Sunday School 8/14/22

I'm picking and choosing my guests today, starting with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) who talked with Andrea Mitchell in the Meet the Press classroom. Here's a recap of their conversations related to the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search.

Klobuchar said her first reaction to what occurred is "to stand with the men and women of the FBI who are simply doing their jobs," and cautioned even though we know many of the documents recovered were marked some level of classified, we don't know what's in them. She also described the process for senators to view this type of document: special room, no staff, no phone, not even a Fitbit, both because of the information in them, and because we don't want them to fall into enemy hands, in any way. And, she noted, that why they shouldn't be removed from secure spots

And Mar-a-Lago, where you can check out croquet sets and tennis rackets and golf clubs, that's not one of them.

Mitchell asked if maybe there was a different way to get the documents, and Klobuchar reminded her what AG Merrick Garland ("someone of just utmost credibility and integrity") that negotiating hadn't worked. 

But what really happened here was a judge looked at this and said, "Yeah, there's evidence, enough evidence to warrant a search warrant to go in there and retrieve those documents that are of high national security classification." These are the nation's secrets.

She wouldn't play the "should Trump be indicted?" game, other than to say that, in America, "the law is king. The president isn't king. And I would add to that, the former president isn't king. Everyone has to follow the laws." 

And finally, she didn't mince words on the rhetoric from Trump supporters, including elected officials.

...This is the kind of thing that result(s) when you've got a president that attacks law enforcement and attacks the law. I thought in the old days the Republican Party used to stand with law enforcement. And I hope some of them do today because this kind of rhetoric is very dangerous to our country... These are career men and women that are simply doing their job... this is beyond politics. 

Switching to Rounds who, according to Mitchell, "earlier this week" said the search "must be justified" and that he "had serious questions about the integrity of the Justice Department," she wondered if his questions have been answered, given what was found and why they went in. 

Uh, that's a no. He says there's more information to be released; certainly, releasing the affidavit used to get the signed search warrant would help.

At least that would confirm that there was justification for this raid. But remember, this is also a case of where we're going to have more questions as they continue to develop, as they look through the information, the material that they've garnered at Mar-a-Lago. Perhaps they will share some of what their concern was...

He seems to think the AG is not believable when he said they exhausted all other options, saying

... you know, this is a very historic attempt and a challenge really in, with regard to looking at a former president, and whether or not they want to bring any kind of charges against him. This is a change, and this is something that will go down in history, and it will be studied for years to come. 

After sharing pointed, partisan comments from three fellow GOP senators (Graham, Paul, and Tim Scott), Mitchell wondered if what was found justified the search, after "months and months" of trying to get cooperation. Again, Rounds said DOJ needs to prove they did everything they could - but also, he noted, there's "one constitutional issue that has not been talked about" - whether a "president can declassify or classify certain items."

And I think constitutionally back, I believe it was in 1988, there was a Supreme Court decision, U.S. Navy v. Egan, in which they actually talked about whether or not a president could classify and declassify. And it's never really been litigated. But it appears that a president can classify or perhaps declassify information. And if that's the case, then the question would be, and I think it will be litigated as this moves forward, whether or not that was completed while the president was in the White House at that time.

And, of course,  

...there's concern out there. And believe me, Republicans out there are questioning, "Why in the world are you going after a former president right now, but you didn't go after other individuals who clearly had classified documents or information that was sensitive and you did not do that in the previous administrations?"

Again, he raised the trust issue, saying if they (DOJ/Garland) can come forward and put all their cards on the table (even though this is an ongoing investigation), they should, and fast.

...they should do that as quickly as they can, and they should share that with the American people because this is a time in which -- with regard to the institutions in this country -- we want the American people to have faith in their institutions. We want them to see that they're not, that they're not political, and that they're not being politicized, particularly during an election year.

Of course, in the meantime, his fellow Republicans, and the former president himself, will continue sowing thousands of pounds of seeds of distrust with the American people in an election year, because they really don't want us having faith in our institutions. They've shown that, repeatedly, in the past seven years.

I trust I'll see you around campus. 

In Case You Missed It (v102)

A short week in terms of posts, with just your four weekly features making it out of my head.

For Sunday School, I visited What's his name in the MTP classroom, where he interviewed Stacey Abrams, the Dem's choice for governor of Georgia. One of the topics? Abortion. Abrams described her well-reasoned position, including that 

you don't apply "arbitrary gestational limits."  It's a medical decision, she said.

And when we give it back to doctors, when we tell women and their doctors to make these choices, what we are saying is we respect the responsibility that women have and the obligation that doctors have...we should not be setting into law these moving targets that do not reflect the reality that women face when they're sitting in that doctor's office.

Later, what's his name asked if she was willing to compromise with a Republican legislature. Sadly, that insulting question is relevant, given so many progressives can  seem to be unwilling to take a win. 

As someone who served in the legislature for 11 years and was lauded by both parties for my ability to navigate, I will certainly get the best law we can. But we begin making decisions based on what it should be. And then yes, of course, you work towards what you can get. But we have to start with a governor who actually believes that a woman should have the right to control her body and to control her economic freedom.

Also in the classroom? Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-DE), talking foreign policy.

For your Extra Credit, I broke with my new tradition of sticking with one classroom, and strolled down to CNN's State of the Union to hear from Sens. Blumenthal and Graham, in a part sharply partisan/part bipartisan interview. The bipartisan part was on foreign policy, the partisan part was on the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Here's how it went on the new hiring at the IRS, which is being grossly distorted by the Rs, and poorly messaged by the Ds. Shocking, I know. Here's Graham:

 ...Hiring 86,000 more IRS agents, if that makes you feel better, you have missed a lot. They're coming after waitresses, Uber drivers and everybody else to collect more taxes. So, if you think growing the IRS is good for you, you're wrong.

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

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

And I think there ought to be rebates to consumers from those excess profits.

What he said was fine; what he didn't say was a massive opportunity missed. I'll have more on that later.

What a week to be Wondering on Wednesday, right? I focused on the week's hot topic, the execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Here's a bit of that.

I also can't help wondering if the same person who wrote Trump's American Carnage Inaugural address also wrote his Third-World Country statement about the FBI search?

And I wonder, does Trump remember back in 2018, when signed a law strengthening the penalties for mishandling documents from one year to five years? We know he was hoping it would apply to Hillary Clinton, but now, it might apply to him. 

And, for your TGIF, I shared the unsealed documents related to the search, and the particular statutes under the US Code that were referenced in them.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code Chapter 101 - RECORDS AND REPORTS § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Was it a good week for anyone, really? 

See you back here later for Sunday School, and more.

TGIF 8/12/22

I'm taking a different approach to the good week/bad week list today; bear with me.  

Everyone knows that Mar-a-Lago, the permanent residence of the most recent former president of the United States, was searched - not raided, not occupied, just searched - by the FBI on Monday. Had the president not told us, we would not have known, just as we don't know perhaps hundreds of times each week when the FBI executes legal search warrants, because they aren't obligated to tell us they're working.  

We've heard a lot of BS this week, from the former president; from the media trying to be first to know a little bit more than anyone else; from anonymous sources hell-bent on getting famous while not letting us know who they are; from the right-wing pundits who cannot contain their outrage; from those on the left who reacted gleefully; from the alleged leadership of the GOP, at once apoplectic and salivating at the prospects of the wrath that will rain down upon the Attorney General, the FBI, the DOJ, the lunch ladies at every government facility, and who knows who the heck else if - but only if - the Rs retake the House and Senate; and the immediate rising to the defense of the former president by the rank and file of the GOP - all before anyone (other than Trump himself) knew anything other than the FBI visited Mar-a-Lago. 

All of that can stop now, for at least a little bit, while people contemplate the documents that have been unsealed at the request of AG Merrick Garland and the DOJ, and what they tell us.

Here they are: where to search, what to look for, and the specific parts of the US Code that are in play.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP

§ 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code Chapter 101 - RECORDS AND REPORTS

§ 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

And, here is what was removed in the search.

Who had a good week? Who had a bad week? You make the call.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 8/10/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I wonder how the FBI calmly executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, not wearing their blue jackets with the giant gold letters on the back, came to be called a "raid" in the media?

And I wonder why reporters relied so heavily on former president Donald Trump's statement in their reporting, disclaiming it the whole way through by saying "if true" and "if accurate" and "according to Donald Trump" and "the former president said in his statement" and you know, generally just regurgitating his speaking points, instead of reporting something?

I also wonder about Trump Syndicate letting Eric Trump to go on television and basically accuse his father and his father's administration of all kinds of crimes and misdemeanors?

I also find myself wondering what Melania was doing when this all went down? When the insurrection was happening, she was busy cataloging furniture placement and whatnot; perhaps she was picking out her Trump National Golf Club Bedminster cemetery plot?

And speaking of the Bedminster cemetery, Ivana is buried off the first tee; I wonder if that means Marla Maples will be buried off the second tee? And, I wonder snidely, where do the porn stars get buried?

It's hard not wondering whether there'll be prizes awarded to the Rs who rose to Trump's defense after his statement was released... it was like Fast and Furious for a while there. Maybe a pardon to whoever got through first, or a general election endorsement? Or, was the grand prize maybe him throwing his support behind a Speaker of the House wannabe if the Rs win in November?

I also can't help wondering if the same person who wrote Trump's American Carnage Inaugural address also wrote his Third-World Country statement about the FBI search?

And I wonder, does Trump remember back in 2018, when signed a law strengthening the penalties for mishandling documents from one year to five years? We know he was hoping it would apply to Hillary Clinton, but now, it might apply to him. 

Finally, I'll never stop wondering about the party of law and order's complete disregard for law, and order, and law enforcement, when it comes to their fearless leader. Nor will I ever stop wondering why they take so much delight in denigrating our country, all in defense of a man who doesn't care about them in the least. 

What are you wondering about tonight?

Sunday School 8/7/22: Extra Credit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Graham wasn't having it.

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

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

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

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

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

I'll leave it here

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.

Sunday School 8/7/22

Here's your recap from the Meet the Press classroom this morning, starting with what's-his-name's conversation with Stacy Abrams, the Democrat running to unseat Gov. Brian Kemp in Georgia. 

He asked her to explain her stance on abortion (below) and how she'd legislate around it.

My intention is going to be to pass legislation that says a woman has the right to an abortion, and that right continues until a physician determines the fetus is viable outside of the body, except in the case of protecting the woman's life or health.

She said you don't apply "arbitrary gestational limits."  It's a medical decision, she said.

And when we give it back to doctors, when we tell women and their doctors to make these choices, what we are saying is we respect the responsibility that women have and the obligation that doctors have...we should not be setting into law these moving targets that do not reflect the reality that women face when they're sitting in that doctor's office.

What's-his-name said someone on the right would say her position would "essentially" allow abortion throughout the pregnancy; he asked if she'd want to "put guard rails on that." Abrams explained that late-term abortion decisions are incredibly difficult, and that "there is no woman who at eight months has not cherished the notion of this pregnancy."

... to put an arbitrary date in a law devalues the pain and the tragedy of that moment. A doctor is not going to take an action that is not medically required... I understand that there are those who would feel better if we plucked a date out of the air. But we know that that is not scientifically supportable. 

She also said you can't put every exception into a law, and pointed out that in Georgia,

where we have 82 counties without an OB/GYN, 64 counties without a surgeon, 18 counties without a family doctor, and nine without a doctor at all, setting arbitrary limits that are not grounded in the reality of what women face is deeply problematic and ultimately cruel.

He next asked if she was willing to compromise with a Republican legislature. Sadly, that insulting question is relevant, given so many progressives can seem to be unwilling to take a win. 

As someone who served in the legislature for 11 years and was lauded by both parties for my ability to navigate, I will certainly get the best law we can. But we begin making decisions based on what it should be. And then yes, of course, you work towards what you can get. But we have to start with a governor who actually believes that a woman should have the right to control her body and to control her economic freedom.

Turning from domestic politics to foreign policy, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-DE), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, was up next. He was asked if Speaker Pelosi's stop in Taiwan "was worth it, given the fallout?" Van Hollen thinks so; he said "we need to be very clear that China doesn't get to dictate" which US officials go to Taiwan, and when. He added

...what President Xi decided to do was manufacture a crisis over Pelosi's visit. He's got, as you know, this fall, the Communist Party Congress is coming up. He's seeking an unprecedented third term as leader of China. And this is saber-rattling and, you know, chest-bumping by President Xi.

And what does he want to see the US do, "...to reassure the Vietnams, the Japans, the Philippines, who are nervous about what China's doing here, they're nervous about if we're going to have Taiwan's back, do we have to send a message again that we're going to have their back?"

The senator thinks the administration "has been clear" that we'll recognize the One China Policy, but that we've also made it clear we'll "oppose any effort to reunify Taiwan by force or violence," and we've told our allies that as well. He thinks China's "putting missiles into Japan's economic zone, exclusive economic zone, is going to backfire." Japan will probably increase defense spending, and seek "even closer military engagement and cooperation" with the US. 

He also said he doesn't think China making "a run at Taiwan in the next five years" is inevitable. He said we have to "help Taiwan make that as difficult as possible."

We need to continue... to make Taiwan into the porcupine so that when, you know, China looks at Taiwan, it realizes that this is going to be a hell of a fight and not a winnable fight.

He suggested that if China looks at Putin's efforts in Ukraine, they'll see "how a determined people can thwart someone" like Vladimir Putin.

What's-his-name noted that we've long tried to not talk about the US/China relationship in "adversarial terms" and asked, "how do we look at" Xi's response to Pelosi's visit and "not say we're in a cold war with China?"

Van Hollen said he doesn't think we're in a cold war with them; he said "a lot of that depended on what China does next." Xi's escalated actions against Taiwan pre-date Pelosi's visit, and he's "been more aggressive throughout the region." 

At the same time, we have been trying to cooperate with them on these other measures, as you say. I believe they'll be back at the table on those measures. It is important that we have that military-to-military dialogue. But it is important that we also confront and check China, where it's tried to export its model of authoritarianism around the world in Africa, and the Middle East and other places.

Finally, there was a discussion with the panel on Biden's "good news" of late. What's-his-name wondered who gets the credit - Biden? Schumer? Pelosi? 

Anna Palmer (Punchbowl News) says not Biden; he wasn't involved in everything that's been accomplished. Instead, she says Schumer

... kind of been an untested leader and he has gotten a lot of things done here. Everybody would have thought that this was going to be a much smaller package when it came to this reconciliation bill. They come together with this kind of sneak attack, outwits McConnell. And they get this much larger package through, giving Democrats something to run on.

Susan Page (USA Today), said traditionally approval ratings matter a lot, especially when they're bad. 

But you have this unprecedented situation where you've got two presidents who are big factors in this midterm...maybe Donald Trump is more of a negative for Republicans, more of a positive for Democrats, than Joe Biden is for either one.

Cornell Belcher (a Dem pollster) thought that was smart thinking, but Pat McCrory (former NC gov) says Jon Stewart deserves the credit. The lesson for both sides?

...don't pick a fight with a comedian like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or David Chappelle. They will win. They are quicker than us politicians. And I think right now the only guy on the offensive was the governor of Florida, DeSantis. And yet Trump will not let him share any spotlight.

Nope - he surely won't. 

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v101)

Here's your recap of last week's posts. It seems some of the posts in my head didn't make it to the interwebs; hopefully I can work on that this week, so I can get some sleep.

I started the week Ranting and Raving about our glorified Wild West culture, where in Texas - where else? - a man who was robbed at an ATM shot several rounds, and several more, in the general direction of where the person who robbed may or not have been, he didn't really know. 

It was also in the direction of a family's vehicle, and the nine-year-old little girl inside who died as a result of what people are laughably calling self-defense. The shooter was not charged with a crime, but he "continues to grieve for" the little girl and, according to his attorney, "the grand jury made the right decision and that the person responsible for her death is the robber." 

The murderer, they said, 

did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done. We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for (the murderer).

I'm sorry, but there is zero justice being served here, 

• Unless you think that an idiot who's so dumb, he'd shoot at a random vehicle in the ATM line deserves justice. 
• Unless you think that an innocent nine-year-old little girl is acceptable collateral damage for a robbery. 
• Unless you think that a person who shoots at a stranger's vehicle in an ATM line is acting in self-defense, when he doesn't even know whether the person who robbed him is in that car, or any other car in the ATM line.

This stuff is just nuts.

Also nuts? Sunday School, although I think it's better now that I focus on a single classroom instead of wandering up and down the halls. Last week's featured classroom was Face the Nation, where Sen. Joe Manchin made an appearance and explained that he hadn't changed his mind on things - he had just opened his eyes, or something. 

 ...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.

For your Extra Credit, I listened in as my favorite Fed banker, Neel Kashkari, talked economics with John Dickerson. On the question of whether implementing a minimum 15% corporate tax would hurt supplies and increase inflation, Kashkari said we need to focus on the short-term,  

the demand side effects totally swamp the supply side effects. And so, when I look at a bill that's being considered, that your two senators talked about, my guess is over the next couple of years it's not going to have much of an impact on inflation. It's not going to affect how I analyze inflation over the next few years. I think long-term it may have some effect. But, over the near term, we have an acute mismatch between demand and supply. And it's really up to the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that demand down. 

For some reason, whatever I was Wondering on Wednesday didn't make it out of my head. I'm blaming the heat, the humidity, no A/C, and the fact that I don't have a light on my screened porch which means I can't write out there at night.

On Thursday, I threw it back to Sunday School from two years ago that day; Mick Mulvaney, former Trump budget guy, former Trump acting chief of staff, former Trump "dude sent to Ireland to get him out of the way," former Trump supporter, talked with Chuck Todd on MTP about mass shootings; the show was on right after the El Paso and Dayton murders.  

Let's just say they were both, well, they were both their 'best' selves. Here's some of their exchange, talking about Trump and his "dehumanizing rhetoric. Todd asked, "Is he not the president of all Americans here? It does seem as if he's always more worried about how his base is going to react to something than how the American, you know, moral fabric is protected?

He absolutely is the president of all Americans, alright...Listen, we're going to have policy discussions, but my guess is, you show me how you feel about the president, and I'll show you who you think was responsible for the shooting. 

Todd did not drop it there, adding "well, unfortunately, it does appear this was a political motive of this domestic terrorist." And here was Mulvaney's final thought.

This was a political motive by a crazy person with a gun. How do we stop crazy people from getting guns? That's a - -if we can't agree on that, if we can't figure out a way to prevent that from happening, there's very little hope for this nation. Let's try and fix what allows sick people to get these types of weapons.

Here we are, two years later, with the same arguments and the same lack of 'real' action, and, to a large degree, the same "very little hope for this nation." Mulvaney's words, remember - not mine. 

Finally, I attempted the good week/bad week stuff in TGIF. There was lots going on, but much of the post dealt with the Senate and their efforts - partisan and bipartisan - to get things accomplished. There was the Inflation Reduction Act, and the PACT Act, and more.

Speaking of the PACT Act, here's an excerpt from a WaPo editorial congratulating those who fought for the bill's passage, and blasting the Rs delaying the bill "at the last minute...and used to score political points..."

The objections hinged on a technicality: Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) had raised concerns about reclassifying existing toxic-exposure benefits from discretionary spending to mandatory. He argued that this move could free up space in the discretionary budget for legislators to spend on other programs.

Officials, including Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, warned that keeping those benefits in the discretionary budget could force the agency to “ration” care, and pointed out that the measure had bipartisan support in June. That did not stop Republican lawmakers from characterizing the bill as an insidious attempt by Democrats to spend hundreds of billions on unrelated causes.

As I get ready to post this, they're still at it in the Senate; the Rs are still fighting, but the Dems are holding strong. We'll see how long it takes for the 'vote-a-rama' to end.

See you later for Sunday School, if not sooner. 

TGIF 8/5/22

Let's see if we can find some good week/bad week list makers, shall we?

Trump-endorsed, Big Lie supporting Kari Lake has won the Arizona GOP gubernatorial primary. As did Trump, Lake "on various occasions during the campaign... has hinted at supposed attempts to steal the primary election, but she has refused to provide any evidence to support her claims."  Sound familiar? 

We'll have to wait a bit, probably not long, to see if she'll declare the general election is rigged, too. Her Democratic opponent? Katie Hobbs, the woman who certified Arizona's 2020 vote, something Lake thinks is worthy of incarceration.

My verdict? Lake had a good week; Arizona had a bad week. 

How about Ted Cruz? First,  he got hammered over his 'no' vote on the PACT Act by Jon Stewart; and then, there was this nonsense for FBI Director Christopher Wray. Cruz, you see, "slammed his boot on the table in opposition to FBI guidelines on symbols that indicate extremist groups." Here's what he said to Wray.

Also included on this text that I was particularly struck(by) is the Gonzales Battle Flag – Come and take it – as indicative of being a violent extremist militia. Well, I will self-report right now that every day in the Senate, I wear my boots that have the Gonzales battle flag on the back of them. Director Wray, what are y'all doing? This makes no sense. Do you agree with this FBI guidance? That the Betsy Ross flag, and the Gadsden flag and the Gonzales Battle Flag, are signs of militia violent extremism.

What's this all about, you ask? A document was leaked to Project Veritas by an FBI 'whistleblower. Cruz's outrage is laughable; after all, the leaked document states, in bold font, 

The use or sharing of these symbols alone should not independently be considered evidence of Militia Violent Extremists presence or affiliation, or serve as an indicator of illegal activity, as many individuals use these symbols for their original, historic meaning, or other non-violent purposes.

I'm not sure why Cruz has the Gonzales Battle Flag on his boots; I'd guess it's probably 50/50 original meaning/militia violent extremist; or, maybe it's just because the boots slam better when they're embellished.

My verdict: Cruz is a self-serving jerk and it's against my religion to give him good week. 

Speaking of the PACT Act, here's an excerpt from a WaPo editorial congratulating those who fought for the bill's passage, and blasting the Rs delaying the bill "at the last minute...and used to score political points..."

The objections hinged on a technicality: Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) had raised concerns about reclassifying existing toxic-exposure benefits from discretionary spending to mandatory. He argued that this move could free up space in the discretionary budget for legislators to spend on other programs.

Officials, including Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, warned that keeping those benefits in the discretionary budget could force the agency to “ration” care, and pointed out that the measure had bipartisan support in June. That did not stop Republican lawmakers from characterizing the bill as an insidious attempt by Democrats to spend hundreds of billions on unrelated causes.

In the end, only 11 Rs voted against it - fewer than the original nays - and Toomey's amendment failed. 

My verdict: supporters (including Stewart) who fought for the bill, online or while camped out on the Capitol steps, had a good week; the GOP senators who changed their votes in July and delayed the bill, only to pass it anyway? A bad week, all around. 

The jury deciding the fate of Nicholas Cruz, who killed 17 and 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, visited the high school and walked through the crime scene. I can't imagine what that must have been like, but the author of the linked article captured it well, I think, in these thoughtfully written passages.

In one classroom,

... students had written papers about Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who was shot by the Taliban for going to school and has since been a global advocate for educational access for women and girls. 

One of the students wrote: "A bullet went straight to her head but not her brain." Another read, "We go to school every day of the week and we take it all for granted. We cry and complain without knowing how lucky we are to be able to learn." 

In another? 

... Hanging on a wall inside was a sign reading, "No Bully Zone." The creative writing assignment for the day was written on the whiteboard: "How to write the perfect love letter." 

And, there was this. 

...still gracing the wall of a second-floor hallway was a quote from James Dean: "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."

My verdict: what a gut-wrenching experience that must have been for the jurors; I give all 22 of them a lot of credit, and my thanks for their service.

There was another trial going on this week, in Texas, where a jury awarded the family of Jesse Lewis, a six-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim, $4.11M in compensatory damages. The money is to be paid by right-wing media blowhard Alex Jones of Infowars fame, who spent years saying the shooting was a "false flag operation," the families were "crisis actors," and the children weren't dead. 

My verdict: without sharing all the gory details on why (you can find them here), Judge Maya Guerra Gamble had a good week. Jones had a bad week, obviously. His attorney, who (ahem) 'mistakenly' sent the plaintiff's attorney two years of Jones' texts had a bad week, (unless he did it on purpose). That the January 6th Committee has requested Jones' texts, and the plaintiff's attorney is cooperating, might just be icing on the cake. 

NOTE: the jury has just awarded $45.2M in punitive damages. 

And finally, I must mention Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, my two senators. Gillibrand was one of the senators who introduced a bill to get health care for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits; provisions from the original bill were incorporated into the PACT Act.

While she was busy doing that, Schumer was busy working with Sen. Joe Manchin; the two struck a deal on the Inflation Reduction Act, which should come up for vote tomorrow. That's only possible because, after he got Manchin on board, Schumer worked to get Sen. Kyrsten Sinema on board, too. The bill is different from the version before the wheeling and dealing, but if all goes well, it'll pass tomorrow. 

So, perhaps for the first time, both of my senators had themselves a good week. 

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 7/31/22: Extra Credit

Picking up where we left off with your Sunday School, we're back in the Face the Nation classroom with John Dickerson and Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. 

If I had to pick a favorite Fed banker, he'd be it; I've learned from and enjoyed his interviews. 

Kashkari's concerned about inflation, of course, saying that it's "higher than we expect. And it's not just a few categories. It's spreading out more broadly across the economy." And that, of course, explains why the Fed is "acting with such urgency" to rein it in.

He said that while wages are going up, they're not keeping up with inflation, so "real wages, real income" are going down. He also gave a simple definition of inflation. 

Just at its basic level, inflation is when demand is outstripping supply. We know supply is low because of supply chains, because of the war in Ukraine, because of COVID. We hoped that supply would come online more quickly. That hasn't happened. So, we have to get demand down into balance. Now, I hope we get some help on the supply side. But that doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its job to do, and we are committed to doing it.

And what does "help on the supply side" look like? Kashkari said he speaks with "global businesses" that are working on getting their supply chains "sorted out" so they can have products on shelves and meet demand. Some progress is being made, he said, but "it's taking a lot longer than they thought," and longer than he thought, too, which is why the Fed's efforts are needed.

Dickerson mentioned his conversations with Sens. Manchin and Toomey about taxing corporations that aren't paying a minimum tax now. He wondered if that would hurt supplies and increase inflation.

Kashkari said that's the same thing people say about raising interest rates, and he also talked about the difference between the long-term, where both higher taxes and higher interest rates could have an impact, and the short-term, which is where we have to focus now, because 

the demand side effects totally swamp the supply side effects. And so, when I look at a bill that's being considered, that your two senators talked about, my guess is over the next couple of years it's not going to have much of an impact on inflation. It's not going to affect how I analyze inflation over the next few years. I think long-term it may have some effect. But, over the near term, we have an acute mismatch between demand and supply. And it's really up to the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that demand down. 

Recession was a topic, too: whether we're in one, and why it matters - or not. Kashkari said "it really matters when Americans feel it, especially in the job market, especially in the job market, that's the most important part of the economy, so to speak, for Americans is their job." 

Do they have a decent place to work and earning decent wages? And, typically, recessions are -- they demonstrate why job losses, high unemployment, those are terrible for American families. And we're not seeing anything like that. The labor market, so far, is very strong. We are seeing some sectors, like the tech sector, start to shed workers or start to cool down in hiring. But fundamentally, the labor market appears to be very strong.

This is the reason why President Biden said, to equal parts dismay and delight, "that doesn't sound like a recession to me." Kashkari did say that "GDP, the amount the economy is producing, appears to be shrinking." These are the "mixed signals" that everyone's trying to figure out - mostly by talking to Larry Summers, it seems. 

Kashkari isn't focused on that so much.

From my perspective, in terms of getting inflation in check, whether we are technically in a recession or not doesn't change my analysis. I'm focused on the inflation data. I'm focused on the wage data. And, so far, inflation continues to surprise us to the upside. Wages continue to grow. So far, the labor market is very, very strong. And that means whether we are technically in a recession or not doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve has its own work to do, and we are committed to doing it.

And, a final thought on GDP: Dickerson said when it goes down, "isn't that kind of what the Fed's trying to do, slow down growth...?" Kashkari said they "definitely want to see some slowing," and that they don't want the economy to overheat. And, he was honest about the situation; he admitted there's "not a great record" of transitioning to a "sustainable economy" without pushing it into recession.

Typically, when the economy slows down, it slows down by quite a bit, especially if it's the central bank that is inducing the slowdown. So, we're going to do everything we can to try to avoid a recession, but we are committed to bringing inflation down and we are going to do what we need to do. And we are a long way away from achieving an economy that is back at 2 percent inflation. And that's where we need to get to.

Are you feeling the recession, or are you just feeling inflation? Or, maybe you're lucky and aren't feeling the pinch at all? Chime in if you like.

See you around campus. 

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.