He certainly has breathed new life into the demonstration of hypocrisy….
Example #1: Readers of this blog need not be reminded that McConnell absolutely refused to even consider a sitting President’s Supreme Court nominee –an unprecedented assault on constitutional norms. And yet, when Chuck Schumer threatened to return the favor (albeit with a caveat: the Democrats would not stonewall a moderate candidate, only a radical one), he proclaimed that “the American public” wouldn’t stand for such dastardly behavior.
Um…any mirrors in your house, Mitch?
Example #2: The Senate is preparing to schedule hearings on Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. However, a number of them have not turned in the documentation required for the FBI’s background check, and the Office of Government Ethics has raised objections to the speed with which McConnell wants to proceed. (He is “pooh poohing” the Office’s insistence on complete documentation prior to going forward with the hearings.)
This sudden desire to accommodate a President-Elect is especially interesting in light of a letter McConnell wrote to Harry Reid prior to hearings on President Obama’s nominees. In that letter–which recently surfaced–McConnell set out a list of demands that absolutely had to be met prior to the Senate giving any consideration to those nominees.
McConnell wrote that “we expect the following standards will be met:
The FBI background check is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review prior to a hearing being noticed.
The Office of Government Ethics letter is complete and submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a committee hearing.
Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the committee prior to a hearing being noticed.
All committee questionnaires are complete and have been returned to the committee. A reasonable opportunity for follow-up questions has been afforded committee members, and nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior to a committee vote.
The nominee is willing to have committee staff interviews, where that has been the practice.
The nominee has had a hearing.
The nominee agrees to courtesy visits with members when requested.
The nominee has committed to cooperate with the Ranking Member on requests for information and transparency.
There’s more, but you get the idea.
Now, I really have no objection to any of these requirements; I think they are appropriate. Evidently, Mitch McConnell (aka “turtle man”) also thought they were appropriate–when the nominations were being made by a Democratic President.
Suddenly, they are no longer necessary safeguards to protect American citizens from malfeasance or worse. (I’m sure the fact that McConnell’s wife is one of those nominees has nothing to do with this 180 degree change…)
How does this disgusting excuse for a human being sleep at night?
One thing we can say with confidence about the incoming Administration: anyone who still thinks Trump and his cronies are going to “drain the swamp” are beyond delusional.
The latest evidence that we are getting ready to turn the keys to the country over to a pack of looters and con men (and women) comes via reports that Trump is planning to find a White House position for Pam Bondi.
In case you don’t remember, Bondi is the Florida Attorney General whose office was preparing to investigate claims against Trump University when she accepted a sizable campaign contribution from The Donald, and suddenly concluded that there wasn’t really enough evidence to justify going forward with the intended lawsuit.
In 2016, Trump paid a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for an improper $25,000 donation from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to a campaign group supporting Bondi, who had solicited a contribution from Trump while her office was deciding whether to join a fraud lawsuit against Trump University. After receiving the donation, Bondi “inexplicably decided not to pursue charges against Trump University,” RedState writes, and Trump “held a posh fundraiser for Bondi at the infamous Mar-a-Lago estate.”
Bondi has claimed that she solicited the contribution before her office knew about the Trump University lawsuit, and that the investigation had never been brought to Bondi herself, that instead it had been considered by lower-level staff who made the decision not to pursue the case.
Even assuming the accuracy of Bondi’s version, however, an ethical lawyer would have returned the contribution when she was alerted to the conflict. Numerous media outlets reported upon the sequence of events and the illegal nature of the contribution. And a lawyer with any sensitivity to ethics–not to mention a political figure concerned with the appearance of impropriety– would not have allowed herself to benefit from a fundraiser held by a recent target of her office’s investigation.
Bondi is an attractive blond–I don’t know if she’s a “ten” in Trump-talk, but she’s probably at least a seven or eight–and physical appearance clearly counts with our incoming Commander in Chief. I’m sure he also finds her willingness to place political and financial considerations above the public service dimensions of her job to be equally attractive, judging from the gang (and I use the term advisedly) that he has assembled.
That swamp just keeps getting wetter…..No drain in sight.
The New Yorker ran an especially good cartoon recently: a man standing up in coach on a plane–and others evidently cheering him on–saying something like “Who else is fed up with the smug attitudes of the so-called pilots who fly this plane? Who else would prefer that I fly it?”
The parallels to our Presidential election are too obvious to require added discussion.
I thought about that cartoon when I read another airplane analogy, this time in connection with the Republicans’ hell-bent-for-leather determination to repeal the Affordable Care Act–aka “Obamacare”–without having the slightest idea what they will replace it with, without any evident concern for the more than twenty million people who will lose coverage, and without any concern for the financial chaos that even their allies have warned will ensue.
As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo put it:
“The AMA, which has been rather comically pro-Trump to date, came out today and told Republicans that they shouldn’t repeal Obamacare without a clear replacement. Notably, even two of the most conservative health care economists at AEI, came out yesterday and said that ‘repeal and delay’ would be a disaster. The truth is that ‘repeal and delay’ is the policy equivalent of taking off from JFK to Heathrow with 2,000 miles worth of gas and saying you’re going to figure it out en route. No one who knows anything about health care economics, even people who are staunch free marketeers and hate Obamacare, think that makes any sense.”
From time to time on this blog I have referred to my cousin, an eminent cardiologist (and former Republican). I consult him when addressing issues that require medical expertise that I lack. He has shared with me the following statements on the proposed repeal from both the AMA and the American College of Physicians:
Chicago, IL, January 3, 2017––The American Medical Association (AMA) released the following letter today to congressional leadership from Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President James L. Madara, MD, concerning legislative efforts to reform the health care system.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi:
On behalf of the physician and medical student members of the American Medical Association (AMA), I am writing regarding our ongoing commitment to reform of the health care system and potential legislative actions during the first months of the 115th Congress.
The AMA has long advocated for health insurance coverage for all Americans, as well as pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients. These policy positions are guided by the actions of the AMA House of Delegates, composed of representatives of more than 190 state and national specialty medical associations, and they form the basis for AMA consideration of reforms to our health care system.
Health system reform is an ongoing quest for improvement. The AMA supported passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because it was a significant improvement on the status quo at that time. We continue to embrace the primary goal of that law—to make high quality, affordable health care coverage accessible to all Americans. We also recognize that the ACA is imperfect and there a number of issues that need to be addressed. As such, we welcome proposals, consistent with the policies of our House of Delegates, to make coverage more affordable, provide greater choice, and increase the number of those insured.
In considering opportunities to make coverage more affordable and accessible to all Americans, it is essential that gains in the number of Americans with health insurance coverage be maintained.
Consistent with this core principle, we believe that before any action is taken through reconciliation or other means that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what will replace current policies. Patients and other stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy to new proposals so they can make informed decisions about whether it represents a step forward in the ongoing process of health reform.
We stand ready to work with you to continue the process of improving our health care system and ensuring that all Americans have access to high quality, affordable health care coverage.
Sincerely, James L. Madara, MD
Washington, DC, January 3, 2017––In a letter sent today to leaders in the Senate, the American College of Physicians (ACP) implored them to vote no on a budget resolution that would start the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The College cautioned that this process could destabilize coverage, resulting in tens of millions of Americans losing coverage, benefits and protections established by current law.
The letter expressed concern that the pathway established by the resolution, which will lead to a subsequent vote on a budget reconciliation bill to repeal major elements of the ACA, with the effective date of such repeal being delayed while Congress attempts to develop an acceptable replacement plan, is unworkable and disruptive.
“Independent and non–partisan analyses show that enactment of such a ‘repeal, delay and replace’ bill, especially without an alternative being offered now that could be thoroughly evaluated based on its impact on quality, access, and coverage, would create chaos in insurance markets, causing plans to pull out of the markets with more than 7 million losing coverage in 2017 alone,” said Nitin S. Damle, MD, MS, MACP, president of ACP in the letter. “Full repeal could result in nearly 60 million people becoming uninsured.”
ACP noted that the College welcomed the opportunity to make improvements in the law. Specifically ACP welcomes discussion of ways to stabilize insurance markets by bringing more young people into them without disadvantaging older and sicker patients; to expand consumer choice of insurance products and of physician and hospitals; to ensure network adequacy; to support state innovation including in Medicaid provided that current eligibility, benefits, and protections for current and future enrollees are not undermined, to reduce administrative burdens on physicians and their patients, and to support the critical role played by primary care physicians in providing accessible, high quality and cost–effective care to all types of patients.
“While we acknowledge that the ACA is not perfect (and no law is) and improvements to it can and should be made, our continued support for the ACA is grounded in the fact that it has reduced the uninsured rate to the lowest ever, a major stride toward providing affordable coverage to all Americans,” said Dr. Damle. “We encourage Congress to first put forward ideas for improvements rather than committing to a process that would repeal the ACA’s coverage and protections for many millions of people.”
Thursday morning, I blogged about a new tool for activism being developed by one of my sons, a web designer and developer living in Manhattan. I explained the underlying premise of the site and how it will work; I also noted that its utility is dependent upon the currency and accuracy of the information it will convey–information that will have to be provided by organizations working to protect Americans’ rights (ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc.) and by volunteers in each state.
After describing various features of the site–including ease of use–I made the following pitch for volunteers.
My son plans to roll out a beta test in Indiana later this month. BUT—and this is a big BUT—the usefulness of the tool he has worked so hard to create absolutely depends upon the information it will contain. In Indiana, that means that people who are knowledgeable about bills filed in the General Assembly need to insure that information is included and current; people aware of upcoming “direct actions” need to convey that information via the site.
This tool is free to use. The site will never have advertising, it is not an “organization” that will fundraise. It will never share private information about its users. It is meant to be an added “outreach” mechanism for organizations like Hoosier Environmental Council, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU—among many others. We hope–and expect–that those organizations will share information through the Activism Engine as well as their own websites.
As I mentioned, the plan is to “beta test” the site in Indiana, to see how it works, solicit feedback, and to fix any bugs before taking it national.
If this “one-stop-shop” for activism is to work, however, it needs dedicated volunteers who will post the necessary information. If you are interested in being one of those volunteers, or at least finding out what is involved, Please go to this url and fill out the form: https://ae.stephensuess.com/
At last count, 157 people have signed up, and the volunteers keep coming. To say that this level of response–after one post to one small blog– is gratifying would be an understatement. It’s particularly significant, in my opinion, because it suggests that people aren’t just expressing negative opinions of Trump et al and then going back to their normal routines; it’s a sign that many of them really are willing to put time and effort into resisting the GOP’s incredibly destructive agenda.
My son is currently sorting the responses by what volunteers have signed up for, and everyone who has filled out one of the forms will receive an email from him shortly.
I just want to thank everyone who signed up, forwarded the information, or otherwise participated in the effort to prepare for the launch. Once the beta test “rolls out,” which should be very soon, I’ll let everyone know.
It’s bad enough that every day brings a new outrage from those a reader of this blog aptly dubbed “the four horsemen of the apocalypse” –Trump, Pence, McConnell and Ryan. What is even more depressing at a time when our hopes for sanity lie with local resistance to the anti-intellectualism, self-dealing and demagoguery in Washington is news of similarly destructive behavior by state-level fools and toadies.
Remember Wisconsin’s Scott Walker? A perfect contemporary Republican–a corrupt lackey of big money, antagonistic to education, dismissive of science? Of course you do.
When I read a friend’s post to the effect that Wisconsin’s DNR webpage had been scrubbed clean of all uses of the word “climate”–and altered to imply a lack of scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming–I checked with Snopes.
Turned out to be true.
In a 26 December 2016 op-ed published by the digital newspaper Urban Milwaukee, environmental writer James Rowen reported that a section of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) web site, originally titled “Climate Change and Wisconsin’s Great Lake,” had been substantially altered:
Gone are references to known “human activities” contributing to a warming planet, warming’s contributions to changes in rainfall and snowfall patterns, extreme weather events, drought, species and economic losses are among other truths whitewashed off this official, taxpayer-financed website.
Snopes reproduced the former text, which had accurately reported the relevant science, and that which replaced it; the new language says that reasons for changing conditions “are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.”
Responding to our request for comment, Wisconsin DNR Communications Director James F Dick stated that their office’s official position is that the science is not settled and that the page was updated to reflect this view.
Of course, the science is settled. As Snopes concludes,
The overwhelming scientific consensus from the climatological community is that the climate is indeed warming and that human activity is contributing to that process.
Here’s what mystifies me: if the settled science is right, and we do not act, we will face massive planetary devastation. If the settled science is wrong, and we do act, the worst thing that will happen is we’ll get cleaner air and water, and cheaper and more renewable energy.
This doesn’t seem like a difficult choice.
Oh yes– fossil fuel companies will make less money. But I’m sure that has nothing to do with climate change denial….
When the history of this era is written–assuming there are survivors left to write that history–it will undoubtedly be called “the age of insanity.”
