Sunday School 1/15/23

There was a lot going on in the classrooms yesterday, with What's-his-name getting lots of credit for "doing his job" on Meet the Press. I'll have more on that, I promise. 

For your Sunday School, I wanted to focus on Jake Tapper's visits with House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) and Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) on CNN's State of the Union.

The new scandal over classified documents was top of mind, and I'll do my best to summarize the key issues Comer raised, or, I should say, the key issue - because at the end of the day, as he puts it, there's only one issue. Here are a few of the ways he brought it up.

We want to know the visitor logs to the residence. We want to know who had access to the Biden Center for Diplomacy...this is the same type of investigation that the Democrats...launched and demanded happened to President Trump...  And we just want equal treatment here with respect to how both former President Trump and current President Biden are being treated with the document issue.

Comer and others, from both sides of the aisle, are concerned by the lack of transparency -and hypocrisy from the administration. Before the election, Biden talked about Trump mishandling documents, apparently knowing he had done the same thing.

So, the hypocrisy here is great. We're very concerned about a lack of transparency. We're very concerned, as I have said many times, about a two-tiered system of justice in America. And we just want equal treatment. 

Comer apparently considers any statements from the administration are nothing but a bunch of malarkey. 

... It seems political here. It seems hypocritical. It seems like a double standard. And that's our concern... We have asked questions about what went on with Mar-a-Lago. Why was Mar-a-Lago raided, but the president's home not?  Why are the president's lawyers still allowed to go rummage through, looking for documents, after a special counsel has been appointed? It doesn't make sense. It's not fair. We just want equal treatment.

Tapper reminded Comer of some key differences between Trump's document-gate and what we know, so far, about Biden's document-gate: the difference in volume, the subpoena, the lawyers saying everything had been turned in when it hadn't been. And then he rolled tape of Comer from last November, talking about the Trump situation.

I don't know much about that. That's not something that -- we have requested information just to see what was going on, because I don't know what documents were at Mar-a-Lago. So, that's something we're just waiting to see what comes out on that. QUESTION: But is it fair to say that investigation won't be a priority? COMER: That will not be a priority. 

His response to the question, "Do you only care about classified documents being mishandled when Democrats do the mishandling?"

Absolutely not. Look, we still don't know what type of documents President Trump had. That's one of the questions we have asked the National Archives. Just because Joe Biden's lawyer said they turned over five documents doesn't mean they just turned over five documents. They could have turned over 500 documents. I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in President Biden's personal lawyers...

He also apparently hasn't seen a single news report, or any of the excuses widely publicized by the right, or even had a conversation with a colleague since the Mar-a-Lago raid. And that's good, because he doesn't give a rat about mishandled documents.

My concern is how there's such a discrepancy in how former President Trump was treated... vs. Joe Biden... That's not equal treatment. And we're very concerned. And there's a lack of trust here at the Department of Justice by House Republicans. That's the outrage.

There's all kinds of outrage, here, to be sure. 

In Case You Missed It (v114)

Week two of 2023 is in the books. Here's your recap of last week's posts. 

On Sunday, I posted a Sidebar to the post on the election of Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker, and the promised first piece of legislation from his caucus.

 As I noted in my Mr. Speaker post, he told us

I know the night is late, but when we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 IRS agents. You see, we believe government should be to help you, not go after you.

And, in case you didn't know this,  

Their first order of business is worse than a solution in search of a problem - it's a solution in service to a lie.

There are many good reasons for the funding, which will bring on IT staff and customer service folks - the government employees "who should help you," as McCarthy said. And yes, there will be auditors, who "would be largely tasked with cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders." According to folks at Treasury, 

It is wholly inaccurate to describe any of these resources as being about increasing audit scrutiny of the middle class or small businesses.  

I included several ways the funding would help us, something McCarthy pretends he wants to do, and then I closed the post with a really obvious reason.

McCarthy's starting his tenure with a lie; I'll end this post with a truth. In a December 15, 2022 report, the Government Accountability Office said the IRS

... addressed its backlog of 2021 paper returns. However, as of late September 2022, IRS had about 12.4 million returns to process, resulting in refund delays for millions of taxpayers.

 That's a two-million-plus increase in the backlog - since last July. It's only going to get worse if this funding is cancelled.  

Your Sunday School included chats with three House members, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who offered partnership with the Rs, while making it clear it has to be a two-way street. 

We will oppose extremism, of course, whenever necessary. And there are Republicans who are interested in governing. And they're going to have to break from the extreme wings of their party at times around some important issues. And we'll see how that all unfolds.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) talked about the Speaker vote, his disagreement with some of his GOP colleagues, and why he had called some of them 'terrorists. Among other things, he said, 

There was no reason for us to keep voting... keep allowing these speeches that just degraded and diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy. We didn't have to keep doing that. We could have just adjourned for the whole week and just kept negotiating...  And it seemed very, very pointless.

I can't argue with that sentiment. 

The third guy we heard from was one of Crenshaw's 'terrorists' - Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), who framed the shenanigans as being in service to all of us "very, very tired" Americans. 

You know, the American people are very, very tired of this gang of seven, gang of eight, literally seven or eight people, or just a few people in Washington, DC, running all of the policy for the American people. So, when we had a framework of an agreement where the American people can be in charge, when their representatives can actually bring amendments to the floor in good faith, I said, sure, if we can do that, then I'm all in.

By the end of his interview, I was

suddenly feeling very sleepy, after listening to Perry tell me how exhausted I am. 

I promised we'd hear from the punditry for your Extra Credit, and I chose the panel from ABC's This Week to highlight.

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

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

Susan Page (USA Today )said there might be a better question than whether McCarthy can keep his caucus together. 

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

I was Wondering on Wednesday about documents, and about Rep. George Santos (Fables 'R' Us). There was much wondering to be done, but one thing that struck me was why he might be so determined not to resign.

Now, I can't help wondering if the reason he's adamant about not resigning is that he feels a responsibility to his former co-workers at Goldman Sachs who may be laid off? The company's letting as many as 3200 people go.  

I wonder how many of them Santos could help develop kick-ass resumes, find great jobs, start their own companies, or even - dare I say it - run for office? 

I wanted to wonder about the committee that's supposed to be providing oversight on important stuff like the 'weaponization' of the government. I think the committee's name might need some work, though...

I'm investigating wondering if it would be worth wondering if the new House Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating - oh, never mind... 

Check the links for more detail on any of the posts, or to leave a comment. I'd love to hear from you!

Wondering on Wednesday 1/11/23

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm wondering today, on a couple of fronts, about Rep. George Santos (Fables 'R' Us). 

On the one hand, the Nassau County Republicans are not pulling any punches in their criticism of him. Calling him "a joke, a disgrace, abnormal and a pathological liar," the GOP officials 

said the newly elected congressman needed to immediately resign, saying he ran a campaign of “deceit and lies.”

And while Santos threw a defiant "na-na-na-boo-boo" to the party bosses back home, he seems to be quite comfortable with the party bosses in DC. According to Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), Santos "addressed some of the concerns that we've had." Does anyone wonder if that went any further than "do you solemnly swear to go along with us, so help you whoever you believe in?" 

Santos-endorser Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Humiliationville), whose top aide was impersonated by a Santos campaign worker, doesn't appear to have concerns about him sitting in the House chamber, but committees are another issue. 

...McCarthy said Wednesday that embattled freshman GOP Rep. George Santos, who is facing growing calls to resign after admitting to fabricating much of his personal biography, should not be seated on any top committees.

Why, you might be wondering? Well, some think Santos is a national security risk, mostly because of his shady finances. There's chance he might not get any committee assignments; if that's the case, there will be no wondering needed as to why they're keeping him around: 218 votes are way more better than 217. 

Now, I can't help wondering if the reason he's adamant about not resigning is that he feels a responsibility to his former co-workers at Goldman Sachs who may be laid off? The company's letting as many as 3200 people go.

The cuts, totaling about 6.5 percent of Goldman’s workforce, stem from a restructuring plan the investment bank announced in October and the reintroduction of a ritual year-end culling of underperformers that was suspended amid the pandemic, the person said.

I wonder how many of them Santos could help develop kick-ass resumes, find great jobs, start their own companies, or even - dare I say it - run for office? 

I'm investigating wondering if it would be worth wondering if the new House Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating the Investigating Bastages that are Investigating Members of the Committee on Investigating - oh, never mind... 

If you're wondering whether the Biden document thing (and the late-breaking new Biden document thing) is the same as the Trump document thing, I'm comfortable saying that the issue - classified documents not being turned over to the National Archives as required - appears to be the same, but much of the rest of it doesn't.  And unless and until we have evidence of Biden 

• ripping up documents and trying to flush them down the toilet, 
• or burning them in the fireplace, 
• or eating them with ketchup, 
• or declassifying them by thinking about them, 
• and ignoring a months-long effort to get documents turned over before he left the VP's office, 
• and saying repeatedly that he had turned all of the documents he had over already, dammit, leave me the hell alone, 
• and after documents were found he argued about giving them back, 
• and that he had his lawyers attest that all the classified documents had been turned over,
• and that the National Archives identified that documents were still missing, 
• and asked to come and get them and he let them into his house but still didn't turn everything over, 
• and that he ignored a subpoena requiring him to turn them over, 
• and then his office was raided, 
• and we still don't know if everything was turned over,  
• and then he buried a relative on the front lawn at his summer home
• and then he claimed attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, and locker room privilege over the documents, 
• and demanded a special master be appointed to review the documents, 
• and had a court limit the review by the special master, 
• and had a court throw out the special master, 
• and then, hoping to forestall any further investigation, he declared himself a candidate for president conveniently just before a special prosecutor was appointed, then nope, it's not the same.

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sunday School 1/8/23: Extra Credit

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

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

A. McCarthy's bid for Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Can they govern?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. What about 2024?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you around campus.

Sunday School 1/8/23

The Sunday School classrooms were full of House members: I counted three Ds and eight Rs - there may have been more.

We'll hear from three of them, starting with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who earned unanimous support from his caucus during the Speaker vote-a-rama. He stopped by the MTP classroom, where he said his concern with the 'dysfunction' of last week is that it's just the beginning. 

Holding Congress captive is one thing; it's something else entirely doing that to the American people. He said that "the extreme MAGA Republican agenda that apparently has been negotiated into the House rules" could jeopardize our "health, safety, and general well-being," and

(i)t may undermine national security and a robust defense, and undermine our ability to actually advance an agenda that is anchored in kitchen table, pocketbook issues and not extremism.

He's "going to extend the hand of partnership" to the Rs, and look for common ground whenever and wherever possible - but that can't be one-sided. 

We will oppose extremism, of course, whenever necessary. And there are Republicans who are interested in governing. And they're going to have to break from the extreme wings of their party at times around some important issues. And we'll see how that all unfolds.

He and McCarthy "have had some positive, forward-looking conversations" recently, and he hopes they can "agree to disagree without being disagreeable." That's similar to McCarthy's comments upon receiving the gavel. 

Finally, on the historical aspect of his leadership role, Jeffries said, in part, 

... I do think that it is another data point on the journey in America, which is we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And that means that folks from a working-class neighborhood in central Brooklyn like myself should have an opportunity to participate in American governance, particularly in the House of Representatives, which is the institution designed to be the closest to the people.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) - not one of the "MAGA Republicans" Jeffries mentioned - chatted with Jake Tapper on CNN's SOTU. 

He talked about last week's activities and his disagreement with the 'anti-Kevin' folks he referred to as 'terrorists.' He apologized anyone he offended, even as he was surprised at how sensitive they were. Crenshaw provided some transparency into why the rest of the caucus was upset.

...before we had taken a single vote in a conference with everyone there, Kevin McCarthy had asked one of the leaders of this group, what else do you want? Let's make this work. What else do you want? And they couldn't answer in that moment. And that was a real turning point for a lot of people. That was what created all of that animosity...

He also said there was no reason to keep voting throughout the week if they didn't have the agreement they wanted.  

There was no reason for us to keep voting... keep allowing these speeches that just degraded and diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy. We didn't have to keep doing that. We could have just adjourned for the whole week and just kept negotiating...  And it seemed very, very pointless.

Based on what he knows, Crenshaw agrees with the upcoming rules changes, and said no matter what people might thing, there's not a lot of disagreement on them. He said the changes to start with a budget and build the 12 appropriation bills from there is the right way to do it. He also agrees with members being able to bring amendments to the floor. The process will be "messy. It will be time-consuming..." but it will make all members feel as if their voice matters. 

Now, let's hear from Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); he talked with George on This Week, and said all the shenanigans last week were about power for the American people. 

You know, the American people are very, very tired of this gang of seven, gang of eight, literally seven or eight people, or just a few people in Washington, DC, running all of the policy for the American people. So, when we had a framework of an agreement where the American people can be in charge, when their representatives can actually bring amendments to the floor in good faith, I said, sure, if we can do that, then I'm all in.

What else was included in the "framework of an agreement" they worked out? Accountability, and a budget "that doesn't just continually increase spending," and "single-subject bills."

George, the American people, among other things, are tired of these Christmas tree bills with all these ornaments on them coming for -- in the middle of night, 4,000 pages, $1.7 trillion, 7,200 earmarks. Everything works perfectly for Washington, D.C., but there’s no presents under the tree for the American people... restraining those things and getting those things in order, it's an entire package. It’s not just one thing.  

I'm not sure who he thinks those 7.200 earmarks are for - are they just to keep Perry and the rest of them getting elected?

He said they want a debt limit that works to limit our debt; "(w)e can't just keep doing the same thing under the same conditions with the same management and expect different outcomes." Perry said since he's been in Congress - ten years now - the debt has doubled from around $15T to $31.5T. 

Finally, Perry doesn't think he should have to forego participating on a committee to "investigate the investigations," as George called it, simply because he's part of the investigation into the insurrection. He asked 

why should anybody be limited just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in America is innocent until proven otherwise. And I would say this, the American people are really, really tired of the persecution and the instruments of federal power being used against them...

I'm suddenly feeling very sleepy, after listening to Perry tell me how exhausted I am. 

See you around campus. 

Sidebar: Mr. Speaker

Before we get all gaga over the Republican caucus coming together and electing Rep. Kevin McCarthy as their Speaker, it's important to remember that this is still the Republican caucus, and we know who they are. 

Lest we forget, they're happy to remind us at every turn, as McCarthy did in Saturday's wee hours. As I noted in my Mr. Speaker post, he told us

I know the night is late, but when we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 IRS agents. You see, we believe government should be to help you, not go after you.

Their first order of business is worse than a solution in search of a problem - it's a solution in service to a lie.

There are no plans to hire 87,000 IRS agents to "go after you" or to go after anyone else. There are plans to hire additional staff for the IRS, according to Time.

The Inflation Reduction Act... includes roughly $78 billion for the IRS to be phased in over 10 years. A Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that such an investment would enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and wouldn’t be new positions. (All emphasis throughout the post I've added.)

There are many good reasons for the funding, which will bring on IT staff and customer service folks - the government employees "who should help you," as McCarthy said. And yes, there will be auditors, who "would be largely tasked with cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders." According to folks at Treasury, 

It is wholly inaccurate to describe any of these resources as being about increasing audit scrutiny of the middle class or small businesses.  

So, what is accurate?

There's a big wave of attrition that's coming and a lot of these resources are just about filling those positions.

More than half of current IRS employees are retirement-eligible, and expected to leave in the next few years. The new funding might lead to a net employee gain of 20,000 - 30,000 people. That will bring staffing back to levels last seen over a decade ago.

The IRS currently has roughly 78,000 employees. According to John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, that’s down from around 100,000 when he first started. By the time he resigned four years later, he said, it was clear that the agency was in the grip of a systematic attempt by the GOP to weaken it. 

When the GOP took control of the House after the 2010 election, Koskinen says, they "immediately instituted a series of crippling cuts..." Overall funding has "fallen further, by more than 20%" since then. And enforcement funding? That's dropped by 31%, making it easier now for "high-net-worth tax cheats and major corporations" to avoid paying their fair share, costing us billions.

Audit rates on the largest companies dropped from nearly 100% to 50%; audits on the wealthiest individuals dropped from 8.4% to 2.4% from 2010 to 2019, according to Janet Holtzblatt of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

All of us agree a non-responsive government is a bad thing.

McCarthy's right - government should help us. But how can they do that on something as important as the income taxes we pay, if there's no one to answer the phone or process our tax returns? Or if the IT systems are so out-of-date, they can't find qualified folks to work on them, making it necessary to use manual processes instead? 

Back in August, about the same time the Rs started threatening us with the 87,000 auditors lie, the Washington Post Opinion page shared an eye-opening piece, with photos, on why the IRS needed this funding. It showed the cafeteria at the IRS center in Austin, jam-packed with paper files as far as the eye can see.

 It’s part of what the IRS calls the “Pipeline”: a 1970s-era assembly line used to process tax returns at several locations around the country. And it might give you a sense of why Congress is on the verge of handing the agency $80 billion through the Inflation Reduction Act — not only for more enforcement but also for tech modernization.

There's a massive backlog - over 10 million individual returns as of last July, partly from the pandemic, but also from

the agency’s embarrassingly outdated, paper-based system, which leaves stacks and stacks of returns cluttering shelves, hallways and even the cafeteria. 

On the Pipeline, paper tax returns aren’t scanned into computers; instead, IRS employees manually keystroke the numbers from each document into the system, digit by digit.

All of this happens - the lack of audits on the people who have the most to lose if they get caught cheating, the lack of access to taxpayer assistance, the old technology and the mess of paper - all of this happens

despite the agency receiving evermore responsibilities: stimulus checks, child tax credit payments, Obamacare enforcement, foreign bank account tracking and, lately, hunting down Russian yachts. Without reliable, long-term funding guarantees, the IRS has struggled to upgrade its systems.

What will the service, technology, and audit programs be able to do if the funding is maintained? The Congressional Budget Office estimates the IRS will "increase revenue by $204B over the next decade." That money will help pay for all the programs the government creates - programs championed by Democrats and Republicans alike. 

One more thing.

Should you be angry because the IRS is going to be able to better perform all aspects of its job, if it gets the funding? Nope.

I used to say there’s no Democratic or Republican way to run the IRS,” Koskinen says. “The people who are significantly disadvantaged are the average taxpayers who have a simple question and can’t get through. Those are Republicans as well as independents and Democrats.” 

McCarthy's starting his tenure with a lie; I'll end this post with a truth. In a December 15, 2022 report, the Government Accountability Office said the IRS

... addressed its backlog of 2021 paper returns. However, as of late September 2022, IRS had about 12.4 million returns to process, resulting in refund delays for millions of taxpayers. 

That's a two-million-plus increase in the backlog - since last July. It's only going to get worse if this funding is cancelled. 

In Case You Missed It (v113)

Is it really possible that I haven't given a weekly post recap since sometime in October? Ugh. Here's what made it out last week, with snippets and links.

Instead of a Sunday School post, I offered up Happy New Year, Leo McGarry Style. McGarry, many of you'll remember, was the first Chief of Staff to President Jed Bartlet on The West Wing. 

After recovering from a heart attack, he was invited back to the administration in a role that was not at all well-defined. Everyone wanted him, but no one really knew why - and he had to figure it out for himself, and for the rest of them. He did just that, after watching old Bartlet speeches. At a somewhat contentious dinner, he hit Bartlet - on the day after his final State of the Union speech - with a critique not only of the SOTU but of the state of his administration in general. 

The show wrapped up with the senior staff summoned back to work by the President, and led to Leo's office. After a brief explanation from Bartlet on why they were there - to hear from an old friend - Leo updated his whiteboard from 365 days to 364 days left. He pointed out that they had all spent their days reacting to things, not proactively doing things.

He asked what they thought was important, and started listing their ideas: things left out of the SOTU, or that had been dropped over time. Things that motivated, energized, and inspired them. The things that mattered to them. 

I'm hoping to use Leo's message to set the stage for this year.

Next up was a note from the Update Desk on my Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v46) post about the Democratic-controlled New York State legislature and their pay raise.

Many New Yorkers are struggling right now, trying to come up with money to pay their rent, their utilities, to buy groceries, and to scrape together money to put even a fair-to-middling holiday celebration together for their families. 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

The reason for the update? I had hoped Hochul would veto the raise; alas, that didn't happen,

even though the raise was more than she had expressed support for, and so was the outside income limit. There have been suggestions that she didn't veto it because she needs the legislature to get things done with the budget and all the legislation they pack into it. There've also been suggestions that she should have gotten a guarantee for having her pick to be the chief judge on the Court of Appeals approved, which may or may not happen.

I'm not sure about either of those, but I wish if she was going to approve it anyway, she had made them wait and stew in it for as long as possible. 

Mid-week, I was Wondering on Wednesday about the drama surrounding the Congressional Republicans and their attempts at electing a Speaker of the House. 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

When Sally Field won her second Academy Award, she said, "Right now, you really like me!" I wonder what Rep. Kevin McCarthy would say, after losing six votes for House Speaker?  Perhaps it's, "Right now, I wished you really liked me?"  Or, maybe "Right now, I wonder if you ever liked me?" 

I also can't help wondering how many votes McCarthy will allow before he decides it's time to step aside for someone 16 0r 17 votes more palatable?  He's said he's in it to win it, and that he's "earned" the Speakership, but there may never be enough votes for him. 

Of course, there was encouragement (pressure?) from Mar-a-Lago as McCarthy floundered.

Former president Donald Trump tried to exert whatever power and control he has over the party, urging the Rs to get behind McCarthy who, Trump said, "will do a good job, and maybe even a GREAT JOB - JUST WATCH!" That didn't work - Lauren Boebert even suggested that Trump should have told McCarthy to step aside - and now I'm wondering what other Rs might have the power to convince the GOP caucus to align. 

There was wondering, too, about who could help break through the squabbles, and about Rep. George Santos, the lying Congressman-elect from Long Island who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him. 

And finally, in the wee hours of Saturday morning, the debacle came to an end, as I noted in Mr. Speaker.

Finally, the long first week of the new year is over, and we have a Speaker of the House. He may be missing some pieces of soul, or body parts, but he got the votes, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Trump) is the guy who'll be wielding the gavel. 

I went to bed after he lost the 14th vote, the one about which McCarthy was sure he'd win, because he had counted the votes. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Blecch) had a different idea, and prevented the victory. It was at that point that the majority of the Republican caucus wanted to punch Gaetz in his smirking fact, and one of them - Alabama's Rep. Mike Rogers - almost did. That would have been a horribly popcorn-worthy moment, for sure. 

McCarthy offered a taste of what's to come (more on that later today); sadly,

We also heard McCarthy and his allies talk about the importance of Donald Trump in securing the win, so it seems pretty clear that any hope of Trump not being a factor can be tossed out the window, at least at this juncture.

One thing's for sure: McCarthy will be

hammering away with the smaller-than-usual gavel. 

I've got a Sidebar on the GOP's agenda ready for you, and I'll have highlights of Gov. Hochul's inaugural, our standard weekly posts, and more for you this week.

I hope you stick around.

Mr. Speaker

Finally, the long first week of the new year is over, and we have a Speaker of the House. He may be missing some pieces of soul, or body parts, but he got the votes, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Trump) is the guy who'll be wielding the gavel. 

I went to bed after he lost the 14th vote, the one about which McCarthy was sure he'd win, because he had counted the votes. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Blecch) had a different idea, and prevented the victory. It was at that point that the majority of the Republican caucus wanted to punch Gaetz in his smirking fact, and one of them - Alabama's Rep. Mike Rogers - almost did. That would have been a horribly popcorn-worthy moment, for sure. 

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) garnered the most votes during the week, as the Dems stayed united and gave him all of their votes every time. It didn't matter, really, other than to show that even though they're also a fractured caucus, they know how - and when - to stand together.  

In the end, though, what mattered was that all the Rs were sick of the handful that were holding things up, after all of the concessions that were made, and managed to convince them that that voting 'present' - in effect, voting for no one - was better than voting for someone other than McCarthy. After a planned vote to adjourn until Monday was rejected, the 15th round ended the fight. 

There's lots to digest - oh, excuse me, a lot to unpack, in pundit-speak - including the possibility that many representatives from both sides of the aisle are probably secretly happy with some of the rumored rules changes: being able to offer amendments from the floor, having 72 hours to read bills before a vote, and a 'germane' rule that should help ensure that a bill on ice fishing in Lake Ontario, for example, won't include something ridiculously unrelated, like funding flame-throwing drones for Taiwan... you get the drift. 

There's even a promised vote on term limits; I'm definitely looking forward to that. 

So, while I enjoyed the comedy that came from this week, and watching the Rs attack each other, the Dems enjoy a week of unity, the reading clerks Susan Cole and Tylease Alli deftly handle the voting roll calls, and House Clerk Cheryl Johnson maintain control over an often-unruly crowd, there's some really interesting stuff coming down the pike. 

And, of course, there's some really dumb stuff coming down the pike, too - and it isn't going to take long, according to the new Speaker.

I know the night is late, but when we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 IRS agents. You see, we believe government should be to help you, not go after you.

And there's more.

Now speaking of committees, we will hold the swamp accountable for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, to the origins of COVID and to the weaponization of the FBI. 

We didn't hear Hunter Biden's name mentioned, but we can be sure that those investigations can't be too far off.

We also heard McCarthy and his allies talk about the importance of Donald Trump in securing the win, so it seems pretty clear that any hope of Trump not being a factor can be tossed out the window, at least at this juncture.

Much more to come as the Rs take control, with the newly empowered gang of 20 getting their rewards, and McCarthy hammering away with the smaller-than-usual gavel. 

Wondering on Wednesday 1/4/2023

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

When Sally Field won her second Academy Award, she said, "Right now, you really like me!" I wonder what Rep. Kevin McCarthy would say, after losing six votes for House Speaker?  Perhaps it's, "Right now, I wished you really liked me?"  Or, maybe "Right now, I wonder if you ever liked me?" 

I also can't help wondering how many votes McCarthy will allow before he decides it's time to step aside for someone 16 0r 17 votes more palatable?  He's said he's in it to win it, and that he's "earned" the Speakership, but there may never be enough votes for him. 

Former president Donald Trump tried to exert whatever power and control he has over the party, urging the Rs to get behind McCarthy who, Trump said, "will do a good job, and maybe even a GREAT JOB - JUST WATCH!" That didn't work - Lauren Boebert even suggested that Trump should have told McCarthy to step aside - and now I'm wondering what other Rs might have the power to convince the GOP caucus to align. 

• Former Veep Mike Pence could offer a few hundred rambling words without ever really saying anything about anything, but it might confuse people enough that they accidentally vote for McCarthy...
• Florida Man Ron DeSantis could promise to cancel anyone who voted the wrong way, or - even worse - call them all 'woke' or something. That might get them in line...
• Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could... nah, never mind.

Maybe there isn't a unifying Republican out there?

Sticking with the House, as Rep. George Santos (R- You Kidding Me?) cast his vote for McCarthy, someone allegedly yelled "mentiroso" - the word for 'liar' in Spanish and Portuguese. The shout came from the Democratic side of the chamber, which make sense, right? I mean, Santos was endorsed by McCarthy, and by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Trump), the GOP Conference chair. 

Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene has also chimed in, tweeting "I think we Republicans should give George Santos a chance and see how he legislates and how he votes, not treating him the same as the left is."  I know they've been busy the past couple of days, but I wonder how MTG feels now, knowing that Santos' website noted*, according to The New Republic, that he voted against the omnibus spending bill that passed, and was signed into law - in December. Does that mean he passed the test? 

Finally, I'm having lots of laughs over some of the McCarthy memes I've seen on Twitter. For example, there's Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football; there's a speaker captcha; there's six stages of toast. There's a Groundhog's Day quip (too easy?) and even a Home Alone riff.  Truth be told, I'm having a hard time picking a favorite; I wonder if anyone else is having trouble, too? 

Oh - the House came back into session, then voted narrowly to adjourn. I think this means that McCarthy might have won a vote, finally.

What's on your wondering mind tonight? 

* When I checked his website, there was no mention of the spending bill.

The Update Desk: MBIA (v46)

And... it's a done deal. 

I'm not really surprised that our legislators are going to be the highest-paid in the country, making $142,000 per year, for a 60-day session plus whatever other time they put into their jobs that we don't know about, until we get their newsletters. 

You'll recall I told you about this a little over a week ago in Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v46)

Many New Yorkers are struggling right now, trying to come up with money to pay their rent, their utilities, to buy groceries, and to scrape together money to put even a fair-to-middling holiday celebration together for their families. 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

I think this was the fastest I've ever reached out to my elected representatives.

I've emailed Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, for their thoughts and comments on their votes. It's clear from my comments that I don't support this move, so I'll be interested if I get a "thanks, Constituent" letter or if they'll try and convince me this is a good idea.

At the time, I didn't know how they voted, but I had a suspicion. I since confirmed that the count was mostly along party lines, which is no shock. In the Senate, it was 33 - 23, with 7 Dems voting no; in the Assembly, it was 81-52, with 8 Dems joining their Republican colleagues in voting no.

My two? They were both 'yes' votes. And I have yet to get a response from either of them.

I've also reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul, urging her to veto the legislation and force the two chambers to override her veto, which they can do if they want, and I encourage you to do the same if you don't like being taken advantage of by our legislators. 

I got what appears like a canned response to anyone who writes to her; "thanks, and we've got a lot of work to do together" kind of thing, with no mention of my issue. 

And then we heard, late on New Year's Eve, that she had signed the bill, even though the raise was more than she had expressed support for, and so was the outside income limit. There have been suggestions that she didn't veto it because she needs the legislature to get things done with the budget and all the legislation they pack into it. There've also been suggestions that she should have gotten a guarantee for having her pick to be the chief judge on the Court of Appeals approved, which may or may not happen.

I'm not sure about either of those, but I wish if she was going to approve it anyway, she had made them wait and stew in it for as long as possible. 

Happy New Year, Leo McGarry Style

Lots of people have New Year's Eve traditions: eating special foods; opening the door at midnight to let the 'bad' out and the 'good' in; attending the same NYE party with the same people every year; singing 'Auld Lang Syne' at midnight... 

Me? Not so much. My husband and I sometimes spend the time with family or friends, but typically we're comfortably at home, with the cats, some snacks and wine, and relax our way to the ball drop.

Last night (OK, most of the day, who am I kidding?) I watched several episodes of the second term of the Bartlet administration. That's right - Jed, and CJ, and Toby, and Josh, and Leo, and the rest of the gang are being replayed on HLN's 'The West Wing' marathon. 

The network originally ran the series at Christmas, and I was delighted to receive such a gift; it's one of my favorite shows ever. The writing; the complex characters and their relationships; the perfect cast to bring them to life; and even the 'accidental' theme song, which has been playing in my head since around 5 Am. Unlike most songs that attack me during the early hours, I'm not eager to chase this one away.

Having the episodes available again - and picking up almost at the point where I left off last time? Another gift. Having them available on New Year's Eve, when we put ourselves through the introspection -prospection routine? Priceless. 

The episode that most struck a chord with me was last night's '365 Days' -  with the return of former Chief of Staff Leo McGarry - on the day after Bartlet's final State of the Union address. They wanted him back, after his heart attack and surgery. Everyone wanted to pick his brain on whatever crises they were dealing with, wanted him in the Situation Room, they all wanted him, but no one had a clue what they wanted from him.

Leo sat in a small office, devoid of decoration, nearly devoid of furniture. Sitting on the floor were tapes of Bartlet's inaugurals and State of the Union addresses. Leo sat in the chair, door open, watching one after another. Staffers wandered in and out, promising to get together with him, to plan, to catch up. The most memorable of the drive-bys was with the very neurotic Toby Ziegler, who wrote Bartlet's speeches.

Later, McGarry and Bartlet had dinner, alone in the residence, and at some point, he swung the conversation to the SOTU, and how it missed the mark. He shared examples, from his day of watching the videos, of promises made and not kept, and when Bartlet pushed back, Leo pushed harder. One of the best lines? Paraphrasing here, but Leo emphatically told Bartlet that he doesn't owe a thing to the Democratic Party, he owes everything to the American people. 

That line is one that I'll likely refer back to this year, what with the new Congress, and who knows how many presidential campaign announcements - how long before we get one? And, of course, it applies across the board: to both parties, and to local, state, and national issues.  

The show wrapped up with the senior staff summoned back to work by the President, and led to Leo's office. After a brief explanation from Bartlet on why they were there - to hear from an old friend - Leo updated his whiteboard from 365 days to 364 days left. He pointed out that they had all spent their days reacting to things, not proactively doing things.

He asked what they thought was important, and started listing their ideas: things left out of the SOTU, or that had been dropped over time. Things that motivated, energized, and inspired them. The things that mattered to them. 

I hope, as we sit at our literal or figurative whiteboards, we're able to fill them with things that motivate, energize, inspire, and matter to us, and that in some way, we share our journeys in 2023.

Happy New Year to you and yours. 

Wondering on Wednesday 12/28/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm feeling wonderful-ish today... you know, not really wonderful, just kinda wonder-ish, or full-ish, or something like that. 

Like George Santos, the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican to be elected to Congress, or something like that. He's also the first most openly lyingly lying non-incumbent Republican t0 be elected. He made so many lie-ish statements during his campaign I don't know if even he knows what's true, vs. what's true-ish, vs. what's just 'ish.' He went to college-ish; he worked in finance-ish, for Goldman Sachs-ish. He was poor-ish, and then he was an entrepreneur and started a company-ish, but had no income-ish, but managed to loan his campaign $700,000-ish. He had a company in Florida and four of his employees-ish died in the Pulse nightclub shooting, sorta-ish. 

And the best one, of course, is that he was raised Catholic but is Jew-ish, whatever the hell-ish that means. He promised us he had a story to tell, and he told it, and it only made things worse-ish. In a wonder-ish fashion, I await the official response from the GOP in NY, and in DC. I can only think that it'll be about as '-ishy' as anything Santos has said so far. 

Last week, after the Democratic-controlled NYS legislature voted, in a special session, to give themselves an obscene $32,000 raise effective January 1, 2023, and limit their outside income but not until January 1, 2025, I reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul urging her to veto the bill, even though there are enough Dem votes in both chambers to over-ride the veto. 

At the same time, I reached out to Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, asking for their thoughts or comments on the vote. I haven't heard from any of them, and honestly, I don't expect to. There's nothing really wonder-ish about their lack of response - the gov's been dealing with a once-in-a-lifetime weather event, and it is a holiday-ish week, after all, but since they all know where I stand on the issue, I doubt there'll be a race to try and appease me or change mind. I'll keep you posted on any responses I get. 

Another person I don't expect to hear from? Whoever charged some snooty-ish mountain bike parts using my credit card. Graciously, one of the five or six vendors who got hit with fraudulent charges (nearly $3500 worth all told) texted me to see if I had made the bike parts order with a request to ship it to a different address, which he shared. That's a big no, I told him. 

All of the charges were reversed; fraud investigations ensued. And so did a Christmas card to the address the vendor gave me. I do wonder, a little-ish, if it made whoever read the card feel bad-ish even for a moment. I hope it did.  

I'm seeing lots of stuff on social media citing the January 6th Committee report and transcripts about documents being torn, flushed, eaten, copied and removed, and even set on fire during the waning days of the last administration. 

I'm not surprised, really, by any of that - I mean, given what we've learned about the Trump White House, there's not a lot that will surprise me anymore. One thing I'm wondering, just a little-ish, is whether there was ketchup involved in all of those, or if another condiment was used?

What's on your wondering-ish mind tonight?