Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

A Crime Scene

As they debated Trump’s reverse Robin Hood bill, Democrats designated the United States Congress a “crime scene.” They were entirely correct.

I’m turning today’s post over to a couple of truth-telling Senators, whose truth-to-power words during the Senate’s marathon session come to us courtesy of Heather Cox Richardson, and accurately describe what has now transpired.

First, Senator Chris Murphy, who has been a fervent opponent of this despicable effort.

“[W]e’re debating a bill that’s going to cut healthcare for 16 million people. It’s going to give a tax break to…massively wealthy people who don’t need any more money. There are going to be kids who go hungry because of this bill. This is the biggest reduction in…nutrition benefits for kids in the history of the country.” Murphy continued: “We’re obviously gonna continue to offer these amendments to try to make it better. So far not a single one of our amendments…has passed, but we’ll be here all day, probably all night, giving Republicans the chance over and over and over again to slim down the tax cuts for the corporations or to make life a little bit…less miserable for hungry kids or maybe don’t throw as many people off of healthcare. Maybe don’t close so many rural hospitals. It’s gonna be a long day and a long night.”

Maine’s Senator, Angus King, is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, so no tribal loyalties prompted his eloquent speech.

“This bill is a farce. Imagine a bunch of guys sitting around a table, saying, ‘I’ve got a great idea. Let’s give $32,000 worth of tax breaks to a millionaire and we’ll pay for it by taking health insurance away from lower-income and middle-income people. And to top it off, how about we cut food stamps, we cut SNAP, we cut food aid to people?’… I’ve been in this business of public policy now for 20 years, eight years as governor, 12 years in the United States Senate. I have never seen a bill this bad. I have never seen a bill that is this irresponsible, regressive, and downright cruel.

When I worked here in the 70’s, I had insurance as a…junior staff member in this body 50 years ago. Because I had that insurance that covered a free checkup, I went in and had my first physical in eight years…and the doctors found a little mole on my back. And they took it out. And I didn’t think much of it. And I went in a week later and the doctor said, ‘You better sit down, Angus. That was malignant melanoma. You’re going to have to have serious surgery.’… And I had the surgery and here I am. If I hadn’t had insurance, I wouldn’t be here. And it’s always haunted me that some young man in America that same year had malignant melanoma, he didn’t have insurance, he didn’t get that checkup, and he died. That’s wrong. It’s immoral.

I don’t understand the obsession and I never have…with taking health insurance away from people. I don’t get it. Trying to take away the Affordable Care Act in 2017 or 2018 and now this. What’s driving this? What’s the cruelty to do this, to take health insurance away from people knowing that it’s going to cost them…up to and including…their lives.

After sharing those quotes, Richardson wrote that, “In fact, the drive to slash health insurance is part of the Republicans’ determination to destroy the modern government.” As she proceeded to remind her readers, that effort has been brewing for many, many years–going back to Grover Norquist, then a lawyer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Norquist believed that government should enforce contracts and protect people from bodily harm. Period. Taxes–in his warped worldview–were theft, not dues owed as a consequence of membership.

To Norquist and his ideological heirs, there is no We the People. There are only individuals, some of whom will prosper and others who will fail. Too bad for the lame, the halt, the marginalized…it’s the law of the jungle, not of civilization, and it’s the “system” today’s GOP endorses.

Richardson closed her Letter with this quote from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

This place feels to me, today, like a crime scene. Get some of that yellow tape and put it around this chamber. This piece of legislation is corrupt. This piece of legislation is crooked. This piece of legislation is a rotten racket. This bill cooked up in back rooms, dropped at midnight, cloaked in fake numbers with huge handouts to big Republican donors. It loots our country for some of the least deserving people you could imagine. When I first got here, this chamber filled me with awe and wonderment. Today, I feel disgust.

Many of us feel that disgust–and fear.

Comments

Legacy Media Bends The Knee

The Right’s propaganda ecosystem is a huge problem. The spinelessness and cowardice of today’s legacy media is arguably worse.

A week or so ago, I argued that Trumpism has been aided by the inadequacy of our mainstream, “legacy” outlets. As I pointed out, there’s a reason that so many professional journalists have decamped to places like Substack– a reason why so many of us depend upon daily reports from reputable scholars like Heather Cox Richardson and Paul Krugman. My complaint was aimed at news reporting that “sanewashes” and normalizes behaviors that are objectively insane and abnormal, and as an example, I cited NBC’s report of the attack on California Senator Alex Padilla when he tried to ask Homeland Security’s Kristi Noem a question. Tom LLamas repeated Noem’s  assertion that the Senator had failed to identify himself–but made no mention of the fact that widely available video of the incident showed that Padilla had in fact done so. 

It wasn’t a “one-off.”

A couple of nights ago, NBC reported on the status of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” and rather than describing any of the truly horrific elements that explain public resistance to that legislation–its vast increase in the deficit or the millions who stand to lose healthcare– it reported that the bill would “reduce taxes,” and ignored the fact that those reductions would lopsidedly benefit the rich. 

NBC’s evident fear of incurring Trump’s wrath–its “compliance in advance”– pales, of course, in light of Paramount’s recent agreement to pay off the Mafia Don who occupies the Oval Office. Paramount has been in the process of an $8 billion merger with Skydance, for which it needs regulatory approval. The company settled a lawsuit with Trump that was so ridiculous that a first-year law student could have predicted it would have been laughed out of court. (Trump sued over what he claimed was unfair editing in a 60 Minutes interview of Kamala Harris.)

Paramount’s agreement to pay sixteen million dollars for dismissal of this laughable threat was widely–and accurately– seen as a kickback that will allow the merger to go forward. It was payment for a government approval–in other words, a bribe. CBS thus joined Disney (the parent company of ABC News) another part of the mainstream media that has bent the knee to our gangster President.

An opinion piece in the Washington Post summed up the betrayal of 60 Minutes and professional journalism.

After “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens in April announced his resignation, correspondent Scott Pelley said on air, “Our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

Honest journalism requires noting that Paramount’s leaders will never, ever hear the end of this abject decision. Nor should they. Much has been made in the recent past about attacks on the First Amendment, whether it’s the administration’s expulsion of the Associated Press from the White House press pool because it won’t swallow “Gulf of America” (a dispute that’s tied up in the courts); the targeting of student protesters for their speech; attacks on lawyers for their past work; or any number of actions seeking to snuff diversity language from the handbooks of corporate America.

There is ample case law establishing the right of editors to choose what material they publish and the manner in which they cover public issues and officials. “That very function — the one that happens many times a day at newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, networks, social media accounts, newsletters, whatever — is what Paramount failed to stick up for. It doesn’t deserve the likes of “60 Minutes.”

So here we are. We’re awash in propaganda from Fox News and its even more pernicious clones. And now we’ve learned that we can’t depend upon the so-called legacy media to set the record straight. Sometimes, it’s sins of omission–NBC failing to provide even rudimentary “both sides” coverage. Increasingly, it’s the betrayal of the very purpose of journalism, which is to inform as accurately and completely as possible.

It’s one thing to make honest mistakes. It’s another thing entirely to allow your bottom line to dictate your coverage. 

America’s experience under Trump has made one thing abundantly clear: American institutions are filled with self-protective cowards devoid of integrity. Those cowards dominate Congress and corporate boardrooms. The lesson of Paramount’s shameful capitulation to our gangster President’s blackmail is that corporate ownership of previously reliable media outlets  deprives We the People of news we can trust.

Unfortunately, without a fully and accurately informed electorate, democracy cannot exist.

Comments

Sauce For The Goose…None For The Gander

Remember Leona Helmsley, and her infamous statement that “the rules are for the little people”? The Trump administration clearly follows her philosophy, crafting rules that are intended to apply only to “those” people.

The Guardian has reported on a June 11th Justice Department directive that would allow authorities to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship for certain “criminal offenses.” And what are those criminal offenses? Murder? Theft? Arson? Probably not. According to the memo, attorneys in the department can institute proceedings to revoke someone’s United States citizenship if it can be demonstrated that the individual “illegally procured” naturalization, or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.”

Evidently, failure to completely answer questions (“completely” can be in the eye of the beholder) during the naturalization process is sufficiently criminal to justify revocation of a person’s citizenship. (The article did make me think: if a factual omission is a crime serious enough to strip someone of citizenship, wouldn’t being convicted of, say, 32 felonies also be enough? But I digress.) 

The directive creates a process that significantly lightens the burden on the prosecutor. According to the memo, the proceedings are civil, so it emphasizes that the accused would not be entitled to an attorney. Also, since the proceedings are civil, the government has a lighter burden of proof than it would in criminal cases.

The overblown rhetoric of the proposal says prosecutors will focus on people involved “in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses … [and] naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the US”. But justice department attorneys are given wide discretion on when to pursue denaturalization; the directive specifically includes instances of lying on immigration forms.

The justice department’s civil rights division has been placed at the forefront of Trump’s policy objectives, including ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs within the government as well as ending transgender treatments, among other initiatives.

Well, as long as lying qualifies, let’s look at a couple of high-profile people who should be ripe for denaturalization. For example Vox has identified some questionable aspects of Melania Trump’s immigration process. 

The article reported that Melania broke immigration law when she first came to the U.S. in 1996. She entered the country on a tourist visa and then worked as a professional model–work that violated the terms of that visa. Perhaps she didn’t know better, but–as the Vox article notes–it is also entirely “possible that Melania knowingly committed visa fraud; that, in fact, she lied to US immigration officials when entering the country in August 1996 about her intentions to work while in the US. That’s not just an immigration violation but an outright federal crime.”

Either way, in order for Melania to have gotten a green card and then US citizenship, she would have had to attest that she hadn’t violated immigration law before — something that now appears to be untrue.

And speaking of “ongoing threats to the U.S.,” what about Donald’s no longer-BFF, Elon Musk? According to Forbes,

Long before he became one of Donald Trump’s biggest donors and campaign surrogates, South African-born Elon Musk worked illegally in the United States as he launched his entrepreneurial career after ditching a graduate studies program in California, according to former business associates, court records and company documents obtained by The Washington Post,” reported Maria Sacchetti, Faiz Siddiqui and Nick Miroff.

 The reporters found Musk “did not have the legal right to work” when he founded and attracted investment with his brother Kimbal for a company later named Zip2. Kimbal Musk has long been open about their lack of legal status, even explaining in a video interview that he lied when crossing the U.S.-Canadian border so he could attend a business meeting in Silicon Valley. Immigration attorney Ira Kurzban said, “That’s fraud on entry.” He noted that Elon Musk’s brother could have been permanently barred from the United States. Instead, he became CEO of Musk’s first company.

“(Elon) Musk arrived in Palo Alto in 1995 for a graduate degree program at Stanford University but never enrolled in courses, working instead on his startup,” according to the Washington Post. That means Musk committed at least two immigration violations. First, by failing to take courses, he violated his student status. Second, he did not have authorization to work legally in the United States.

Somehow, I doubt the Justice Department’s new directive will cause trouble for these particular scofflaw’s. After all, they’re White–and the Trump administration is all about selective enforcement of those pesky rules.

Comments

Mamdani And “Leftism”

Last Tuesdaay, Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, and the usual subjects immediately went into high gear, once again demonstrating that American politics has become all about labeling rather than policy analysis. The mere fact that Mamdami identifies as a Democratic Socialist (along with Bernie Sanders) was enough to set the Right raving about a communist takeover of the Big Apple. 

Over the past decades, the political Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that policy proposals that once appealed to liberal Republicans (back when the GOP was a political party rather than a semi-fascist cult) are now labeled “far Left.” 

Take Mamdani’s support for free bus service. My husband and I met when we both served in the very Republican Hudnut Administration–I was Corporation Counsel, he was Director of Metropolitan Development. Reporters who covered City Hall (we had those back then) considered both of us “right of center.” He has long been a proponent of free bus service, for a number of reason related to the environment and urban development.

I tend to disagree with Mamdani’s support of rent controls, which have been in place in New York since 1920, and have been supported by New York Mayors for years. I think those controls ultimately disincentivize new construction. I agree with his other proposals for increasing the housing supply–and find his concerns for housing affordability laudable–and in any sane world, centrist.

What about grocery stores for food deserts? Here in Indianapolis, in the middle of Red Indiana, lawmakers have suggested a variety of government supports for our own underserved areas–not actual municipal grocery stores, but not government “benign neglect” either.

Let’s face it–the American Left is far, far to the Right of the European Left, and bears absolutely no resemblance to communism. Right-wingers conflating them rely on Americans’ (admittedly widespread) political ignorance.

Of course, a good deal of the hysteria over Mamdani’s win is really anti-Muslim sentiment promoted by our own Taliban-like Christian Nationalists. (And I won’t even dignify the efforts to paint his entirely defensible opinions on Gaza as anti-Semitic.)

Mamdani’s victory ought to trigger a reconsideration of a foundational political issue: What is the nature of the social and physical infrastructure that government should provide? And in a federated system, which level of government should be responsible for which pieces of that infrastructure?

What sorts of “socialism” should cities provide?

Over the years, Americans–especially in our more densely-populated cities–have learned that we need to provide police and fire safety communally, that public health requires, among other things, communal provision of garbage collection. Sewers are built and maintained by public and/or semi-public entities;  until the GOP’s “privatization” efforts, public schools were understood to be a public necessity.

I haven’t seen people advocate for private provision of streets, sidewalks and traffic controls–and although a few libertarians have complained that libraries should be replaced by bookstores and public parks by private clubs, very few citizens agree. 

We don’t call those and numerous other public amenities “socialism,” but of course, they are. They are socialized services, paid for with our tax dollars.

Back when people running for public office cared about policy rather than power, political disputes were essentially about the nature and extent of the physical and social infrastructure that governments should provide, and how that provision should be structured, managed and paid for. What level of government should handle air traffic, food safety, disaster relief? What functions are more properly handled at the state or local level? Have demographic or social changes altered the considerations that led to prior decisions?

We have almost entirely abandoned those very important, very foundational questions in the midst of our existential battle to forestall a rolling coup, but ultimately, those are the questions that lawmakers must confront. They are the questions–and his answers to them– that Mamdani elevated in the recent New York primary. Political discourse in this country has become so divorced from actual policy that rather than engaging with his issues, rather than debating the merits of his proposals, the reaction to his campaign was name-calling. 

I don’t know whether Mamdani–whose experience in government is thin–will be an effective Mayor of the country’s most immense city. That issue, it seems to me, is legitimate. Mounting objections to his proposals based upon facts and evidence is also legitimate. But the critics who are engaging in labeling and name-calling have adopted Trump’s approach to politics–an approach mimicking the tactics of schoolyard bullies and five-year-olds and entirely divorced from the real issues of governance.

Comments

Suicide By MAGA

Most of us have read about “suicide by cop”–a (hopefully rare) situation where someone desiring death purposely provokes a standoff with police. I don’t think MAGA cult members are that intentional, but I do think the result will be the same. The pandemic was a precursor: data shows that the MAGA science-deniers who refused to be vaccinated against COVID died in far greater numbers than more sane Americans.

Who coined that phrase “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”?

The Trump administration has already taken a meat-ax to medical research, derailing promising research into cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s and other deadly diseases. Those cuts will hurt all of us–Red and Blue alike. But as Paul Krugman recently pointed out, the administration’s radical changes in social spending, immigration policy and tariffs won’t simply hurt tens of millions of Americans — they will land disproportionately on Red, rural Americans.

The first thing you need to understand is that while rural Americans like to think of themselves as self-reliant, the fact is that poorer, more rural states are in effect heavily subsidized by richer states like Massachusetts and New Jersey.

This reality makes it inevitable that the standard conservative fiscal agenda — tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor and middle class — hurts the heartland more than it hurts major metropolitan areas. But MAGA’s Reverse Robin Hoodism goes far beyond the standard conservative agenda, in ways that will be especially devastating to rural areas and small towns.

I’ve previously posted about Trump’s horrendous “Big Beautiful Bill” that will rob the poor to further enrich the wealthy. The bill contains savage cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, programs that will hurt all poor folks; but will disproportionately devastate Trump-supporting rural areas.

Krugman notes that Medicaid is a far more important program than most Americans realize.

Almost 40 percent of children are covered by Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in deep red states like Alabama and Mississippi. Medicaid pays for 42 percent of births in America. And more to my point, Medicaid covers a higher fraction of the population in rural than in urban counties. So deep cuts in the program will hit Trump-supporting regions especially hard.

Ditto the impact of the drastic cuts to food stamps.

Many people–even those who are opposed to the “Big Beautiful Bill”– fail to recognize its very foreseeable impact on rural hospitals.  Hospitals in areas with low population density and a high percentage of patients who cannot pay for care struggle to stay open even now. Without Medicaid reimbursements at current levels, most will close. 

Most of us also fail to understand the role that Medicaid and Medicare spending play in supporting what Krugman calls “rural and left-behind local economies.”

For example, the economy of West Virginia no longer rests on coal mining, which employs very few people these days. It would be more accurate to say that the foundation of West Virginia’s economy is federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. That is, in deep red West Virginia, Medicare and Medicaid are directly and indirectly a major source of income.

We are already seeing the impact of Trump’s immigration vendetta on the nation’s farmers.  Our agriculture relies heavily on hired workers, and some two thirds of those workers are immigrants–most of whom are undocumented. Farmers are already seeing the results of the threat: even workers who are legal residents or native-born citizens feel unsafe from the ICE goons who very clearly think all Brown people are illegal immigrants–so we see growing reports of workers decamping out of fear of arrest and deportation.

And then there’s the trade war.

In case you haven’t noticed, Trump hasn’t yet delivered a single one of the 90 trade deals he promised to negotiate by July 8. China has already retaliated, and others will follow. And U.S. agriculture is highly dependent on exports…

While many are now realizing that Trump’s policies will produce social and economic disaster, relatively few understand that the disaster will fall disproportionately on rural Trump voters. But of course it will. For the purveyor of Trump bibles and Trump meme coins, screwing the little guy has always been his personal style of grift. It remains to be seen if rural Trump supporters will awaken from their naivete.

Krugman is kinder than I am. I have given up any illusion that Trump voters are merely naive or uninformed. I’m pretty sure that MAGA voters are so wedded to their racism and grievance that they will support their own suicide if that’s what it takes to “own the libs.” 

Comments