Sunday School 12/4/22

I spent time with George in ABC's This Week classroom for Sunday School lesson. 

First up? Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who'll be the new House Minority Leader come January. He outlined the D's mission: "to find ways to work with Republicans whenever possible to get things done for the American people."

And I hope that Republicans will look for common ground with us, but we will also oppose them when we must, particularly as it relates to any effort to go down this rabbit hole of unnecessary, unconscionable, unacceptable investigations of the administration.

Asked for some specifics where the Ds and Rs could cooperate, he spoke generically about the "American middle class and those who aspire to be a part of it" having "been under assault for decades" by things like globalization, outsourcing American jobs, and increased automation, which have "made it difficult for folks to pursue the American dream..." You solve for that by building upon what's already been accomplished - the Inflation Reduction Act, infrastructure bills, the CHIPS and Science Act - and "to find common ground to look for other ways to build upon that great work." He hasn't had any conversations with his Republican counterparts yet, but he looks forward to doing that "soon."

They also talked about who'll replace Nancy Pelosi, who will remain in the House but not in the Speaker role. Jeffries said it's up to the Rs to figure out if Kevin McCarty will be their guy. George wondered if it might come down to an agreement between moderate Rs and Ds on someone who could get enough bipartisan votes. Jeffries dodged the question the first time, then closed the door. The Dems, he said

are preparing... as we transition temporarily from the majority into the minority, continuing to work with the Biden administration, with Democrats in the Senate, building upon the great work led by Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn that has been done over the last few Congresses when we've been in majority. And then let’s see what happens on the other side of the aisle.

George pressed again on bipartisanship and compromise, and said if they could get a GOP speaker who's willing to do that, "wouldn't that be good for Democrats? Wouldn't that advance your mission?" 

Jeffries said he's "actually worked together" with his Republican counterparts, as if that were a miracle or something. Heck, he said, "I've even worked with the Trump administration in the past..." But working together to get a moderate elected House Speaker? That seems a bridge too far. 

The question on the other side of the aisle is, what will Republicans do? Are they going to double and triple down on the extremism that we've seen from people like Marjorie Taylor Greene? That would be unfortunate. And if that happens, then there’s not going to be real meaningful opportunities --.

What do you think - is he missing an opportunity here?

Next up, a Republican with whom Jeffries has worked, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH); he's chair of the Republican Governance Group, which, Joyce describes as "dealmakers hell-bent on breaking through Washington's dysfunction." I'm thinking it might have to kick Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Trump) out, but I digress. 

George wondered how much leverage the group has, and how it'll use it. Joyce said they're "basically focused on making government work." They know what the problems are, because they hear them from constituents. 

And we're not the people who you see on TV every week talking about issues that aren’t germane to what the people are feeling at home... you see all this fighting and you see all this kabuki theater taking place in DC, but what is that doing to lower the price of gas? What is that doing to lower the groceries? How do we start fixing the problems that we have with our educational system?

He said if they can deal with those problems, and "show that we can govern, then perhaps we'll be respected and given the majority back." 

George asked about opportunities to work with Jeffries and the Dems. Joyce mentioned setting a budget, reducing spending across all twelve appropriations bills, and getting 218 votes in the House to pass them - none of which seem interesting to many Dems.

And what about the GOP's idea of not extending the debt ceiling unless there are major program spending cuts, with Medicare and Social Security potentially included? Joyce's response was interesting, more for what he didn't say than what he did.

...obviously, the debt limit is an issue, and it’s going to be times where I hope that we don't get in a position like we did with that failed experiment in October 2013 where we shut down the government for a long period of time, because in the words of a great philosopher, Lebowski, that didn't end too well for us.

The October 2013 shutdown, during Barack Obama's second term, lasted 16 days. The longest one ever? That would be Donald Trump's shutdown, lasting 35 days in 2019. Maybe that one's all a blur, compared to the one under Obama?

Joyce thinks there's enough good guys in his group, and enough Dems who want government to work, to keep the government open. He knows they won't agree on everything, but they have to focus on what they can agree on.

...when you focus on those things, like keeping the government open, keeping the budget that’s specifically low so that people understand what the cost and expenses of running their government is. And if you look at what we've done over a ten-year span with discretionary spending, we’ve actually kept the cost of running the government down. It’s the mandatory spending that’s driving us into the $31 trillion -- as well as the excess spending in the last year.

And if the Dems passed a lame-duck extension of the debt limit, something Joyce says makes perfect sense politically for them, would he vote for it? He's a numbers guy, he said, but he also said "I don't deal in hypotheticals, George." He'd look at the numbers, if it comes to that, and vote accordingly.

Also, speaking of numbers, what about Kevin McCarthy as Speaker? He said folks are talking about not voting for him, but

Well, then who then? I mean, Kevin deserves the opportunity. And he has done the hard work that was necessary to bring together the majority... And we were given this opportunity to do that and he deserves the chance to lead us. And he deserves the chance to lead for two years.

He also said he's "not a fan of a motion to vacate," which has been suggested by some in the Freedom Caucus. If that happened, whoever was Speaker would have to step down.

And what these people got to get used to is that if a majority of our conference agree to something, then that's how you move the ball forward. And just because five or six people don’t like it doesn’t mean that we should hold up the whole thing.

Finally, George mentioned the former president's statement about suspending the Constitution so he could be reinstated as president; he asked Joyce, who voted for Trump twice, if he could support a candidate in 2024 that's in favor of suspending the Constitution.

Well, again, it’s early. I think there’s going to be a lot of people in the primary. I think, at the end of the day, you will -- whoever the Republicans end up pick, I'll fall in behind because that’s –

Even if it's Trump? George asked. Joyce he'd support whoever the Rs nominate - but it won't likely be Trump. Besides, he has more to worry about than what Trump says.

I have to worry about making sure this Republican Governance Group and the Republican majority, that we make things work for the American people... We're moving forward and we're going to continue to move forward as a Republican majority and as a Republican conference.

Whether they were really out of time or not, that was the end of the interview.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 10/23/22

For your Sunday School, I started in the Fox News Sunday classroom, where host Shannon Bream chatted with Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) about immigration and more.

Bream mentioned Cuellar's many conversations with the Biden administration on immigration, and asked if he thought the border is secure. Cuellar, who was born and raised in Laredo and represents the city today, was clear. With nearly 5M people crossing illegally in two years, between those we've apprehended and "the getaways,"

No... it's not secured... I started telling the transition team in December of 2020, this is what's going to be happening. You all have to be ready... we can be compassionate at the border, but you've got to enforce the law. And if you don't return people, then this is what you're going to have.

He also provided a great football analogy about immigration.

... look, we can spend all the defense on the one-yard line called the US/Mexico border, but if we don't go to their 20- yard line, work with Guatemala, work with Mexico and - and get them engaged so they can stop those folks from coming in, then they're just going to be at our doorsteps...

And how does he respond to his opponent's accusation that he "can't point to anything concrete" he's done about immigration? After noting she's not from the district, he said he "works very well with her husband" who's a Border Patrol Chief in Del Rio. He's also announcing a new, $165M Border Patrol checkpoint in Laredo. And, he said,

...by the way, Shannon, if you want to stop drugs, drugs are coming in -- over 90% of their drugs come in through ports of entry. So, we've got to support the men and women in green and the men and women in blue also.

Bream asked if Cuellar "had any regrets" about voting for the American Rescue Plan. He said deficit spending under Biden is less than under the Trump administration, but added we need to control "one of the biggest drivers," oil and gas, which supports 40,000 jobs in his district. He said he helped pass "the ban on oil exports" which created more US jobs, and he wants more drilling here.

Bream wondered if there's a place for him with the Ds; some have suggested his policy positions align more closely with the Rs. Cuellar said "surely, I'm a Democrat. I'm a conservative Democrat. I work in a very bipartisan way." And, he continued, 

And I think every party has the extreme. We have the extreme left. We have the extreme right. But some of us are not sent up to Washington to go make political statements. We're sent to Washington to do the hard job, and that is govern... I think there is definitely room for a conservative, moderate Democrat like myself.

Bream's last question was about the FBI raid at his home several months ago, which his opponent has been mentioning on the campaign trail. Cuellar said he is not the target of the investigation, and he's going to keep focusing on the election, and he said this about his opponent.

What I want to know is what she wants to do? You know, she's focusing on negative attacks. And I think people are sick and tired of the negative attacks. What they want to see is, this is a market of ideas. This is what I want to do. This is what she wants to do. Let the people decide. 

Hear, hear to that. 

Sunday School 7/31/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which Dickerson responded,

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

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (v176)

Well, well, well. It's Wednesday again already? I'm so not ready.

But the president's ready, yes he is - ready to Keep America Great, now that he's made it grate.  Oops - made it great, sorry. Great, not grate. I heard someone who was at his rally say his most enthusiastic comments came when he was complaining about everything, rather than when he was talking about his accomplishments.  Hence the whole 'grate' thing (well, that's part of the whole 'grate' thing, anyway.) I guess I don't have to wonder whether he can make it through a rally without mentioning the Fake News - he hit that within seconds of beginning his speech, and so I stopped. I'll watch later, with a jug of wine or something.

Who else is running for president, and complaining about it?  That would be none other than Bernie Sanders, who of course, is still not a Democrat. I replied to a tweet of his that maybe if he joined the party he's trying to represent, he might have something to complain about. And of course, I have no reason to wonder whether the complaining and whining will continue - -that's a given, It could be his new campaign slogan: I'll stop whining when I win!  Think that's gonna have legs?

What else is going on? Well, it seems New York State will not legalize pot this legislative session. Our newly officially declared to be full-time Assembly members and State Senators are winding up their session, and there's really no reason to think they'll come back for a special session just to make weed legal for recreational use. Staten Island's Sen. Diane Savino said

Everyone who was opposed to it had a different reason. The two sponsors did everything possible to appease the concerns of members, and I'm sure they are going to continue to try but with each passing moment it gets harder and harder.

Now, I'm one of those who thinks that acting with such ridiculous urgency on this issue is crazy, so I'm not crying any tears here. But I wonder why we didn't act with as much urgency to, I don't know, add mental health and substance abuse beds across the state, which will address a real need, or adding regional treatment centers for autism, so that New York parents don't have to send their kids out of state for intensive treatment, or here's a fun one - why didn't they cut some spending plan with extreme urgency, one that might benefit a significant number of New Yorkers?

Oh wait, I know the answer to that last one, sorry. There's no progressive merit badge for spending cuts, silly me.

I again call on Republicans across the state to get out of the gate and get some candidates, get a plan, get a platform that includes meaningful reforms (not taking their toys and running) that moderates can get behind. I wonder if they're listening?

And finally, I'm wondering (because I haven't checked lately) if there are any moderate Democrats left in New York?  If yes, I'd love to hear from them, too.

Splitting The Empire (Part 1)

As the New York State legislative session moves towards its June conclusion, conversations about the disparity between how upstate and downstate interests are represented in Albany will likely continue long after our representatives go home for the rest of the year.

You'll recall that in the 2018 election, the Republicans lost their majority in State Senate, which they had held only with support from the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC). The loss made New York a 'trifecta state' - one of 14 states fully controlled by Democrats, to go along with 22 fully controlled by Republicans. In New York, cities are blue across the state, but most upstate counties are solidly red.

Since the election, there has been renewed discussion on what can be done to allow folks north of Westchester County - that broad area that everyone buckets into a hot mess called "upstate" - so that we can regain some semblance of representation of our interests in state government, and to make it harder for the folks who represent NYC to ignore all of us up here.

The idea getting the most attention is the wrong one, I think -- splitting up the Empire State. And, to muddy the waters, there are two distinct ideas on how best to make the worst decision.

Let's take a look at one of them.

Poll Watch: What We Want in 2020

I thought it was time to take a look at what Americans are thinking, or at least what a representative sampling of us are thinking, anyway.

There was a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on the 2020 race, taken in the last few days of February.  Here are some excerpts from the article announcing the findings:

A year and a half before the 2020 presidential election, president Donald Trump faces formidable obstacles in his bid for re-election...

But Democrats who want to defeat Trump have hurdles of their own...

Add it up, and 2020 is shaping up to be yet another close presidential race, say the Democratic and Republican pollsters who conducted the NBC/WSJ survey. 

Before we look the results, let's do the small print. The survey was conducted 2/24 - 2/27, with 900 respondents, 405 of whom have only cell phones and 22 who were interviewed on cell phones but  also have land lines. 720 of the respondents were registered voters; 48% were male; 72% were white and 88% were non-Hispanic.  44% were at least 50 years old.

The very first question was on the extent to which respondents approved or disapproved of the president's job performance. 46% overall approve (31% strongly), while 52% disapprove (43% strongly). The last time his approval rating was that high was in November; the last two months, it's been steady at 43% approve/54% disapprove. What with the government shutdown making a mess of things, I'm not surprised it dropped, or that it went up once the shutdown was officially over.

On foreign policy, the approve/disapprove ratio was 43%/52%.

Let's see what else the survey showed.

OrangeVerse XXXV: Drumming up Support

The president came to New York yesterday, to drum up support for two Republicans seeking to hold on to their seats in Congress.

Trump made an appearance at Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division, to sign an apparently nameless military spending authorization bill and to mispronounce the name of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who made a very brief appearance on stage with Trump. Oh wait, it wasn't a nameless bill, it was the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, according to the White House website. Trump must not have known that, right, because he failed to mention McCain's name?

Vice President Mike Pence flew in to Fort Drum to deliver yet another obsequious introduction for the president. I have no idea how much it cost, but it had to be worth it for a five-minute speech that, pointedly, also did not mention McCain's name, I'm sure.

These two, I swear... Anyway. When the president speaks, poetry leaks. Or something. Excerpts:

Atten-HUT!

So I want to start by saying

At Ease. Just Relax. Do you have seats? 

You can sit down. Come on. Sit.

If you want to stand you can. We'll just get 

one.big.standing.ovation, right?

NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act

is the most significant investment

in our military and our warfighters in modern history 

and I am proud

to be a big, big, part of it. 

It was not very hard.

You know, I went to Congress

I said let's do it. We got to do it...

And that's what we did.

Not Even Close

Because we know that to survive 

and having that survival of our freedom

it depends on the might of our military.

And no enemy on earth

can match the strength courage and skill

of the American Army and the

American Armed Forces.

Nobody is even close.

They never will be.

Fur Elise

And I have to tell you about Elise. 

She called me so many times. 

I said, I don't

want to take her call.

She wanted me to be here

I said I won't be able to, we'll

have to change a lot of scheduling.

But that didn't suit her.

She didn't stop. And here I am. Here I am.

Elise, come here. Come here, Elise.

Listen Listen Listen

Listen to this now.

So we've been trying to get money.

They never gave us money

for the military for

years and years and it was depleted.

We got $700B. And next year

already approved we have $716B

to give you the finest

planesandshipsandtanksandmissiles

anywhere on Earth. 

Nobody makes them like we do.

And very, very far distant

in this case - jobs are very important in all cases

but in this case, military  might

is more important than even jobs.

But all of this 

equipment is made right here

in the USA and it's the

best equipment on Earth.

Nobody makes it like we do.

Right? Right? Bueller? Anyone?

America is a 

peaceful nation

But if conflict

is forced upon us

we will fight

and we will win

Right General? Right? Right?

Better believe it Generals.

They're the guys.

We're powered by

the unstoppable force

of the United States Army.

Very Special. 

And then he talked about jobs and himself, and jobs, and himself, and himself, and called out by name one of the soldiers and an Army wife who selflessly helps others, and he talked about fake news, and General Patton, and himself, and Space Force! And then he turned his attention back to the soldiers in front of him and thanked them for their service. 

And then he went off to Utica to stump for Claudia Tenney, a name that's much easier to pronounce than Stefanik.

Or John S. McCain. 

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v16)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Many of us have been focused lately on Washington's spending bill, which added Carl Sagan-esque billions and billions of dollars to the federal deficit, on top of the tax plan Christmas present we got last year - but then we moved quickly on to 'school safety/gun safety/dammit we're taking ALL your guns!' discussions that have been occurring, honestly and not, since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day.

Or  we've been focused on how Congressional Democrats miraculously lost their entire chain of thought on solving the DACA problem, given that they can only argue about one thing at a time, and because they have to focus on winning seats in special elections so they could, assuming they win the majority in November, go back to focusing on stuff like DACA, or finding a candidate to take on Trump in 2020, or whatever else they're thinking.

Meanwhile, back in Albany,  New York's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo and his handful of men in a room managed to hash out and pass a budget deal, before the deadline, leaving everyone time to get home for the holiday.

Among the provisions in the $163B budget:

• requirements related to preventing sexual harassment for the government and private companies;
• a projected $100M annually from opioid manufacturers to help combat addiction;
• tax credits for charitable contributions for public education or health care programs, and an option for an employer tax to replace personal income taxes;
• new spending on education;
• another commission to figure out how much we should pay legislators and other government officials (see prior posts on the pay issue here: v3, v5, v6, v7, v8 - including my solution, which will NEVER come to fruition)
• funding for water quality issues of various types; 
• prohibitions on police claiming consensual sex with people in custody; and
• a number of items that will help fund activities in NYC including some $415M annually from a charge on cabs, Uber, Lyft and other pay services in certain sections of the city.

Here's how the Sonofa Gov described the accomplishment:

This budget is a bold blueprint for progressive action builds on seven years of success and helps New York to continue to lead amid a concerted and sustained assault from Washington on our values and principles.

We put into place the strongest and most comprehensive anti-sexual harassment protections in the nation...(we) will become the first state to implement new measures to shield families from the devastating federal tax law's elimination of full state and local deductibility... protects New York's future with record funding for education, coupled with...reforms that finally ensure transparency and equality in how that funding is distributed... (it) delivers for the most vulnerable among us, including...tenants who have had to live with mold, lead and no heat.. and those who have had to ensure the injustice that is Rikers Island. 

With this budget, we chart a path forward and ever upwards toward a better future for all New Yorkers. 

Excelsior!

The NYS Senate had a slightly different take on things. According to their web page, the Republican-controlled Senate (with help from the Independent Democratic Caucus, which hangs with the Rs), it was all about keeping Cuomo under control.

The New York State Senate has completed passage of the 2018-2019 state budget that achieves key objectives to promote affordability, opportunity, and security for hardworking taxpayers. The final budget maintains fiscal discipline by keeping within the self-imposed two-percent spending cap and closes a $4.5B deficit, while also preventing billions of dollars in new taxes and fees to protect taxpayers and encourage economic growth. 

The Rs are happy, though, with things like staying within the 2% spending cap for the eighth year, with over $52B in total taxpayer savings since the cap was imposed;keeping brownfield, historic and certain other business tax credits from being deferred, and having $700M available under these programs; adding $13M on top of what Cuomo proposed for farm-related initiatives; job training programs,and so on.

It'll likely take some time for all of the dust to settle on this but at least coming out of the gate, the pols seem expectedly happy with the outcome, which allows all sides to claim victory.  The proof will come when we taxpayers start seeing and feeling the impact of the budget, which will take longer.

It is an election year, though -- so we're apt to see the good stuff fast, and the less good stuff, well, less fast.  I'll circle back around on things as they progress.

OrangeVerse XXXII: H.R. 1625

No time for Sunday School today -- I was busy reading poetry and stuff.

As you know the president signed H.R. 1625 on Friday.  H.R. is the $1.3 trillion spending bill, as you know, and you also likely know that the president threatened to veto this HR, just as he vetoed his National Security Advisor, HR McMaster, the day before

Anyway, in addition to have a couple of his cabinet folks drop a few words in the 22 minutes or so of  remarks, it was all Trump, in all his I-wish-I-had-a-uniform glory.  Let's take a look at how he views his spending plan.

Wanna Trade?

Thank you very much, everybody.

We have a lot of good news

 to report. Some 

tremendous trade deals

are being made

with various countries. 

We're negotiating

very long, very hard, but

very quickly.

And the deal with South Korea

according to Secretary Ross and

Bob Lighthizer, is very close

to being finished.

And we're going to have

a wonderful deal with a

wonderful ally.

Um, I Think We've Moved On.

The last time we negotiated

something like this -

and as you know it's

always been a problem for our country.

They get together and

they crate a series of

documents that nobody has

been able to read

because it was just done.

Now you tell me who can read

that quickly. It takes a 

long time to read it.

Hallowed be Thy Readiness

For the last eight years

deep defense cuts have

undermined our national security, 

hallowed our - and they just  -

if you look at what's taken out,

they've hallowed our 

readiness

as a military unit

And put America at

really grave

risk.

My highest duty is

to keep America safe.

Nothing more important.

The omnibus bill

reverses this dangerous defense.

As crazy as it's been

As difficult as it's been

As much opposition

to the military as we've had

from the Democrats

and it has been tremendous.

Listen... Listen

I try to explain to them,

you know the military

is for Republicans

and Democrats

and everybody else.

It's for everybody.

But w have tremendous

opposition to creating, 

really what will be 

by far - by far

 the strongest 

military that we've 

ever had.

We've had that

from the Democrats.

So if we take something

for the military, 

they want something for

in many cases

things that are really

a wasted sum

of money and it's not right

and it's very bad for our country.

This Land is Our Land

We're looking to do funding

for our final fight

in certain areas

As you know

we've gotten just about

a hundred percent or

our land

back from ISIS.

We have troop increases

necessary to accomplish what

we have to do and we have

very importantly a pay increase

for our troops. And this will

be actually the largest pay increase 

for our incredible people

in over a decade.

We're All Building The Navy Submarines, the Navy Submarines...

It increases total defense spending 

by more than $60B from last year 

and funds the addition of critically

needed ships planes helicopters tanks 

and submarines.

We have submarines being built

the lines of which there's

nothing anywhere in the world like

the submarines we build...

First and Last Times

But I say to Congress: I will

never sign another bill

like this again.

I'm not

going to do it again.

Nobody read it

It's only 

hours old...but 

in this case, it

became so big because 

we need to take care of 

our military and because

the Democrats

who don't believe in that

added things that

they wanted in there 

in order to get votes.

Full-o-bluster

We have to get rid of

the filibuster rule.

We have to get rid of

the filibuster rule

and go to 51 votes

 in the Senate

if we're going to have

really sustained

continued success.

To prevent the omnibus situation

from every happening again

I'm calling on Congress

to give me a line-item veto

for all government spending

bills and the Senate must end.

Poof!

They must end

the filibuster rule

and get down to work.

We have to get a lot of

great legislation approved

and without the

filibuster rule

it will happen just like magic.

I'm going to end it there, even though there was more after that, including the president itemizing our military spending - this many dollars for this type of equipment, and this many dollars for some other equipment, and nuclear subs, and on and on.  And of course, the border wall. And the military being the strongest it's ever been, the most well funded it's ever been, and oh yeah, we have a great country.

The only thing missing? #MAGA. 

Sunday School 2/11/18

One classroom only today -- fighting a cold and trying to be considerate of my fellow students. 

The lucky winner today was CBS News' Face the Nation, with Major Garrett hosting. His guests were Kentucky's junior senator Rand Paul; Budget Director and acting head of the CFPB Mick Mulvaney, Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, and House Freedom Caucus chair Mark Meadows of North Carolina.

Let's start with Mulvaney, who described the the Rob Porter situation as "reasonable and normal," much to Garrett's surprise.  Here's how Mulvaney explained things:

The president had someone working for him who came to him and said, look, I have been accused of this. I have been falsely accused of this. Please don't believe it. It's not true.

If your cameraman came to you and said that to you, you probably would give that person the benefit of the doubt, or at least you would want to do that because you know that person and you trust that person.

That's what the president did up until the time that it became obvious, when the photographs came out, that the person was not being honest with the president. And that person after that happened, we dismissed that person immediately.

So, that's an ordinary, and it's a very human reaction to the set of circumstances. You don't want to throw people based just upon the allegation. But as soon as it became apparent to us that the allegations were true, Rob Porter had to go.

Mulvaney failed to respond to questions about Trump's comments that Porter was denied due process and that hopefully he'll go on to great things, while his ex-wives, well, you know... 

On the budget, he blamed the Democrats for the deficits. Here's that exchange.

MM: We were hoping that we could sit down with the Democrats and figure out a way to get additional funds to the military to respond to these threats. Publicly, the Democrats said they wanted to help fun the Defense Department. Privately, though, what they said was, they would not give us a single additional dollar for defense unless we gave them dollars for social programs

MG: You knew they were going to say that...

MM: Well, but publicly they were not saying that. Publicly they were saying they wanted to defend the nation. They all say that Democrats care as much about defense as Republicans do. But when the rubber meets the road, they don't. They held the Defense Department hostage, and we had to pay that ransom.

Apparently, it seems, Mr. Mulvaney did in fact just fall off the turnip truck. Who knew?

Next up? Rand Paul, not in Kentucky but in Palm Beach - not sure if he was at Mar-a-Lago or some other swanky place. He was on the show to talk about deficits. Garrett asked him about the trillion-dollar Trump deficits, after Paul talked about going into office to fight the trillion dollar Obama deficits.

...I think one of the questions, see, Republicans, I think, are not willing to ask themselves is, can you be fiscally conservative and be for unlimited military spending? There's sort of this question, is the military budget too small, or maybe is our mission too large around the world? And because Republicans are unwilling to confront that, they want more and more and more for military spending...

I think the mission is beyond what we need it to be. We're actively in war in about seven countries, and yet Congress hasn't voted on declaring or authorizing the use of military force in over 15 years now.

Garrett pressed him on his support of the Republican's tax cuts which also added to the deficit and to our debt problems, and how he reconciled that.

I think if you're for tax cuts and for increasing spending, that's hypocritical. But if you're for tax cuts and you're also for cutting spending a corresponding amount, see, I would offset the tax cuts with spending cuts. And there are a few of us that would actually do that.

But, of course, the Senator voted for the Republican tax cuts, which had no spending cuts, just growth, growth, growth to make up for the $1.5T added to the deficit. Hmmm...

He continued

When we had the budget deal that lowered the taxes, I also had an amendment to look at and try to control entitlement spending at the same time to pay for the tax cuts. But, interestingly, I could only interest three other Republicans. We had four votes total to try to control entitlement spending. And that's where the money is.

So, even if we have out of control military spending and unauthorized wars in seven countries, we need to cut domestic spending to pay for tax cuts.  Hmmm...

Adam Schiff did his usual shtick about FISA and the Nunes Memo and the FBI and Mueller - nothing new there,so not repeating any of it.

Mark Meadows, on the other hand, is a fresher voice, and he's not happy with the Republican leadership

I can tell you, the real problem with this particular one is that our leadership caved, the swamp won, and the American taxpayer lost... At some point, we're going to have to say, Mitch McConnell, enough is enough. 51 votes on anything that is of national security interests, it is time that we change this. The American people, you viewers right now, could care less about the traditions of the Senate.

What Meadows and others of his ilk don't appreciate is that many of us don't care a hoot about having a simple majority decide things as important as national security... And if Americans had wanted the Republicans to shove whatever they wanted down our throats, McConnell would have his 60-vote majority in the Senate. But I'm pretty sure that's falling on deaf ears, would you agree?

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (v120)

It's Wednesday -- you know what that means, right?

Why, I wonder, is the president so fixated on having a nice little American Bastille Day. Or North Korea Day. Or Russia Day? I don't know that anyone knows for sure what exactly he's looking for - is it to show that his whatever is bigger than everybody's whatever? Or, to show that he likes out veterans so much he'd make them suffer through an hours-long parade? Or maybe in his cold war dreams, a parade's the only thing that makes sense to show American power? Or, is it just a play for attention?  Regardless, this is a great rendition of the classic "I Love a Parade" to get you in the mood.

What else is on mind tonight? My three nephews; two are Navy men, the third is a civilian Department of Defense employee.  All of them need their paychecks, thank you very much, and so we're all very focused on efforts to ensure the government stays open, even though the president would love a SHUTdown, we'll do a SHUTdown, we need a SHUTdown and together my husband and I said he needs to SHUT up already!

Meanwhile, 

On Wednesday, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: the deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128B and hikes defense budgets by $160B.

Also on Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi broke the record for the longest speech on the House floor since the House had a floor - or, at least since 1909.  Pelosi, of whom I am not a fan, was protesting that McSchumer's plan did not include anything about Dreamers, who are not a deportation priority, according to the Trump administration, and also don't appear to be a legislative priority, if Senators are willing to try and fund the government without ensuring protections for them.

I wonder about $300 billion in new spending in two years -- two years! -- no matter what it's for. I wonder why we can't just agree to address DACA and Dreamers without having to tie that to all of the 'bad' immigration - you know, the killers who come her to kill American teenagers; the chain migration that allows someone to come here and kill American adults, and the drug dealers that come here to kill everyone. THAT immigration, the Trump vision of immigration, is something I will also continue to wonder about, for reasons I've spoken of many times in these pages.

Now, we all have to wonder whether the House will approve what the Senate leaders worked out. As usual, I expect there are almost as many reasons to disapprove of the plan as their are House members, and likely fewer reasons to approve it.

And I'll continue to wonder why the people we send to Congress can't do their jobs - but will get paid anyway, in a shutdown - while my three nephews all can do theirs without any issues, and may not get paid at all.

Don't Do It, Democrats

On Saturday, Donald Trump will have been in office for a year, and on Friday there's (currently at least) a good chance that the government will shut down. Heck of a way to celebrate your first year of full control of the government, eh Republicans?

You've got the White House, you've got Senate, and you've got the House, and you might lose the keys to the buildings. Oh, sure, your majority in the Senate is not enough to get everything done, only the stuff that can be finagled into some kind of reconciliation language. So you need Democrats to do real work, like passing another short-term spending package to give yourselves one more month to start acting like adults. You know -- legislating and all that.

Stinks to be in Mitch McConnell's shoes, don't you think? Yeah, he needs Dems to bring it home for the party, for the president, and for the country. And, dammit, they better be right there to do it.

I know, I know -- you think I'm crazy suggesting that 'we' do anything to help 'them' get what 'they' want, at 'our' expense, or that 'we' do anything to help Trump accomplish anything. But in my eyes, if 'we' cause the shutdown, 'we' will suffer the consequences even though 'they' hold the reins to all of the horses.

The House passed a short-term bill tonight, fairly easily, that will fund the government for a month.

The House approved the measure 230 to 197, despite conflicting signals by President Trump sent throughout the day and a threatened rebellion from conservatives that failed to materialize. The bill's chances had appeared in  question until shortly before the vote, providing only a faint glimmer of hope that a crisis could be averted before much of the government exhausts its funds at midnight on Friday. The bill would fund the government through February 16.

The plan would fund CHIP for six years, which is something that Dems care greatly about. It would also apparently do some more 'repealing' of Obamacare taxes, and that's something about which Dems should care considerably less. And yes, I understand this is the House not the Senate, but look - it's Republicans protecting CHIP, right? This is an opportunity not to be wasted.

Trump has been saying all along that a shutdown is on the Dems; I think he started saying it even before it became a real possibility.

The #schumershutdown is picking up steam on social media, and people are saying that Dems care more about illegals than they do American children, the military, and all the people who run all of the programs that all the Dems are all in favor of... Trump and his minions will hammer Dems on this, and what's the answer?

As with much of the 2016 election cycle, we still don't know what the Dems stand for, even as we know without question what they stand against. The party tried to reinvent itself through the DNC and its dance with Bernie Sanders; it tried (and failed, unfortunately) to get Dems elected to replace Trump administration hires by throwing money into races all across the country, and now we even see Dems primarying other Dems, which hardly seems like a good idea.

The Democratic Party has to stand for something, and as I see it now, the best thing to do is to stand for keeping the government open, not shutting it down, and to stand for action on other bills in return for the favor, including DACA, comprehensive immigration, and whatever other priorities there are. 

And when they do stand, they need to do it at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Challenge the president to ignore them. Do it all day, every day -- but do it from a position of strength, not of weakness.

Trump is despicable - no argument there - but being the people that Trump can't govern without is much better than the alternative.

Don't do it. Be the better party. Be the party of yes, and don't let the government shut down tomorrow.

Cromnibus Authorization: The Spies Have It

About a year ago, Congress was outraged when it found out that the NSA was likely spying on them, or at best, was treating our elected officials the same as all other Americans. One can infer from that statement that they are 'monitored' just as you and I are.

Yesterday, the House approved (and the Senate is ready to approve) the 'Cromnibus' funding package of appropriations bills, including the bill authorizing intelligence spending.

That bill includes rules under which 'incidentally acquired communications' are to be handled; here's some of the language that has raised the attention and ire of several House members under Section 309. Procedures for the retention of incidentally acquired communications (all underlining added):

Under the 'Definitions' section:

Covered communication. The term covered communication means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired without the consent of a person who is a party to the communication, including communications in electronic storage.

Under the 'Requirement to Adopt' section:

Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act each head of an element of the intelligence community shall adopt procedures approved by the Attorney General for such element that ensure compliance with the requirements of paragraph (3).

And, here's the gist of Paragraph 3:

(A) The procedures...shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or certification issued by a court established issued by a court established under..the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (this is the FISA Court we hear about), subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a Unites States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitations in subparagraph (B).

Subparagraph (B) says that:

...A covered communication shall not be retained in excess of 5 years unless

(i) the communication has been affirmatively determined, in whole or in part, to constitute foreign intelligence or counterintelligence or is necessary to understand or assess foreign intelligence or counterintelligence;

(ii) the communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency;

(iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably believed to have a secret meaning;

(iv) all parties to the communication are reasonably believed to be non-United States persons;

(v) retention is necessary to protect against an imminent threat to human life, in which case both the nature of the threat and the information to be retained shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees not later than 30 days after the date such retention is extended under this clause;

(vi) retention is necessary for technical assurance or compliance purposes, including a court order or discovery obligation, in which case access to information retained for technical assurance or compliance purposes shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees on an annual basis; or

(vii) retention for a period in excess of 5 years is approved by the head of the element of the intelligence community responsible for such retention, based on a determination that retention is necessary to protect the national security of the United States...(in which case several reporting requirements apply)

So: right now, stuff they accidentally trip over when spying on us can already be held and disseminated for five years, and starting in 2016, stuff they trip over accidentally when spying on us can be kept longer than five years, and shared for reasons other than national security?

And when there's a need to protect against, or prevent from happening, an imminent threat to human life - that's one that is likely to occur at any moment mind you, the info can be retained and handed off to law enforcement for more than five years, but Congress doesn't need to know about it for 30 days or so after the fact. Hopefully the information would be passed off before the imminent threat became a reality, but if it takes two years to implement changes in document retention procedures, I'm not confident on that one.

If you accept that spying on Americans is necessary, must you also accept that 'incidentally acquired' information, gathered without warrant or approval, from a person who is not a subject of an authorized search is necessary?  And must you also accept that this information can just sit around in some basement somewhere?

About a year ago, Congress was outraged when it found out that the NSA was likely spying on them...