally strong disapproval from others.

On the plus side? Moves such as free college 'level the playing field' for people who cannot afford to go to college, or who cannot get a well-paying job that will allow them any kind of  chance to pay off the loans they took out to go to college. And that's an American Dream killer, right?

On the other side of the equation is the thinking that the government is not responsible for this, these are handouts not hands up, and for every story the candidates tell of someone who comes out of college with six-figure debt, there are an equal number of stories of people who had the debt, worked hard, and paid it off.  Such is the conundrum we face, on this policy and on pretty much everything else.

But are there things we can do to help that are less drastic than "free college" and "no more student loan debt" that might be amenable to folks on both sides?  A bipartisan handful of Representatives - Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Paul Mitchell (R-MI) Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) - think there is. They've come together to submit the Streamlining Income-driven, Manageable Payments on Loans for Education (SIMPLE) Act, which is designed to keep loan holders from default. Take a look at the bill's summary:

The SIMPLE Act protects some of the most vulnerable student loan borrowers—those who can’t afford full loan payments, those who are in immediate danger of default, those who have previously defaulted on their debt, and those who are totally and permanently disabled—from the severe consequences of default. The bill uses information already on file at the U.S. Treasury to connect borrowers automatically with existing protections, including affordable monthly loan payments. The legislation also automates the annual process for updating income information while enrolled in these plans, ensuring that borrowers continue to make affordable payments.

The data are stark. The bill notes that more then 8 million are in default, and the number continues to grow; more than a million people default on student loans each year, including a subset that has defaulted more than once. And, small balance loan holders are more likely to default than those holding six-figure balances - but the ones with six-figure balances are the ones we hear about all the time.

The consequences are also stark: the obvious hits on credit reports, which have all kinds of ramifications for people that can have a huge impact on their daily lives, as well as on their ability to pay back their loans; wage garnishment, withholding of tax refunds, and more.

So, what does the bill propose?

A Businessman in the White House?

For a long time, I've heard conversations about putting a businessman in the White House.  Heck - I've even participated in them.

You know the drill -- we need someone who's actually run a business, met a payroll, fought through countless ridiculous regulations, someone who knows how to balance a budget, someone who understands the real world ramifications of what policy changes mean, someone who is accountable to auditors...  And maybe most importantly, someone who is accountable to customers and shareholders.

I say the last two - customers and shareholders - are possibly the most important, because if nothing else,  those of us who bother to register and actually vote  year in and year out are the customers and shareholders of all politicians, even though they don't seem to act like as if that's the case.

A person who could do all of those things a businessman does, whether it's in a small seasonal marina and fishing camp owned by my sister-in-law and her partner, or at a mid-size business like the upstate New York health insurance/health care provider I've worked at for some 26 years, or something much larger, like a GE or TimeWarner, a successful businessman has a special skillset that boy, would sure look good at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, right?

Yeah, well, maybe not so much, or maybe not this particular businessman, the one who, barring something really crazy like a friend of mine has suggested, will become the Republican Party's official nominee this summer in Cleveland.

Perhaps the businessman we need isn't one who's filed bankruptcy multiple times, and who suggests that perhaps the way to handle the national debt is to pay pennies on the dollar to our creditors.

You read that right. Donald Trump told us, in an interview on CNBC, that

I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed you could make a deal. And if the economy was good, then it (the borrowing) was good. So, therefore, you can't lose.

Let that sink in for a minute:  We'll borrow a boatload of money to finance lord only knows what, and if it doesn't work out, we'll just "make a deal" and move on.

In his piece on Vox, Matthew Yglesias pointed out that

With his statement, Trump not only revealed a dangerous ignorance about the operation of a national monetary system and the global economic order, but also offered a brilliant case study on the profound risks of attempting to apply the logic of a private business enterprise to the task of running the United States of America.

Apparently the term for working out deals to repay less than you owe on business deals that don't work out is called a 'haircut', and per Yglesias it makes sense in Trump's real estate development world but not in the global economic world:

Every assessment of risk in the financial system is based on the idea that the list risky thing is lending money to the federal government. If that turns out to be much riskier than previously thought, then everything else becomes much riskier too. Business investment will collapse, state and local finances will be crusher, and shockwaves will emanate to a whole range of foreign countries that borrow dollars.

And you can hear these phone calls, right? I mean, you can hear the words as he would speak them, can't you?

Hey, China? You know that $1.25 trillion we owe you?  Well, see, we're going to cut that by 40% even though we love that General Tso, great chicken! We love the General!

Russia? Your $82 billion? Cut that by 30%. We love the beautiful women over there, in all of the Russian countries, with those fur hats. We love the Russian women! They're almost as pretty as Slovenian women!

Japan? Your $1.15T we're cutting by only 25% because we love the Japanese, we love sushi.

Close allies, like Canada ($66.8B), Germany ($81.6B)? 15% off the top, because we love hockey, and we love the Mercedes.

The UK ($210.6B), we'll cut yours 20%. It would have been less but you elected a Muslim mayor in London, and that's just crazy. And those people in Scotland, well, they gave me a fight about my golf course. 

Trump also suggested in another interview, referenced in the same Vox article, that Puerto Rico file bankruptcy, even though legally it's not possible, and even though Republicans don't want there to be a change in the law to allow that to happen.

Here's how Trump boasted about his business tactics:

As a very successful person, I would buy companies, throw them in a chapter, bankrupt it, negotiate - I would do great deals, I didn't use them for myself, I used them as a businessperson. Many of the top people in my category use the laws. I know more about debt than practically anybody, I love debt. I also love reducing debt, and I know how to do it better than anybody.

So - is this the businessman we need in the White House, one who's unaware of the laws, unclear on the situation, and who in response to just about every question anyone asks can only say how much he "loves" some bucket of people, or how much some bucket of people love him, and who can only point to what he did as a businessman? One who would even suggest putting the full faith and credit of the United States Government on the negotiating table?

No. This is not the businessman we need in the White House.

And even though I never contemplated this particular businessman as leader of the free world,  I'll go back and revisit the reasons why I thought that, conceptually,  it might make sense in the first place.