Tag Archives: GOP

Listing The Obscenities

On Tuesday evening, I participated in a Zoom hosted by Indivisible of Central Indiana. It was focused on Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” and if you can stand yet another enumeration of that insult to Americans, I’m posting my comments below.

__________________-

As Heather Cox Richardson has said, the Republicans’ “One Big, Beautiful Bill” is MAGA’s attempt to replace the government we’ve had since the 1930s with one that reflects the goals of Project 2025.

It is also an effort to rob the poor to further enrich the wealthy.

The Bill is 1000+ pages, but in this brief presentation I want to highlight the major elements—and alert you to the fact that, despite the fact that it is billed as a “budget,” it has numerous, damaging non-fiscal provisions which should be ruled non-germane in the Senate, but may not be.

Before getting to the truly horrifying fiscal mischief, let me share with you some of the most egregious non-fiscal provisions:

  • A measure to cripple the courts by prohibiting any funding from being used to carry out court orders holding executive branch officials in contempt. Passage of this measure would enable Trump and his officials to defy court orders at will.
  • The addition of billions to various parts of Trump’s deportation efforts, ramping up those efforts to the tune of an additional trillion dollars That includes $45 billion for construction of immigration jails (more than 13 times ICE’s current detention budget.) In addition, it would allow the indefinite detention of immigrant children and would charge families $3,500 to reunite with a child who arrived alone at the border. Asylum seekers will be charged an “application fee” of at least $1,000.
  • The administration would be given authority to label nonprofits as “terrorist-supporting organizations,” and terminate their tax status- an open invitation to suppress the free speech and activism of climate and civil liberties organizations, among others of which Trump and MAGA disapprove.
  • The bill would eliminate the National Weather Service, making local weather reports far less accurate.
  • One provision would allow the administration to sell off national parks.
  • A particularly ugly provision repeals the $200 excise tax on the sale of gun silencers, which have no lawful purpose other than concealing shootings.

Other bits of “fine print” more directly support the major goal of the bill, which is, as I’ve noted, to protect the extremely wealthy against efforts to get them to pay their fair share of taxes–basically, the bill exempts rich people from paying their dues to the country that made their accumulation of wealth possible. (For example, the bill would basically eliminate an Estate Tax that is already massively favorable to the top 1%.)

The “guts” of the bill are the fiscal provisions. Basically, the bill is an effort to fund the extension of Trump’s tax cuts for the rich by eliminating health care for the poor and middle class.

The Congressional Budget office estimates that as many as 16 million people would lose health insurance under the House-passed version of the bill. The annual cuts to Medicaid would average over 70 billion dollars a year—the same amount millionaires and billionaires would gain in tax cuts. The media has focused on those Medicaid cuts, but a number of analysts have explained that measures that have been minimized as “technical revisions” would essentially repeal Obamacare.

Not only would millions of individuals lose their health insurance, the consequences of these cuts would close many, if not most, rural hospitals and would have a dramatically negative impact on local economies, ironically mostly in Red states like Indiana. Economists have estimated that depressed local spending under the House bill would force the loss of 850,000 jobs. (Health care is the largest employer of any sector of the economy; it employs 18 million workers.)

Republicans who claim that they’re just adding “work requirements” to Medicaid are lying—the budget cuts 715 billion from Medicaid and 335 billion from Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act). And prior experience in the states has demonstrated that work requirements do nothing but erect paperwork barriers that throw eligible people off Medicaid; as we’ve learned from those previous efforts, Medicaid recipients who are able to work are already working—most Medicaid recipients are disabled, elderly or children.

There’s much more. The bill weakens the Child Tax Credit, by lowering the eligibility income threshold, so millions of children will suddenly become ineligible. It expands school vouchers–continuing the GOP effort to destroy public education and shift tax dollars to religious institutions, in violation of the First Amendment. It includes a variety of “Stealth Cuts’ to the Affordable Care Act that will increase out-of-pocket costs and make insurance more expensive for those people who are fortunate enough to retain it.

As if the assault on poor folks wasn’t mean-spirited enough, the bill also has deep cuts to SNAP. The House-passed version would cut nearly $300 billion from SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. That would be by far the largest cut to SNAP in history, and it would mean that millions of low-income families would lose some or all of the food assistance they need to afford groceries and feed their children.

SNAP has been the nation’s most effective anti-hunger program, and the bill cuts it by roughly 30 percent. These extreme cuts are actually deeper than the $230 billion in cuts the original budget resolution called for because the bill adds tens of billions of dollars in new spending for farm programs, and pays for those dollars by taking more food assistance away from people with low incomes.

And despite the GOP’s purported concerns about budget deficits, the bill blows up the budget deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will increase borrowing by a total of $2.4 trillion by 2034, because the $1.3 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs don’t even come close to canceling out $3.7 trillion in tax cuts for the rich. Just the tax cuts going to the richest 5 percent outstrip the cuts to Medicaid and food stamps by 300 billion. If you add in interest costs, the total debt the bill creates exceeds $3 trillion.

This is just a horrible bill, and it needs to be defeated.

Comments

Things That Make Me Crazy

Can those who read this blog indulge me for three very personal rants?

We face so many major problems in this country right now (can we spell LA?) that it seems terribly self-indulgent to focus on a few annoying aspects of civic debate. On the other hand, I think at least a couple of the behaviors I find so exasperating are symptoms of the inability of We the People to productively address the bigger issues. (Anyway, that’s my justification and I’m sticking to it!)

#1. I recently posted about an emerging argument over regulation. Proponents of taking a closer look at our regulatory processes aren’t the knee-jerk GOP scolds who define “free market” as “free” from any government rules; the concern (as I said in that post) is to guard against over-kill. But I immediately got an email from an acquaintance saying, essentially, “finally, people are realizing that we need to get government out of the way!”

Now, I’ve known this particular correspondent for a long time, and he’s not stupid. But he drank the Kool-Aid back when the GOP’s plutocrats were insisting that government just needed to get out of the way and let good-hearted business-people run their enterprises as they see fit.

We’re beginning to see what that would look like, as planes fall from the sky.  Do we really want to get rid of FDA inspections to ensure that supermarket chickens are safe to eat?  Do we want to turn a blind eye to that factory discharging toxic waste into the local river? Stop requiring clinical trials before approving the sale of medications and vaccines?

Bottom line:  We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto! We don’t grow our own fruits and vegetables and go into the backyard to kill one of our own chickens for dinner. In a modern society, government regulations are essential.  As I said in my post, it isn’t an “either/or” proposition; policymakers need to determine what regulations are needed, and how much is too much. That’s a lot harder, of course, than spouting ideological idiocies.

#2. This platform, like so many others, is a place where people with different perspectives but generally similar civic goals come to argue about THE question: what should we do? What actions can citizens take in the face of an existential threat to the America we thought we inhabited? 

Those discussions may or may not be experienced as valuable, but one (probably inevitable) response drives me up the wall. It is the comment–in a lecturing tone–to the effect that such-and-such will clearly be ineffective, that it is simply “virtue-signaling” and unlikely to make any difference. It would be one thing if the person pouring cold water on a proposed activity ever followed up with a helpful, do-able suggestion–if the put-down was ever followed by a thoughtful “here’s what we should be doing instead,” but it never is.

One of the defects of Internet conversations is the absence of tone and body-language. Perhaps if we could see and hear the individuals who post these put-downs, they wouldn’t seem so sneering and self-important–but that is certainly what these “I know better than you and what you propose is stupid” comments convey.

#3.  I am OVER the Democrats who keep wallowing in “what went wrong” and “who was to blame” and “why the approach of those of you on the (insert ideological position) is dooming our chances in the future.” I am especially over the focus on Joe Biden, and the utterly stupid accusations of a “cover up”–as Robert Hubbell has pointed out, a “cover up” of the cognitive state of a man who was appearing daily at campaign events, delivering addresses to Congress where he outwitted the entire Republican caucus, providing interviews to major media outlets, and guiding America through a period of stable foreign relations and successful domestic policy. Biden aged in office –and we all saw that–but he was a transformational and incredibly effective President. Should he have withdrawn sooner? Probably. But for goodness sake, GIVE IT A REST. 

Meanwhile, we have a President whose election was at least partially due to the refusal of the mainstream press to give anything close to equal time to his embarrassing stupidity, his obvious mental illness (not to mention his age-related decline from what wasn’t a high bar to begin with). Even the aspects of his “character” (note quotation marks) that do receive coverage–his racism, his felonies, his rapes, his constant lies (are his lips moving?), his “out and proud” corruption –are still being normalized and sane-washed. WHY?

Okay. I’m done. Thanks for indulging me. I think I feel better.

Comments

Ends And Means

In governance, there are two basic questions: What and How. Our current political polarization is between the MAGA/Project 2025 ideologues who are focused on the “what,” and those of us who are intent upon protecting a Constitutional order prescribing “how.”

If there is one clear distinction between western constitutional systems, including ours, and the various dictatorships and theocracies around the globe, it is the formers’ emphasis on process. Indeed, we might justifiably characterize our Bill of Rights as a restatement of your mother’s admonition that how you do something is just as important as what you choose to do. Sometimes, more so.

The ends do not justify the means is an absolutely fundamental American precept.

This emphasis on process–the means– is widely acknowledged by political scientists. Whatever their other debates, there is a shared recognition that the American approach to legitimate governance is procedural.  We are a nation of laws that are meant to govern how we go about ordering our common lives.

Some twenty-plus years ago, Rick Perlstein made a point about the political parties that has only gotten more apt.

We Americans love to cite the “political spectrum” as the best way to classify ideologies. The metaphor is incorrect: it implies symmetry. But left and right today are not opposites. They are different species. It has to do with core principles. To put it abstractly, the right always has in mind a prescriptive vision of its ideal future world—a normative vision. Unlike the left (at least since Karl Marx neglected to include an actual description of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” within the 2,500 pages of Das Kapital), conservatives have always known what the world would look like after their revolution: hearth, home, church, a businessman’s republic. The dominant strain of the American left, on the other hand, certainly since the decline of the socialist left, fetishizes fairness, openness, and diversity. (Liberals have no problem with home, hearth, and church in themselves; they just see them as one viable life-style option among many.) If the stakes for liberals are fair procedures, the stakes for conservatives are last things: either humanity trends toward Grace, or it hurtles toward Armageddon…

For liberals, generally speaking, honoring procedures—the means—is at the very core of being “principled,” of acting with legitimacy. For conservatives, fighting for the desired outcomes—the ends—and, if necessary, at the expense of procedural niceties, is the definition of “principled.”

In a constitutional democracy, the franchise is first among the means. Democrats generally understand our system to be one in which citizens demonstrate their preference for “ends”–for policies–at the ballot box; accordingly, they believe that the more extensive the turnout, the more legitimate the ensuing legislative mandate.

Republicans–focused on ends–disagree. As the late New Right founding father Paul Weyrich once put it, “I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” 

Over the years, that difference between ends and means has become institutionalized within the two political parties. In states with Republican Attorneys general or Secretaries of State, like Indiana, those officials work to squeeze as many minority voters from the rolls as possible.  Republican state legislatures gerrymander to the greatest extent possible,  disenfranchising thousands of urban and liberal voters. (And yes, Democrats gerrymander too, but demonstrably much less.)

These moves strike Americans who were raised with the admonition that “it isn’t whether you win or lose, but how you play the game” as “dirty pool.” But they make all kinds of sense to people who believe they are trying to save civilization from hurtling toward an Armageddon where “those people” will replace the good White Christian men that God wants in charge.

Those True Believers represent a very significant element of the MAGA base. They don’t necessarily include the party overlords, but those pooh-bas recognize that their hold on power depends upon playing to the base’s beliefs. Today’s Republican officeholders agree with Machiavelli, who said “We ought to see clearly that the end does justify the means…If the method I am using to accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method.”

The Trump administration–with its attacks on due process, habeas corpus and the rule of law itself– is making the difference impossible to ignore.

Comments

Send This To Your Republican Senator Or Representative

Stuart Stevens is one of the “Never Trump” Republicans who established Lincoln Square Media. In a recent Substack newsletter, he traced the decline of the GOP into its current cult form, and described what he called “the great betrayal”–the squandering and shaming of the legacy left by former Republican defenders of freedom and liberty. Stevens bemoaned what he sees as MAGA’s dishonoring of the sacrifices made by the “greatest generation”–the soldiers who fought and died to defeat fascism in the second World War, of whom his father was one.

What struck me about this particular diatribe, however, wasn’t the understandable despair by a former partisan over the party’s abandonment of long-held principles. It was the following message, aimed directly at the spineless Republicans currently “serving” in the U.S. House and Senate.

As I read these four brief paragraphs, I became absolutely convinced that they hold a message that thousands of us should reproduce and send to the cowardly Republican Senators and Representatives who are refusing to do their jobs.

 We should never lose sight that Republicans can end the evil that is creeping over America at any time. No one is asking them to take a beach or charge a machine gun. No one is forcing them to support a president who Russia helped elect and now is delivering for Russia in ways that not even the most vodka-drenched FSB colonel dared hope. They can do what Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, and a handful of others have done. They stood up for what they knew was right, and lo and behold, they still walk the earth. They are not superhuman or Gods, just decent human beings. You could be the same.

Winston Churchill said of the Battle of Britain pilots, “Never was so much owed to so few.” To these cowardly Republicans, we can only say, “Never was so few to blame for so much.” The murdered innocents in Ukraine are your legacy. An America that votes in the U.N. with Russia and North Korea is your legacy. You go to bed and wake up, hoping that shame is an endangered species headed to extinction.

But you know you have failed the moral test of our time. You know the face you see in the mirror is a coward. You will be remembered without respect. You have allowed evil to sit at America’s table and feast on what is good and right about our country.

May God have mercy upon your souls. History will have none.

Read those paragraphs again. They distill the contempt so many of us feel for the political posturing and excuses that are offered by elected officials who are too timid to protect even their own legal and governing perquisites. Stevens isn’t taking aim at the Red State “true believers”–the racists, the White Christian Nationalists, the conspiracy theory buffoons. He isn’t expecting thoughtful  and considered action from the Marjorie Taylor Green/Jim Banks contingent, aka the “crazies.” He is describing the many Republicans who actually know that we have three branches of government, and that the Constitution has vested specific governmental powers to each of them.

He is reminding them that they have the legal and constitutional authority to stop the madness and destruction. All they have to do is use the powers that are constitutionally theirs. Congress could revoke the insane tariffs tomorrow. Congress could refuse to allow the Russian asset in the Oval Office to shame us, and continue to support Ukraine. Congress could begin investigations of the multiple corruptions that this lawless President doesn’t even try to hide (his solicitation of bribes via “sales” of his meme coins, to take just one example.)   

I don’t know whether Senator Jim Banks is a MAGA ideologue or simply corrupt in the Trump mold, but Indiana Senator Todd Young obviously understands how fraught America’s situation is. His discomfort with Trumpism, however, routinely dissipates when it’s time to cast a ballot–his vote to confirm the disastrous Pete Hegseth is only the most recent example.

Last week, some 300 Hoosiers rallied outside Young’s Indianapolis office. My sister participated. She has back problems and used a walker; the sign on that walker echoed Stuart Stevens’ message. It said “My spine isn’t perfect–but I have one.”

America could emerge from its precipitous national decline almost immediately-if Republicans in Congress regrew their spines. And it wouldn’t take all of them– a principled handful would be sufficient to put the brakes on Trump’s coup.

Stevens is right: God may or may not have mercy upon their souls, but history–and the rest of us– most definitely will not.

Comments

Hayek’s Warning

Among the many–many–frustrating elements of today’s political discourse is the media’s insistence on characterizing MAGA and the Trump administration as “conservative.” That consistent misuse of language is right up there with the persistent sanewashing of what any sentient American recognizes as insanity coming from he whom a friend recently called “that malignant moron.”

There are multiple ways in which today’s GOP is dramatically inconsistent with genuine conservatism. At the very least, people with a conservative philosophy are notable for wishing to conserve elements of society that have value. Indeed, one of the historic differences between conservatives and liberals has been the reluctance of conservatives to endorse social and institutional changes when the status quo has rather clearly outlived its usefulness.

Conservatives have also been believers in free trade–a belief endorsed by the Republican Party of the past.

True conservatives are thus appalled by the Trump/Musk radical destruction of America’s constitutional and legal framework–and by the incredible and destructive economic ignorance displayed by Trump’s fixation on tariffs.

One of the historical icons of genuine conservatism was Frederich Hayek; back when I was a Republican (and Republicans were largely conservatives, not ignorant racists), Hayek’s Road to Serfdom was required reading for conservative intellectuals, so I was interested to read a recent Bulwark column by Charlie Sykes, in which he noted that Hayek had addressed the reasons for the periodic emergence of Trump-like figures.

Sykes quoted Roger Kimball, for a 2016 essay titled “How Hayek Predicted Trump With His ‘Why the Worst Get on Top’.” (Sykes notes that Kimball has subsequently joined those who fawn over “Dear Leader.”)

The Austrian-born economist and classical liberal, who played such a central role in the emergence of American free market conservatism, had a keen understanding of the temptations of authoritarianism. That’s what makes his warnings seem so prescient. “’Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded,” he wrote. Hayek’s chapter on “Why the Worst Get on Top” in his classic work, The Road to Serfdom, diagnosed the populist impulse that would lead to the demand for ceding power to a “man of action.” This is “the position which precedes the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime.” At some point in a political or economic crisis, there “is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action’s sake the goal. It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough ‘to get things done’ who exercises the greatest appeal….”

Hayek described several preconditions for the rise of a demagogic dictator, including a dumbed down populace, a gullible electorate, and scapegoats on which that demagogue can focus public enmity and anger.

Hayek thought that the more educated a society was, the more diverse members’ tastes and values would become, and the less likely they would be to agree on a particular hierarchy of values.  He observed that the desire to create a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook in society requires descending “to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail.”

But in a modern society, potential dictators might be able to rely on there being enough of “those whose uncomplicated and primitive instincts,” to support his efforts. As a result, Hayek said, he “will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed.” Here is where propaganda comes into play. The “man of action,” Hayek wrote, “will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”

Hayek predicted MAGA in his description of the third and most important element of demagoguery: the need to identify an enemy. It is easier, he noted, “for people to agree on a negative programme, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the “they”, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action.” If you want the “unreserved allegiance of huge masses” you must give them something to hate.

There are some things our “malignant moron” knows instinctively…

There are a number of labels we might apply to Trump’s supporters. “Conservative” isn’t one of them.

Comments