OrangeVerse XXIII: Congratulations

Last Friday, the president spoke at the swearing in ceremony for his new Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen. She was previously chief of staff at DHS under then Secretary General John Kelly, who left that department to become Trump's chief of staff. Here's how the verse went down.

I

Well, this

is an honor. 

You've been with us

so long now. 

Anyway, I have no doubt.

And it's going to be incredible

what takes place.

II

I want to start

by thanking Elaine.

You've done so well

and we really appreciate it.

And I know 

you'll e here

for a long while and

working together

but this

is a very special occasion

because this

is an issue I ran on -- 

it's borders, it's 

homeland security.

And it's one of the

certainly important things.

I can't ever say

anything is the most important

because our military

is the most important

and lots of

other things.

But this is right here.

This is one of the

real big issues.

III

And I just want to

congratulate you on

such an important

day for our country.

The numbers have been

so incredible,

they're up to 78 percent.

if they used to have

a 1 percent or 2 percent number

they used to celebrate.

we're at 78 percent.

And it went down

a little bit because

actually,

a lot of people

aren't trying 

to come in so much

because they know

it's not easy.

IV

But you're going to

take it to new levels.

We're going to 

get the wall.

I know you want

the wall.

We're going to 

get the wall.

If we don't

get the wall, 

then I got a lot

 of very unhappy people

starting with me.

We're going

to get the wall.

And we need it.

We need it 

for the drug flow,

we need it

for the people

coming into our country. 

And we want

to have great people 

coming into our country.

We want to have

a merit-based system.

We have to get

rid of chain

migration --

all of these things

we've been talking about.

V

And in addition

to the wall, we

 have to toughen

up the borders

even more. And we

have to toughen

up air travel too.

It's not 

just walls; 

it's lots of people

fly in and

they come in through

other means.

VI

But I have

absolutely no doubt

you're going to be

so outstanding

And I'd like to

congratulate you

and I wanted to

be here

for the big moment.

VII

Congratulations.

Sunday School 12/10/17

We're back to our regular Sunday School programming, after last week's look at religion and politics.

Today, I dropped in on Face the Nation on CBS. One of John Dickerson's guests was Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who talked about Roy Moore, Al Franken, and funding the government.

Durbin followed Susan Collins (R-ME) on the show, so some of his questions drive from her answers. You know how that goes.

On the Roy Moore issue, Dickerson asked Durbin whether the Senate has any business overturning the will of the people, if they do in fact elect Moore this week.

Well, John, I can tell you this. First, the decision is to be made by the voters in Alabama on Tuesday. And I hope they will do the right thing in terms of defining their standards and values when it comes to people representing them in Washington. But we have heard from Republican senators first who have suggested that if Roy Moore ends up being elected to the Senate, he would face close scrutiny, investigation, even removal from the Senate once he arrives.

I agree with Senator Collins; it's a complicated issue. (Note: Collins described it as a very tough decision.) But I tell you this. We faced the reality this past week. I've known Al Franken for over 20 years. He is my friend. He was on the floor of the Senate announcing his resignation; I sat just a few feet away from him. He said it was the worst day in his political life. It was a somber feeling. It was a reality. And I hope the voters of Alabama appreciate that reality when they make their decision on Tuesday.

After Moore and Franken, the conversation turned to taxes. Dickerson wondered what the Democrats could do to change the bill, since it was moving to the conference committee with enough Republican votes to pass.

...Susan Collins made it clear she's still waiting before she makes her final decision. I think others are in the same position. Jeff Flake, for example, from Arizona made it clear that bringing up this issue about DACA and DREAMers is critical to his vote when it comes to tax. So I can't assume where the Republicans will end. But they have an awful lot to accomplish in a very short period of time.

Dickerson asked if getting a deal on DACA would be worth shutting down the government.

Well, I can tell you this. We don't want to see the government shut down. We want to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to solve our problems. We believe that DACA is central; the president is the one who made this the issue. September the 5th he eliminated the DACA program and put in doubt the future of over 780,000 people in America. And we want to get this done and accomplished.

34 Republicans in the House came out last week and said, "Do it before the end of the year." The Senate Republicans have said the same thing. Lisa Murkowski yesterday tweeted that her Christmas wish - her greatest Christmas wish is to see this done, DACA and the DREAMer issue resolved, this calendar year. It is within the power of the Republicans to get this done and to put together a package we can pass. We want to stand by them, work with them, and get that done. 

And, there's the Children's Health Insurance program, too, that needs to be dealt with. Dickerson reminded Durbin about a statement he made

I'm not prepared to go home for the holidays until we get our work done.

Was that still the case, Dickerson wondered?

Well, I feel very strongly about it...DACA to me personally and the DREAM Act are very personal and mean an awful lot. But when we're talking about funding our government, providing the resources and programs that many middle income families use across America, dealing with the opioid crisis, making certain that we take care of our veterans, making certain that we have the money for biomedical research, these are part of the conversation and part of the dialogue as we close down this budget. It is up to the Republicans to make a decision about what we will do. I think we can get this done. 

That's a nice dose of optimism there, and a good way to start the week.

See you around campus.

TGIF 12/8/17

So it seems almost inconceivable that we haven't shared a TGIF moment in three weeks, but that appears to be the case!  Shame on me, and apologies to you.

Let's dive in with a little entertainment -- real entertainment - coming out of Washington, a place not necessarily known for this kind of entertainment.  Here's what happened, according to our friends Rachel Martin and David Green on NPR's Morning Edition:

RM:  All right, so we're going to lighten things up a little bit. In the hallowed halls of the US Senate, it is common practice to quote history's great orators when making your point - Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Gandhi. 

DG: Right. And then came a banking committee hearing on Tuesday. Senator Sherrod Brown of the great state of Ohio rose to speak out against a piece of legislation whose very title promised three things, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act.

 SB: As Meat Loaf used to sing, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. But this bill doesn't even meet the Meat Loaf minimum.

There was more. Senator John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) chimed in.

JNK: Meat Loaf also said there ain't no Coupe de Ville in the bottom of a Cracker Jack box. In other words, we live in the real world. 

Next to enter? Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC).

TT:   In that same song, he said, baby we can talk all night, but that ain't getting us nowhere. So I'm looking forward to processing the amendment.

Was that it? Oh, no - Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) chimed in.

Meat Loaf also said, life is a lemon and I want my money back. So on behalf of all the consumers who got the short end of the stick from Wells Fargo and Equifax, I want to have a bill to make sure they get their money back.

So, how did this all end? Chair Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Tim Scott (R-SC) dove in, but it was Rachel Martin (from the studio) who had the last laugh.

MC: I guess I'm going to have to go learn a little more about Meat Loaf.

TS: No, Sir, you don't have to.

RM: You, Senator Tim Scott, took the words right out of  my mouth. 

After everything that's gone on this week, they all deserved that little bit of fun, don't you think?

The fun was, well, more than slightly different, though, on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where a new and very different version of Frosty the Snowman last night.

Frosty needs a hat to come to life, and that's exactly what happens when a certain iconic red cap floats through the air and lands on his head:

#MAGA, now who wants to deport some dreamers? Look at these hands, do they look small to you?

The clip is short (thankfully).

And, not in a funny "haha" vein, but more in a funny 'that's curious" vein, Pope Francis is in the news again. Not for anything having to do with Donald Trump, something much more pontifical.
According to this BBC report, he wants to change the Lord's prayer.

His concern is with the "lead us not into temptation" part, which he suggests should be changed to "do not let us fall into temptation." The reason?  God would not lead someone to sin.

Do not let me fall into temptation because it is I who fall, it is not God who throws me into temptation and then sees how I fell.  A father does not to that, a father helps you to get up immediately.

He noted that the Roman Catholic Church in France is using the alternate language, and similar language should be used around the world.

Interesting, isn't it? After all this time, someone wants to rethink the Lord's Prayer.

And here in the US of A, we're trying to prepare for a rash of originalists on the Court, refusing to consider that gun laws written in the age of muskets can be revisited, and waking up every day with a president who thinks that as long as everyone has money, they'll miraculously love their neighbor and racism will disappear.

Last: I built a wall at work this week between two charitable events at work where people could win baked goods in one raffle and gift baskets in a different raffle at the far end of the room.  After there was confusion on which tickets went to which event, I decided to physically separate the two events by building a big, beautiful wall, made out of chairs and tables.

My wall failed; it was physically breached by bake sale fans who coveted the baskets. Which made me chuckle, again not funny haha, but different funny. If I couldn't convince people to 'stay on their own side' in something as inconsequential as a raffle, how will we convince people to do so with something as consequential as freedom?

TGIF, indeed.

Reactions to the Franken Statement

Here's what Al Franken said, among other things, in his announcement today that he will be resigning:

I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party.

(I wondered about that yesterday.)

Here are a few reactions from Fox News:

Franken should not have resigned. His fate should have been left 2the people of MN. Moore, who has sexual contact w a 14-yr old, should drop out. Conyers, who hit on his employees, should have resigned. Franken is a creep who acted inappropriately, but his facts are different. ~ Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary

We have a president who acknowledged on tape that he assaulted women. I would hope that he pays attention to what's going on and think about resigning. ~Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 

The NRSC is confident Republicans will be able to win this soon-to-be vacant Senate seat come November, and look forward to expanding our Senate Majority. ~ National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Michael McAdams 

If @alfranken is going to resign tomorrow, I think he should to it on the condition that there are congressional hearings about @realDonaldTrump 's sexual misconduct allegations. ~ Maggie Gyllenhaal 

And here is Sarah Sanders, current White House press secretary, responding to questions today.

Look, the president addressed the comments back during the campaign. We feel strongly that the people of this country also addressed that when they elected Donald Trump to be president. And I've addressed it several times from here and don't have anything new to add. (when asked about Franken's comment on Trump and Moore)

I mean, I think the president treats -- certainly, as a woman myself, I've never felt anything but treated with the highest level of respect and been empowered to do my job. And I think that's what I've seen the president do, day in and day out, since we've been here and during the campaign. And I think that's a pretty good start and pretty good example on that front. (in response to the question, "In, again, a broad, 30,000-foot way, does the president believe that he has a credible role in leading this conversation?")

Wondering on Wednesday (v113)

Where to start with tonight's wondering?

Well, there's Senator Al Franken, who is most likely going to announce tomorrow that he's leaving the US Senate, because the allegations of  sexual harassment continue to roll in. According to reports, he and his wife met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and later, several of Franken's counterparts called for him to step aside.

Ms. Gillibrand was joined by Senators Mazie K Hirono of Hawaii, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington State, Kamala Harris of California, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Maria Cantwell of Washington State, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, who issued statements after talking privately with each other for weeks about what to do about Mr. Franken.

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat added his support, as did Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of  Indiana, Patrick J Leahy of Vermont, Edward J Markey of Massachusetts and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, as well as Mr. Perez of the Democratic National Committee. 

Meanwhile, president Trump, himself a multi-victim accused sexual harasser and admitted sexual predator, officially endorsed the Constitution-ignoring and accused sexual predator Judge Roy Moore to be the next senator from Alabama.  Falling in step behind the president were the Republican National Committee, which resumed their support, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who, after having second thoughts about the credibility of Moore's accusers (for no apparent reason), has now decided that it's perfectly OK for Moore to join the Senate if that's what the people of Alabama want.

But what about Al Franken, Senator McConnell? Yeah, he shouldn't be in the club,  now that he's lost the support of his colleagues and constituents. But if the people of Minnesota wanted to keep him, I wonder what McConnell would say then? Is that up to them, or up to his colleagues?

Separately, president Trump decided to hold a cabinet meeting, and invited the press for his 'opening remarks' again (or whatever the heck he calls it). I can almost do the talking points in my sleep:

• North Korea will be handled
• our military is going to be awesome
• a Mattis joke
• something about jobs coming back (which always includes jobs that were never here in the first place, so I have to wonder where they're coming back from)
• the stock market
• taxes, a new addition - actually, make that tax cuts, because that plays better than tax reform;
• 2 million jobs created
• media coverage
• hurricanes ruining his numbers 
• his Supreme Court

Did I leave anything out? Oh, of course -- the obligatory lies about the Democrats. Today, it was all about a government shutdown.  Take a look:

Democrats are really looking at something that is very dangerous for our country. They are looking at shutting down. They want to have illegal immigrants; in many cases, people that we don't want in our country. They want to have illegal immigrants pouring into our country, bringing with them crime, tremendous amounts of crime. We don't want to have that. We want to have a great, beautiful crime-free country...

Now, we don't have to wonder at all whether what Trump alleges the Dems want is a lie - we  know it is. Dems want to do something about the Dreamers. As Trump knows, these are people brought here illegally as children by their parents. They are not criminals pouring into our country, bringing crime, lots of crime, tremendous crime, bigly beautiful crime.

His cabinet knows what he said is not true, as does the press. On the former, I wonder how the heck they can keep a straight face when he says this stuff? And, on the latter, I wonder why they keep showing up to hear the same nonsense over and over and over?  Isn't there paint drying somewhere they can watch instead?  We know Trump has no shame, but why do they cover this?

Finally, Michigan Representative John Conyers announced his immediate retirement yesterday. Conyers, who has faced multiple allegations of sexual harassment, had served for almost as long as I've been alive. In announcing he was stepping down, he endorsed his son John Conyers III.  There's also a chance that another family member, State Senator Ian Conyers, may run for the seat.

I wonder, is now the time to maybe talk about term limits? And if not now, when?

Trump in Transition (v25)

So, Donald Trump continues to try and transition,which would be good, except for those times he seems hell-bent on going form being president to being, I don't know - maybe a bad carnival barker?

He's been barking, as it were, about suspended ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross, who reported incorrectly on breaking news about Mike Flynn. According to this report from CNN,  here's what happened, in a nutshell:

Ross had initially reported Friday morning that Flynn was prepared to testify that Donald Trump as a candidate had instructed him to reach out to the Russians. Ross said more than sever hours later on World News Tonight that his information was actually that Flynn was prepared to testify that Trump made the request as president-elect. On Saturday evening, ABC News said Ross had been suspended for four weeks without pay for what it termed the "serious error."

The stock market reacted to the news of Ross's report by temporarily dropping 350 points; by the end of the day, things were almost back to normal, and the market closed up 2.9%, the best showing all year.

So, here's the president's tweet from Sunday morning in response to ABC's reporting disaster:

Now, of course, there are many out there in Trump land who think the president is spot on - the network should be sued, because fake news, like elections, has consequences. Or something like that - I don't want to put words in any one's mouth.

But here's the thing: Remember when Trump slammed Macy's for dropping his clothing line after his racist remarks against Mexicans?

A presidential candidate calling for a boycott of an American company? Say it ain't so! And that wasn't all -- he tweeted bad! stuff about Macy's nearly three dozen times, a period during which the company's stock dropped 46% -- a proud moment for Trump, for sure -- he told us so!

People who lost money when Trump boycotted Macy's should consider hiring a lawyer, right? And so should all of those people who were slated to lose their jobs earlier this year, because the company is doing so badly after the Trumpeters boycotted and the president chose not to save their jobs? Yeah, they should sue, too. 

Lockheed dropped over a billion dollars in value on the basis of that tweet -- so I think they should consider suing, also - don 't you agree?

And Amazon shareholders?  That company dropped $5 billion  back in August, when the President tweeted about them, initially starting with a tweet about the Washington Post and fake news (WaPo is owned by Amazon's founder, Jeff Bezos).

Get thee to an attorney, forthwith and post-haste! And hurry!

OrangeVerse XXII: A Present, Accounted For

Last week, the president went to Missouri, the Show Me state, and showed them who was who and what was what. Or something. 

If I sound confused, it might be the opening line of his appearance was "I told you that we would be saying Merry Christmas again, right?"  And about 40 minutes later, he finally got back to Christmas. And in the meantime, it's all poetry, right?

Taking the Roll

...Governor Greitens and

Attorney General Hawley who

-by the way Josh - where's Josh? 

Josh our next senator 

where is he?

Secretary Mnuchin...and

Linda McMahon

Everybody knows Administrator--

small business because a big

business under Linda.

...Sam Graves -- where's Sam?

You all here? Yeah...

Vicky Hartzler. 

Vicky, Thank you. Thank you,Vicky.

Billy Long... Billy, right?

Thank you Billy.

Blaine Luetkemeyer. Blaine,

thank you Blaine... 

Jason Smith

and Ann Wagner.

Thank you Jason Thank you Ann.

...I have two others.

I have a lot of faith in Faith, 

Sally Faith Where's Sally you mayor?

Hi Sally. Thanks Sally. And Eric

Schmitt. Thank you. Thank you Eric...

We Cannot Sit

We cannot sit

idly by and watch ourselves

losing

in competition

to other countries as

they continue to take away

our jobs because their

tax codes are more

competitive and less burdensome

than ours. That's why

we must cut our taxes

reduce economic burdens

and restore

America's competitive edge

We're going

to do too

and it's already

happening. Look

what's happening with

our markets?

NutriMagicBulletAid Ain't Got Nothin on Me

Wait until you see what

finally comes out in what 

I call the mixer.

The beating heart of

our plan is a

tax cut for

working families.

That's what it is. We're

going to make sure that you keep

more of your hard

earned money. We're

going to make sure also

that you have a 

job that you want. You're

going to have a choice.

In education now

we have choice

Good word. Here

you're going to have 

a choice. You're not just

going to have one - 

you're going to have a choice

of many jobs.

People are moving

back into our country.

Advent

Together we will give

 the American people a

big beautiful Christmas present

And remember

I was the one - 

when  was here last time I said

we're going to have Christmas again.

I was the one that said

you go to the department stores

and you see "Happy New Years" 

and you see red

and you see snow

and you see 

all these things

you don't see

Merry Christmas

anymore.

With Trump as your president

we are going to be 

celebrating Merry Christmas

again and it's going

to be done with

a

big

beautiful

tax

cut

Elvis In Da House
Thank you
everybody.
God bless you
Thank you.
Thank you 
everybody.
Thank you 
very much.

Sunday School 12/3/17

Regular readers of  the Sunday School series will notice the post logo is missing from the top right corner; that's by design this week. Today we're talking about a more traditional Sunday School topic - religion.

If you've read the blog for a while, you know that I'm not a religious person, and that I struggle equally with politicians interjecting their faith into our lives (here's one example) and with religious people interject themselves into politics. And while I'm not religious, I hold pastors and other faith leaders to a higher standard than I do regular folks - so I'm always disheartened when I hear hatred and denigration coming from them, like this pastor who called for the killing of gays, or this one who considers peers who disagree with him to be 'bogus' ministers.

I'm never closer to religion than when I'm following discussions on a friend's social media page. He speaks openly about his faith, and the challenges that faith poses, in a particularly honest and astute way when talking about politics. He knows my feelings about religion but doesn't hold them against me; rather, I'm humbled by the patience shown to me, the welcome afforded me, when we talk.

I want to share a recent conversation on my friend's page, which was initially about sexual harassment  (including indiscretions by the president) but gradually expanded to cover other topics, including the GOP tax plan and how rich and poor are treated these days.One of the participants in the discussion is a pastor who liberally cites biblical references on the thread.

At one point in the discussion about the president's misbehavior, the pastor offered the thoughts below. I edited out much of the repetition and the biblical references to focus on his own words, but I didn't change the intent, which should be familiar:

The golden rule of equity is, to do to others as we would they should do to us... This is grounded upon that great commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. As we must bear the same affection to our neighbor that we would have borne to ourselves... We must put other people upon the level with ourselves, and reckon we are as much obliged to them as they to us...

Keep that discussion of the Golden Rule in mind; you'll need it later.

Nestled in one of the pastor's lengthy responses (over 700 words) on the tax plan were multiple denigrating references to 'snowflakes.' As in Godless snowflakes, lying crazy snowflakes, welfare cheating snowflakes, and so on. I was taken aback by the tone, especially given who made the comments, and given it was the same one who posted the ones above.

I asked about his name-calling, as it seemed out of place in the middle of the biblical references. His answer?

Picked it up off the Internet, I thought it to be lighter and more cool than an immature irresponsible irreverent insolvent indigent! Got a better word? (Emphasis added.)

Not the response I was expecting, so I clarified my question.

Was more generally questioning the need to label and insult in the middle of all the scripture. As to your less cool choices (noted above in your comment) how are you judging the maturity, reverence, solvency of those who disagree with your opinion - or perhaps *why* do you judge them, might be the better question. 

Because, as I noted, I hold religious leaders to a higher standard - and even though his comments are personal ones, he is always on-the-job, right? To embed his insults in the middle of scripture seemed just wrong to me.

In a 900+ word response, which included at least 22 separate biblical citations, he embedded these personal explanations to justify name-calling generally, and specifically shaming the less fortunate, the ones about whom we typically say "there, but for the grace of God, go I' (emphasis added, again).

God, who has appointed every man's property by his providence, forbids by his law the invading of that appointment, either by downright theft You shalt not steal, or by fraudulent dealing "You shall not cheat, or deal falsely." Whatever we have in the world, we must see to it that it be honestly come by, for we cannot be truly right, nor long rich, with that which is not. 

Because people who are on welfare, or who are not fans of losing tax deductions they rely on to survive financially, or who don't like the disparity between rich and poor in today's America are all  frauds and cheats?

As a Christian pastor there is a responsibility to reveal to transgressors that grace, and redemption for those who turn from darkness to light and evil to God. 

Because calling someone names, accusing them of cheating, theft, and fraud is revealing the path to redemption? And an obligatory revelation at that?

When any person through words or action shows contempt to law, ethics, lawful authorities and the morality and righteousness of God, it is the duty and the Christian responsibility of anyone in compliance to speak out against it! To warn of the wrong and to encourage the good and to avail the grace of God is our responsibility.

This was in reference to the snowflake/liars/cheater/liberals, but is the exact opposite of what he said about those who questioned the president - in the same post. What's good for the goose, not so much good for the gander, eh?

There was more, but you get the drift.

Had he at any point, when using his own words, offered anything remotely like the helping hand the referenced verses suggested, I wouldn't have questioned a thing.  Had he not wielded bible verses like an ax on anyone who disagreed with his positions, I wouldn't have said a thing.  I didn't even care that his opinions are vastly different than mine on just about the entire discussion - that's why we have discussions.

But justifying his words by wrapping them them in a biblical cloak, and not seeing that they not only don't support but directly conflict with the scripture he cited?  I call foul.

As I said, I'm not religious, but this meme, passed to me by my Lutheran husband, sums up what I understand to be the role of a pastor:

See you around campus.

The Speaker Speaks to NPR (Pt two)

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

Highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the history lesson from Ryan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more bit of Ryan's interview to come.

The Speaker Speaks to NPR (Pt one)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there was the math. As in

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth is Out There

The title of this post, of course, comes from the X-Files. It's also been commonly referenced when describing White House press briefings with Sarah Sanders at the podium, as it was in this Forbes article.

"The truth is out there."  That's the tagline of the new TV show The X-Files, and it's a good thing the show is coming back in 2018, because its premise couldn't be more timely.

The latest example of this timely premise came about after the president retweeted the anti-Muslim videos which had been shared by a far-right group in Britain. Sanders maintained that anyone questioning the tweets was barking up the wrong tree. Here's an example:

She reiterated that again today, in her press briefing, as many times as she could, and with only limited success.

Q: ...I want to ask about the videos that the president tweeted yesterday. Firstly, does the president feel that he has an obligation to ensure that the information that he shares on his Twitter feed to millions of people is accurate?

A. I think the president feels that bringing up important issues of our time, like extreme violence and terrorism, are important to do. That was what he was doing in that process, and I think he's going to continue to do that in a number of venues whether it's through speeches, whether it's through Twitter or other social media platforms. 

That went well, don't you think? Here's part two.

Q: But does he understand, though, that sharing those videos might incite violence against Muslims? And does he understand that he's elevated a fringe political group that many people outside of Britain didn't even know about until he tweeted?

A:  Look, I think what he's done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real issue and a real threat, and that's extreme violence and extreme terrorism, something that we know to be very real and something the president feels strongly about talking about, and bringing up and making sure is an issue every single day, that we're looking at the best ways to protect Americans. 

Whoa. He's going to be spreading lies and hate every single day, officially?  Someone tell Twitter and Facebook, so his accounts can be suspended!

And not for nothing, but this particular conversation has not been 'elevated' because no one's talking about terrorism as result of the president's tweets. They're talking about how embarrassing it was, to America and to our allies; they're talking about the fact that one of the videos was a fake and the other two were unverified; they're talking about how none of them happened in Britain, and not in the US, for that matter.

And people are talking about the reaction from Prime Minister Theresa May and others, including this one.

And from someone else named Theresa May Scrivener who was tagged (instead of the Prime Minister) in that follow up tweet. And how that tweet, which said that "we're doing fine" is the total opposite what he's been telling us all along, ever since his 'total ban on Muslims' speech.

Sanders kept going, though, after giving us the 'elevate the conversation' line, with a straight face, no less. And she contradicted the "We're doing just fine!" remark in her response.

Q: On that point, Sarah, did the president, when he retweeted Jayda Fransen, know who she was?

A:  No, I don't believe so. But again, I think he knew that what the issues are, and that is that we have a real threat of extreme violence and terrorism, not just in this country, but across the globe, particularly in Europe. And that was the point he was making and I don't really have very much to add beyond that. 

He didn't even know who he was retweeting? And it didn't occur to him to look at the woman's profile?

Well, actually, tonight you can't do that - her account has been suspended, but several people have posted a tweet Fransen supposedly sent which claimed that WWE wrestlers were Islamic hate preachers.

I'm not posting it because I can't verify it was one she really sent - I guess that's just one more thing that differentiates me from the president.

Back to the Forbes article, which notes three things about the truth:

1. There is such a thing as truth.
2. Evidence is how we discover the truth.
3. Truth is the basis of both democracy and capitalism.

After explaining those three things, it goes on:

The president uses a misleading, mislabeled video as evidence that Islam poses a grave threat to the United State, and his press secretary backs him up. The real threat to our democracy isn't a religion and its millions of followers but the Trump administration's abuse of power and utter contempt for the truth. 

Now, that is something we should "be making sure is an issue, every single day."

Wondering on Wednesday (v112)

How's everyone doing tonight?  Anyone wondering about anything in particular?

Maybe you're wondering why the president would retweet a fake video, causing trouble with our closest ally?  Yeah, me too.

I wonder, where is General Kelly and why isn't he keeping the lid on the child that is the tweeter in chief? I thought he was supposed to be exerting control over this mess? He seems to have clipped Jared's wings pretty quickly.

Maybe you're wondering how a person who has been accused of sexual harassment by a dozen or so  women  and who was recorded talking about assaulting women, forcibly kissing them, groping them, would (again) manage to carve out a slice of higher ground from which to attack others facing similar accusations?  That's right -- the president used the abuse of women by men in power to attack NBC for 'fake news'. Here's just one of today's examples; the other promoted a (long-solved) 'mystery' that is clearly fake news.

Yeah, I'm wondering about that too.

And, by the way, have you seen the reports where Trump pretends the voice on the tape that he apologized for is not his? Here's how Access Hollywood responded:

We wanted to clear something up that has been reported across the media landscape (said Natalie Morales). Let us make this perfectly clear: the tape is very real. Remember, his excuse at the time was 'locker room talk'. He said every one of those words.

I swear, this man has some serious issues.

Maybe you're wondering about Angela Lansbury's comments on sexual harassment?  Here's what she said in an interview with the British company Radio Times.

There are two sides to this coin. We have to own up to the fact that women, since time immemorial, have gone out of their way to make themselves attractive. And unfortunately it has backfired on us - and this is where we are today. 

We must sometimes take blame, women. I really do think that. Although it's awful to say we can't make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped.

Whoa.  I wondered about that one myself.

Men abuse women because the women try to make themselves attractive? Is that why priests abuse altar boys? Teachers abuse students? Doctors abuse patients? If that were the case, wouldn't the 'average' abuse victim be a Victoria's Secret model?

She continued (fortunately, I think.)

Should women be prepared for this? No, they shouldn't have to be! There's no excuse for that. And I think it will stop now -- it will have to. I think a lot of men must be very worried at this point.

I don't have to wonder about that last part - I think she's as right about that as she is about women "must sometimes take blame" for being harassed, assaulted or abused - in the workplace or any other place. The victim is not the person of power in harassment situations  - whether it's the priest, the teacher, the doctor -- and these situations about power, not physical attraction. 

And as to blame, my husband has said that a woman could be drop dead gorgeous, stark naked walking down the middle of the street, and that's STILL not a reason to sexually assault her.  I hope there's no wondering about that.

And finally, I'm wondering about a piece of fairly late breaking news.  Would it surprise you to learn that the Trump administration's new opioid czar is none other than Kellyanne Conway?

In 2016, 50,000 Americans lost their lives to the opioid epidemic, according to the federal government’s preliminary count. That’s more than the number of Americans killed in combat in Vietnam, or that died during the worst year of the AIDS crisis, or that die annually from car accidents or gun violence.

In response to this mass death, public-health advocates have implored the Trump administration to mount a more comprehensive effort to the opioid crisis. One of their proposals was for the president to appoint an opioid “czar” — an official with the time and expertise to coordinate the federal government’s response to the worst drug-overdose epidemic in American history.

The administration has decided to honor this request. In a gesture meant to convey just how seriously President Trump takes his responsibility to combat the opioid emergency, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Wednesday the appointment of America’s first opioid czar — Kellyanne Conway.

Yep -- I have to say, I'm now speechlessly wondering. 

OrangeVerse XXI: How Far Away?

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

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

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

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

So Far Away

...Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi

did not show up

for our meeting today.

I'm not really

that surprised.

We have a lot of differences.

They're weak

on crime,

They're weak

on illegal immigration. 

They want

the illegal folks

to come pouring 

into our border

and a lot of problems

are being caused, 

although we've stopped it

to a large extent as much

as you can without

the law,

which we're going to get.

Before this meeting and

before this missile launch,

they've been weak

on military. In terms

of spending they're

very hard to get

the military -- they 

want it for a lot

of other things but

the military is always secondary

to them. The military

to me is number one...

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

They want tax 

increases and we want

major tax decreases so

they decided not to show up.

They've been 

all talk and they've been

no action and now it's

ever worse now it's

not even talk so

they're not showing up

to the meeting.

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

Well, we are very

far apart

because our views on crime

and our views on immigration

and the military - 

so many are different.

But a lot of things

 have happened, even

over the last two hours

with respect to the 

missile launch.

We want

our military funded and

we want

it funded now.

It's going to be

bigger, better, stronger

-- it already is -- 

than ever before. But

we want

to get going on that

now. So that

is a difference

in all fairness

from this morning

when I told them that

we're way, way

far

away.

Nothing Else to do but Close My Mind

If you look

at the military we

want strong funding

for the military. They don't.

So many things.  As an example

they want

high taxes

We want

to cut taxes.

We're going

to cut taxes.

We're going

to reform.

We're going

to simplify.

They want

 high taxes

We want

low taxes.

...nothing to them

is important other

than raising taxes.

That's the

only thing they like

doing is

raising taxes.

Cue the Applause

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.