Monday, March 27, 2017

Lies, Critical Thinking, Conservatives And... Señor Trumpanzee, So-Called Presidente


Let's take a very quick look at 2 random lies, one inconsequential trump bullshit and one a keystone to the conservative policy agenda. First Trump's bullshit: In Renovation of Golf Club, Donald Trump Also Dressed Up History:
When Donald J. Trump bought a fixer-upper golf club on Lowes Island here for $13 million in 2009, he poured millions more into reconfiguring its two courses. He angered conservationists by chopping down more than 400 trees to open up views of the Potomac River. And he shocked no one by renaming the club after himself.

But that wasn’t enough. Mr. Trump also upgraded its place in history.

Between the 14th hole and the 15th tee of one of the club’s two courses, Mr. Trump installed a flagpole on a stone pedestal overlooking the Potomac, to which he affixed a plaque purportedly designating “The River of Blood.”

“Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot,” the inscription reads. “The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’”

The inscription, beneath his family crest and above Mr. Trump’s full name, concludes: “It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River!”

Like many of Mr. Trump’s claims, the inscription was evidently not fact-checked.

“No. Uh-uh. No way. Nothing like that ever happened there,” said Richard Gillespie, the executive director of the Mosby Heritage Area Association, a historical preservation and education group devoted to an 1,800-square-mile section of the Northern Virginia Piedmont, including the Lowes Island site.

“The only thing that was remotely close to that,” Mr. Gillespie said, was 11 miles up the river at the Battle of Ball’s Bluff in 1861, a rout of Union forces in which several hundred were killed. “The River of Blood?” he added. “Nope, not there.”

...“How would they know that?” Mr. Trump asked when told that local historians had called his plaque a fiction. “Were they there?”

Paul Ryan's lie-- repeated buy every Republicans who could grab a microphone in the run-up to the GOP's humiliation over TrumpCare last week-- about the Affordable Care Act being in a "death spiral" was more serious and, potentially, more consequential. PolitiFact dissected Ryan's focus-group tested lie and labeled it False. "A death spiral," they wrote, "is a health industry term for a cycle with three components-- shrinking enrollment, healthy people leaving the system and rising premiums. The latest data shows enrollment is increasing slightly and younger (typically healthier) people are signing up at the same rate as last year. And while premiums are increasing, that isn’t affecting the cost to most consumers due to built-in subsidies. So none of the three criteria are met, much less all three. We rate Ryan’s claim False."

The GOP reacts to Science and Facts the way vampires react to crucifixes and garlic

DWT readers may know cognitive psychologist and neuroscientist Dan Levitin from his guest posts here or as the best-selling author of This Is Your Brain On Music, but he has a new book out now, A Field Guide To Lies: Critical Thinking In The Information Age and last week the Daily Beast asked him to help it's readers understand the importance of "the F-word," F as in facts, in light of the growing and dangerous problem our political leadership seems to be having with it. Levitin referred to the onset of the Trump Era as "troubling times... to those of us who care about details and facts... We are told by the highest office in the country that facts don’t matter, that those who think they have facts are corrupt, and that 'alternative facts' is a thing (it isn’t). All of these various euphemisms we’ve been hearing, such as alt.truth and fake news, are just obscuring the reality that we are neck deep in lies. My job as a neuroscientist is to help understand how people come to hold the beliefs they do (it’s even in my job description)."
Why do we find so much emotional resonance in lies? There are four reasons that derive from our evolutionary history. We are a social species with relationships built on trust. But there have always been people who would take advantage of us and abuse our trust. No one wants to be a chump. These two instincts-- to trust others but to be suspicious of cheaters-- guide much of our behavior today, and they hang in an uneasy balance. If a (trusted) friend tells us that another person is cheating us, we take it seriously. Cheaters get ahead at our expense-- on the savannah, in the board room or in the bedroom. These are emotional issues, not logical ones. And emotional issues have priority over our brain’s attention.

The second reason is that our brains are wired to err on the side of caution. If that rustling in the grass is a snake I’m better off jumping away than staying put. The cost of doing so is minimal, but the cost of being wrong could be deadly. On encountering information that could tip one way or another, we put our guard up; we become skeptical of the status quo. We try to find facts that line up behind the story.

And this dovetails with the third reason we tend to find lies attractive: we are a pattern-detecting species. This serves us well much of the time, but not all of the time. The problem is that we detect patterns where they don’t exist. We’re told that Capricorns are stubborn. We know some Capricorns and agree that they’re stubborn. But wait! This is not an unbiased, logical way to collect information. To know whether there really is a pattern or not, we’d need to look at all the stubborn people we know and see what their signs are. If you look at the big picture in this way, you’ll find that all traits are equally distributed across all astrological signs-- there’s no pattern in the aggregate, it’s just that a few vivid examples deceive us into thinking there might be one.

Pattern detection also fools us when we get to thinking that correlation and causation are the same thing. Just because two things co-occur, or one follows the other, doesn’t mean that first one caused the second one. We don’t vaccinate children until they reach a certain age because that’s when their bodies can handle immunization. And we can’t diagnose autism until a certain age because, by definition, autism is a delay in normal development-- we need to wait long enough to detect it. And so it happens that a child diagnosed with autism will have received a vaccination before the diagnosis. Of the millions of children who get the MMR vaccine, only a small percentage become diagnosed with autism. And the same proportion of children who don’t get the MMR vaccine are also diagnosed with autism. But our pattern detectors are not equipped to make such reasoned judgments. We need what Daniel Kahneman calls our slow system for that, and that takes deliberate training and practice.

The fourth factor is that we tend to have source amnesia for information we acquire-- we remember the fact (or pseudo-fact) but forget where we heard it. It can take weeks for information to become firmly encoded in long-term memory, and during that encoding process, the information is labile, and repetition can cause it to become stronger. If the source is later discredited, it is very difficult for us to correct the neural record.

So here’s the good news: there are simple things all of us can do to become more rational decision makers, and to avoid being taken in by liars and con-artists who prey on ignorance.

First is education. Education works. And the great thing about it is that it works across all ages and backgrounds. A study from North Carolina State University, led by Dr. Alicia McGill found that explicitly teaching critical thinking skills during a semester significantly reduced students’ belief in pseudoscientific, nonsense claims, compared to a control group. Also relevant is the work of Keith Stanovich, of the University of Toronto. He has developed the rationality quotient or RQ, a measure separate from the IQ (intelligence quotient). And it turns out that you can be very high in RQ and low in IQ, or vice-versa. We need to teach students to build up their RQ. We need to teach evidence-based thinking in K-12 schools and in colleges. And we all need to practice them every day. Fortunately, the current news cycle is giving us much to practice with.

The second thing we can do is to seek out good models for evidence-based thinking. William F. Buckley’s Firing Line was an excellent example of modelling-- whether you agreed with Buckley’s conservative positions or not, the program showed all of us what civilized debate and critical evaluation of the facts look like. We have few if any analogues of that today. Television networks and other content providers won’t make them if there’s no demand for them-- we need to ask for them, for the benefit of all.

The third thing is to pay attention to sources as we encounter new information, and work deliberately to encode them. Ask yourself: is this a reliable source, is the information current, is the person who is posing as an expert actually an expert? Before clicking the thumbs up button on forwarding a social network post, we should each try to figure out if it’s true or not first. We can overcome source memory if we think more like a journalist, scientist or lawyer: who told you that? How do they know?

Finally, it is important that all of us participate in our own information literacy and take an active role in inquiry. As President Obama noted in his exit speech, democracy is neither free nor easy. It demands our participation. We need to think for ourselves-- systematically, rationally-- and we need to support those institutions who help us to do so: an independent judiciary and an independent press. And we should not be complacent in accepting nonsense. Dissent is not disloyalty. We don’t want to be driven by fear into an age of unreason.

Trump is now widely viewed by Americans-- though not by his most hardcore supporters-- as a flat-out liar. Every week his credibility with the public sinks lower and lower. Republican congressmen and staffers who dealt with him on health care report universally that he was all bullshit and bluster and utterly devoid of substance and that he was unaware about what the provisions of TrumpCare even were, let alone how the would impact the nation-- or even the poor schleps who got bamboozled into voting for him. Maybe that's why that new Gallup tracking poll (directly above) shows his job approval rating at 36%, the lowest I can remember any president having since Nixon's lowest ebb, just before he was forced to resign in disgrace. People have limited tolerance for habitual liars. It seems to have finally caught up with Trump.

Goal Thermometer Dan gave us a personally autographed copy of his new book, A Field Guide To Lies, and we're going to give it away to a randomly chosen Blue America contributor who donates any amount-- whether a dollar or $1,000-- to any of the members of Congress on out list of the most effective congressional resistance fighters. You'll find the list by tapping on the ActBlue thermometer on the right. Just make your contribution to the member or members of your choice and within the next 24 hours, we'll randomly select one name and send her or him the autographed book. (Note: Dan's favorite congressman is Ted Lieu, but that doesn't matter one way or the other for this fun little contest. Give a couple of bucks to Ted if you believe in what he's doing, but that isn't going to influence who wins the signed book. Dan doesn't even get to know who gets chosen until after the "contest" is over and the book is on the way to the winner.)

Labels: , ,

Senate Democrats Will Filibuster Gorsuch...Maybe


Demos President Heather McGhee on Neil Gorsuch and his corporatist policies (cued partway into the presentation)

by Gaius Publius

There a long litany of reasons why Neil Gorsuch is a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, including and especially his strong "corporatist" leanings. Demos President Heather McGhee speaks about that in the brief video above. Needless to say, continuing the Roberts Court pattern of enabling corporate rule over rule by the people will have dangerous consequences for those so ruled, as well as for the Republic, when that rule is overthrown. Make no mistake — when corporate rule finally go too far, takes one step too many, it will be overthrown. When that occurs, the moment will be neither pretty nor comfortable.

Another in that litany of reasons, of course, is to deny to the Republicans the fruits of a stolen seat.

Yet a third has to do with his relationship with religion, as shown in the Hobby Lobby case. As the invaluable Dahlia Lithwick points out, "Our current religious-liberty jurisprudence, as laid out by the Supreme Court in its Hobby Lobby opinion, is extremely deferential toward religious believers. What believers assert about their faith must not be questioned or even assessed. Religious dissenters who seek to be exempted from neutral and generally applicable laws are given the benefit of the doubt, even when others are harmed. Sometimes those harms are not even taken into account." She adds, "Gorsuch agrees with all of this and then some. His record reflects a pattern of systematically privileging the rights of religious believers over those of religious minorities and nonbelievers."

And a fourth, related to the first, is that, as Lithwick has elsewhere pointed out [corrected: it was Eric Segall] that the Supreme Court, unlike the other two branches of government, has no compelling force to guarantee its legitimacy — no army, in other words; no police force. Its legitimacy rests on agreement only.

Consider: You may think Executive Branch decisions are illegitimate, but its officers can nevertheless have you arrested or worse. The Executive Branch, in other words, can force, can compel, your submission. The same with Congress, should it decide someday to advance its prerogatives. Congress can pass laws and, if it wishes, compel the Executive Branch to enforce them. The Supreme Court, in contrast, has no way to compel any citizen to obey its decrees.

When a court, any court, which by definition should be impartial, is widely considered illegitimate — captured and corrupted by partisan or minority forces — the community governed by that court enters "you can submit or rebel" territory. This is Segall's warning. In my view we are very close to that time when the Supreme Court, in the eyes of most of its citizens, has shed the last of its legitimacy. The process started in earnest with the partisan theft, by the Court, of the 2000 presidential election. The decay of its cloak of legitimacy continues to this day.

This suggest a larger consideration, of course — what happens when a government loses the "consent of the governed," but that's a subject for another day. Nevertheless, with all that's going on around us, can that consideration, something much to be feared by anyone hoping to live in a just and orderly society, ever be far from our minds?

A "Deal" on Gorsuch?

But I want here to look at one political aspect of the Gorsuch nomination — the fact that the Democrats, one of the abused parties in this saga, seem to have offered Republicans, or are considering offering to them, a "deal" that would allow Gorsuch to be confirmed. Then, when the deal became known, they appear to have reversed themselves. But have they?

First, the deal (my emphasis):
Democrats weigh deal to let Gorsuch through

Lawmakers are mulling an offer to Republicans that would keep the filibuster intact for the next Supreme Court nominee.

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. ... The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.
This report, like many such reports from places like Politico, also contains the "cover story," the "reasonable explanation" (in sales terms) that the guilty parties would like you to believe are their motives. "The lawmakers worry that Gorsuch could be confirmed whether Democrats try to block him or not — and Democrats would be left with nothing to show for it."

The real reason corporatist Democrats — a group that includes Chuck Schumer, remember, if it is not led by him — want Gorsuch confirmed is that their corporate paymasters (sorry, campaign contributors) want Democratic Senators to help confirm him, and may shut off the flow of money if they don't.

Who are the Democrats who want to cut a deal to get Gorsuch confirmed? The article wouldn't name them, but does say, "The current talks are limited to about a half-dozen Democratic lawmakers." While the article says the senators looking to cut a deal on Gorsuch requested anonymity, it adds, "Some liberals are aiming to block Gorsuch, while others are worried about the electoral prospects for 10 senators up for reelection next year in states won by Trump if they’re seen as obstructing the president’s court pick" (my emphasis).

A look at Democrats up for reelection in 2018 includes these, culled from a list of those whose votes for Trump nominees are among the worst:
  • Cantwell
  • Cardin
  • Carper
  • Casey
  • Donnelly
  • Heinrich
  • Heitkamp
  • Kaine
  • King (Independent)
  • Klobuchar
  • Manchin
  • McCaskill
  • Menendez
  • Nelson
  • Stabenow
  • Tester
All of these senators will face the voters in 2018. Care to pick a "half dozen" from that list who may have been on Politico's "anonymous" list? Joe Manchin is named in the Politico piece as being especially concerned about preserving the filibuster, as is Chris Coons, who is not up for reelection until 2020.

Remember, it will take just eight Democrats to break a filibuster and confirm Neil Gorsuch.

Reaction to News of the "Deal"

After a strong negative reaction to news of this "deal," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that the Democrats would filibuster the nomination. The Washington Post headline announced:
"Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination"
The implication is that all Democratic senators, or a sufficient number of them, would indeed block this nomination, thus clearing the Party as a whole of the suspicion of complicity. But the Post article itself was more circumspect: "Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch" (my emphasis). Note — he "asked" other Democrats to join him.

The Post adds to the uncertainty, noting:
The Democrats’ liberal base has been pressuring senators to block Trump’s nominees across the government. But Schumer stopped short of saying that his entire Democratic caucus would join him in opposition to Gorsuch, leaving political space for some Democrats to find ways to work with Republicans.
Will the Gorsuch nomination be filibustered, or "filibustered"? Democrats have the numbers to block this, and Schumer is strong enough to whip his caucus into line — if he wants to. Will we watch the Schumer-led Democratic Party block Neil Gorsuch from a lifetime seat on the Court, or just pretend to?

Bottom Line — Who Will Step Up for Gorsuch So Others Don't Have To?

Privately, I think there are easily more than eight corporatists in the Democratic Senate caucus who would eagerly put paid to their obligations to the very very wealthy, who want this nomination to succeed very very much. If the Gorsuch vote were secret — or entirely unnoticed, as most Monsanto Senate votes are — you'd see them all vote yes without a backward glance. Even "liberal lion" Al Franken votes with Monsanto when the spotlights are off. Same with MSNBC darling Amy Klobuchar, who is on the list above, by the way.

The list of possible pro-Gorsuch senators includes the obvious names above — Manchin, Heitkamp to name just two — but also includes these so-called "undecided" senators:
  • Kaine (Clinton's veep pick)
  • Klobuchar (her again)
  • Warner (a Schumer ally in Senate leadership)
  • Coons
  • Hassan
  • Donnelly
  • Nelson
  • Tester
The chips are down and most of the cards have been played. The Democrats have heard from their other base — people who vote — and have announced a filibuster. It's in their power to win, during this round anyway. What will they do?

This test is a very big deal. It will tell voters once again who the Democratic Party, in the aggregate, represents. Will eight Democrats (including the Democratic-caucusing Angus King) cross the line and vote with Republicans so others don't have to? Or will Senate Democrats realize that the path to irrelevance in the Age of Trump, well paid though it be, leads through this door, and stand up to the money that funds them?

I can't wait to find out what happens. Either way, it will be consequential (meaning, have consequences).


Labels: , , , , ,

Bannon Makes His Move Against Ryan-- The Move To Boehnerize The Speaker Is On


Very specific definition of "comrade"

According to NY Times reporter, Glenn Thrush, the very "idea that Trump worked hard to pass health care is a joke. He put in a semi-strenuous week-- spent little time on prep, drafting, per aides." Thrush isn't alone in that analysis. Amanda Carpenter is a professional right-wing nut. She used to write speeches for Jim DeMint and washed up in Ted Cruz's office when DeMint bailed ion the Senate. Sunday she chastised Señor Trumpanzee by tweeting that "President Obama worked for years to get Obamacare. You gave up on repeal after a couple weeks. Too complicated for you? Weak!," following that up with "Donald Trump has officially become Washington. Blaming Democrats, blaming conservatives, blaming everyone for his failure to deliver" and then moved on to "Dear R's in Congress: Ignore Trump in negotiations and send bills to his desk. He'll take those as wins bc he has no other choice." In the process, she laughed at the prospect of Trumpist boob Chris Collins replacing Paul Ryan as Speaker with "his caucus of none to enact the next legislative agenda item." Why is anyone talking about one Congress' silliest jokes, Chris Collins, as Speaker?

You are probably aware that on Saturday morning Señor Trumpanzee tweeted his 27 million followers that they had to watch "Judge" Jeanine's Fox at 9pm that night. And when they tuned in, the first thing the "judge" did was launch a vitriolic attack on Speaker Ryan and demand his resignation. The NY Times' Maggie Haberman reported Sunday that Reince Priebus insisted that the Trumpanzee tweet and the "judge" Jeanine diatribe were just coincidental. I bet their are Trump fans stupid enough to buy that, perhaps many of them. No normal people though.

Bannon, of course, is behind all this. Remember, it was Bannon-- a longtime Ryan hater-- who was skipping around DC whispering it any Republican who would listen that TrumpCare was such a disastrous bill because Ryan allowed the insurance industry-- which has given him $2,031,705 in bribes-- to write it. Bannon's power-base, Breitbart, started, once again, revving up the drumbeat for Ryan's ouster over the weekend. "Republican officials in Congress and the White House," asserted Matthew Boyle, "are now openly discussing finding a GOP replacement to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as Speaker of the House, after Ryan failed to pass the American Health Care Act out of the House and misled the public and President Donald Trump when he promised repeatedly the bill would pass... Many allies of the president and several White House officials over the weeks since have confirmed to Breitbart News that the president is concerned that Ryan may not have his-- or his agenda’s-- best interests at heart. Ryan’s failure to deliver the votes on healthcare cement Trump’s skepticism of Ryan, they say." This is straight out of the Mercer/Bannon playbook.
“This is another example of the staff not serving the president well and the weakness of the Paul Ryan speakership,” a source close to President Trump told Breitbart News. “This calls into question once again the speaker’s commitment to supporting Donald Trump and his agenda.”

“Speaker Ryan proved today that he does not have the best interests of the President at heart,” said another source close to the president. “He sold out the president and showed his word can be taken with a grain of salt. There is only one course of action that should be taken to move past this catastrophe and that is the swift removal of Paul Ryan from the speakership.”

White House sources tell Breitbart News that the president is very frustrated with Ryan and feels that he has saved him multiple times already. After the election in November, it was widely reported that there were enough Republican votes to remove Ryan as Speaker-- and the only reason conservatives kept him is that Trump won the election and embraced Ryan. But now Trump may perceive Ryan as a burden rather than someone who can help enact his agenda.

A senior Senate GOP aide questioned whether Ryan has the chops to continue in the position.

“A tale as old as time, our establishment leadership continue advocating for moderate pieces of legislation after ignoring conservative input,” the Senate aide said. “How can President Donald Trump trust Speaker Paul Ryan in the future after this failure? If he couldn’t deliver on something so simple as repealing Obamacare, will he be able to deliver on complex pieces of legislation?”

House Republicans are also questioning whether Ryan can remain as Speaker after this abysmal failure.

“If Speaker Ryan cannot pass his RyanCare plan and negotiations had to be taken to the Oval Office by non-leadership members of the conference, it is certainly time to evaluate his effectiveness as the Speaker of the House,” a senior House GOP aide told Breitbart News.

Senior aides from at least seven House GOP offices-- only two from the House Freedom Caucus-- tell Breitbart News that there is significant discussion conference-wide about a replacement to Ryan as Speaker of the House.

It has gotten so far along in the process that alternative names are being thrown around—anyone from House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), to former Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, to House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)—to Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Peter Roskam (R-IL), according to one senior House GOP aide.

Democrats have their fingers crossed that GOP makes Issa their leader

...There are ongoing discussions in House offices conference-wide whether Republicans should use the same tactic that conservatives used in 2015 to remove now-former Speaker John Boehner from the House. Back then, Meadows-- then just a member of the House Freedom Caucus-- introduced what is called a resolution with a motion to vacate the chair. He did so just before August recess, allowing it to gain public support.

When it reached critical mass, and enough Republicans backed it publicly or privately, a group of members approached Boehner to inform him they had enough votes to remove him from the Speakership. To avoid the public embarrassment of a vote in which he would be defeated, Boehner resigned and allowed for the peaceful shift to his eventual successor, Ryan-- which only happened after a tumultuous process. Members are beginning to wonder if it is now the time to use the same move on Ryan, given his disloyalty to Trump. Some Republicans want to wait for a smoke signal or sign from the White House that the president wants Ryan gone. Others want to just get it over with to help the president move on from the mess Ryan created.

Asked explicitly whether President Trump has confidence in Ryan remaining as Speaker, White House press secretary Sean Spicer would not answer Breitbart News, yes or no.

...What is more interesting, though, is Ryan seems to have lost control of the House of Representatives. One senior House GOP aide in an office not connected to the Freedom Caucus argued that Meadows-- the Freedom Caucus chairman who had been negotiating directly with President Trump in recent days-- has emerged as the new House GOP leader. “Meadows is the acting Speaker of the House,” the senior GOP aide in a non-Freedom Caucus office told Breitbart News. “The president now knows on future bills that Ryan cannot deliver the votes in his own conference, and he will have to negotiate directly with the different factions of the House. Ryan has lost the ability to lead the House. He is broken.”

As Breitbart News has previously reported, members have begun discussing this bill as Ryan’s death knell-- or at least the beginning of it. Ryan’s inability to maneuver the House of Representatives sufficiently to deliver on his promise to pass this bill has hampered his effectiveness and put at risk future legislation, such as tax reform, as well. Top conservative leaders are demanding that if he does stay on as Speaker-- by no means a certainty-- he change his ways.
Of course-- as carefully planned out at Mercer's Owl's Nest estate in Head of the Harbor, Long Island-- this has already moved well beyond Breitbart-world. Over the weekend, the NY Times was already crowing that Ryan had emerged from the healthcare defeat "badly damaged." His relationship with Trump, they reported is "imperiled... Ryan is now tasked with defending not just his leadership abilities but his very brand of conservatism in a party fitfully searching for a coherent policy identity that can deliver tangible victories."
His job will not get easier. With disparate coalitions in his conference, outside groups like the political arm of the Heritage Foundation pushing lawmakers to pursue conservative purity, and a less-than-popular president whom some members have appeared more willing to buck recently, there are few establishment forces helping Mr. Ryan keep the peace.
And next up on the agenda: mammoth and unaffordable tax cuts for the ultra-rich. This time Trump and the Freedom Caucus extremists are-- at least partially-- on the same side against Ryan and the more mainstream conservatives. The Freedom Caucus says tax cuts don't need to be off-set while the Republican dogma Ryan embraces insists on a revenue-neutral bill. Trump doesn't worry about dogma-- or consequences past the next poll-- and the idea of revenue-neutral would be anathema to him if he even knew what it meant. Still... he is Donald Trump and don't be surprised if he even screws this one up. Priebus was on Fox News Sunday yesterday warning Republicans that the White would work with the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the New Dems and Blue Dogs-- if the House Republicans step out of line on some of his more crackpot schemes, like a "border tax" that many conservatives-- and virtually all legitimate economists-- oppose.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Real Question On Betting Form-- Odds Offered: What Will Trump Be Impeached For?


The circus has come to town

Do you find it at all hard to figure out which outrageous Trump endeavor is supposed to get everyone's focus off some other, earlier Trump hour show? You know what I mean? Was the TrumpCare debacle supposed to get out minds off Putin-Gate? Or is Putin-Gate supposed to get us to stop paying attention to the establishment of a kakistocracy? Or is the kakistocracy just a distraction from the kleptocracy? Can this really go on for 4 years? It's just been like 3 months and he's got more scandal fodder going than everything that's happened since Nixon combined! That would include Ford pardoning Nixon in a possible deal (+ coverup), Bert Lance's resignation as OMB Director, Bush pardoning all the Iran-Contra convicted and unconnected criminals, obviously Iran-Contra itself, Obama's NSA electronically spying on American citizens and, of course, Monica Lewinsky. Señor Trumpanzee is way beyond all that already.

But there is some crap going down that's getting swallowed up in all the fuss over all the other stuff that's coming at us at such high velocity. Who remembers Trump's solemn campaign promise to support bipartisan "Buy America" efforts? That sure got flushed down the memory hole fast as some Putin-owned company supplies the steel for the Keystone KX Pipeline Trump has authorized. As David Sirota reported at the International Business Times last week, despite Trump's campaign promises, as soon as he was elected, Ryan and McCarthy-- under pressure from lobbyists for foreign companies-- had killed legislation that would have directed government infrastructure contracts to American manufacturing companies. It was a bold act of defiance against the rhetoric of the newly elected president, and now a top Democrat is attempting to force Trump to put his 'Buy America' promises into action-- against his own party in Congress." That would be Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), who reintroduced "legislation requiring billions of dollars of the government’s spending on water infrastructure to go only to projects that use American steel. Baldwin’s move is particularly notable because she hails from a state that proved critical to Trump’s win. It is also the home state of House Speaker Paul Ryan, the Republican whose office helped kill the initiative in December."
Amid a presidential campaign focused on trade issues, Baldwin introduced a first version of her Buy America bill last July. It appeared headed for approval when the Republican-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed an infrastructure bill that included the language.

House Republicans, though, did not include the language in their version of the bill. A senior House Republican on the committee that crafted that bill argued that preferences for domestic firms would ultimately harm Americans.

“Quotas in any form and in any sort ultimately hurt the consumer,” South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford told the Wall Street Journal. “They’re a form of protectionism, plain and simple.”

During the House-Senate negotiations over the final bill, Ryan was lobbied by representatives of foreign steelmakers to block Baldwin’s provision from being included in the final legislation. At the time, the Wall Street Journal noted that the lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs was representing two major foreign steel producers-- Russia’s NLMK Inc. and California Steel Industries, which is owned by Brazilian and Japanese conglomerates. According to federal disclosures, in 2016 Squire Patton Boggs was paid $520,000 to lobby for the two foreign companies.

Federal records show that in 2016, two of Squire Patton Boggs' registered lobbyists for the two foreign-owned companies have ties to Ryan and Republican lawmakers: Natasha Hammond had been Ryan’s assistant for policy and Jack Kingston is a former longtime Republican congressman.

Squire Patton Boggs also is the immediate past employer of Ryan’s chief of staff; it now employs former Republican House Speaker John Boehner and it delivered more than $550,000 to Republican candidates and federal party committees in the 2016 election cycle, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That includes more than $65,000 to Republicans on the two House panels that crafted the chamber’s version of the bill.

...In the months since House Republicans first blocked the Buy America language, Trump’s administration has sent mixed signals about how-- and whether-- it will advocate for policies that preference U.S. companies.

During his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order directing his administration to make sure all new pipelines are built with American-made steel. But then just days after Wilbur Ross was confirmed as Commerce Secretary, that department exempted the Keystone XL project from its mandates. Ross assumed the Cabinet post after serving on the board of the Luxembourg-based steel company ArcelorMittal, which was previously slated to provide steel for the project. The company has spent more than $1.7 million on federal lobbying in the last year, according to disclosure records.

In public, Trump has continued to echo Buy America themes, most recently reiterating them at a rally in Kentucky where he argued that Americans are being taken advantage of.

“Like Henry Clay, we want to put our own people to work," he said. “We believe in two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American,” he told the audience in Louisville. “From now on, it's going to be America first. America first. We will be, I promise you, a rich nation once again. And we will do what we have to do, and we will not allow other countries to take advantage of us like they've been doing to a level that's hard to believe.”

In reintroducing the bill, Baldwin is trying to force Trump into acting on that rhetoric. She told IBT that Trump won her state promising to support the kind of legislation that she is pushing-- but that she has not seen evidence that he is following through on his promises.

“I have no doubt that he won Wisconsin narrowly in part because of his focus on Buy America,” she said. “It was what I ran on and what I focus on and clearly it had an impact on workers voting for Donald Trump. Now I think the real mission is to hold him accountable to those words... There are too many instances right now where he is not following through on that word. I want a solid commitment from Washington and Donald Trump on a strong Buy America standard and I hope I’ll get that."
HuffPo's Zach Carter had an even uglier story last week, Meet The Martin Shkreli Of Defense Contracting, which will prove the beginning for the end of the universally detested Trump OMB director, Mick Mulvaney. First keep in the back of your mind that the honey pot known as the Pentagon is the only federal agency that hasn't conducted an audit. A better name might be the Department of Corporate Fraud. "Monopolists," wrote Carter, "seem to be fleecing the Pentagon in an echo of Pharma Bro’s 5,000% drug hike." Let's following the money... starting with the $54 billion increase in defense spending Mulvaney claims he's giving the Defense Depratment based on what he intuits from Trump's campaign speeches. The White claimed in the roll out that there is "an ambitious reform agenda" that would "reduce the costs of military programs wherever feasible." Oh God!
It was a particularly sensitive subject for new Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who built a reputation during his tenure in Congress as a serious deficit hawk unafraid to challenge his Republican colleagues on ballooning war spending. One of his favorite punching bags was the Overseas Contingency Operations budget, which Mulvaney derided as “a slush fund” that should be eliminated. The Trump budget would increase both overall defense spending and the amount that flows to the OCO. To maintain his credibility and demonstrate that Trump’s new “hard power” defense priorities weren’t just an excuse to throw money away, Mulvaney needed to sniff out wasteful endeavors.

He appears to have missed at least one. On Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Pentagon’s acting inspector general accusing defense contractor TransDigm Group of illegally overcharging the Department of Defense by acting as a “hidden monopolist.”

The business model Khanna described is devilishly clever, wildly profitable and totally at odds with the basic principles of a competitive market. TransDigm is essentially the Martin Shkreli of defense contractors. It’s a large holding company that searches for specialty parts used in heavy machinery-- unique panels, connectors, cables and other components-- that are produced exclusively by a single company. TransDigm buys these producers and Pharma Bros them, dramatically inflating the price to exploit their monopoly.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) cited examples of TransDigm price hikes, including a cable assembly that went from $1,737 to $7,863 and a motor rotor that had been $654 now going for $5,474.

Ro Khanna
Khanna’s letter cited five specific aerospace parts the company had jacked the price on, including a “cable assembly” that went from $1,737.03 to $7,863.00 after being acquired by TransDigm. The price of a TransDigm “motor rotor” soared from $654.46 to $5,474.00.

But the practice is widespread throughout TransDigm. The company’s own filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission state that 80 percent of its sales come from parts for which TransDigm believes itself to be a monopolist.

Not all of the company’s parts even work. In 2016, the Washington Post reported that drones were crashing due to faulty starter-generators supplied by a TransDigm subsidiary.

“The president is asking for $54 billion more on defense,” Khanna told the Huffington Post. “How much money are we wasting on monopolistic behavior?”

The Pentagon has rules designed to defend itself against predatory pricing. Companies that function as the sole vendors of supplies have to detail their costs to the government, which allows the firms to reap a reasonable profit margin over and above these expenses. But Khanna’s letter argued that TransDigm evaded these rules by setting up “a network of captive distributors”-- middlemen who sold to the government, creating the illusion of an actual competitive market.

“TransDigm isn’t a business, it’s the abuse of monopoly power so extreme it borders on performance art,” according to Matthew Stoller, a fellow with the New America Foundation’s Open Markets division. “Congress should investigate this aggressively.”

No less than 12 TransDigm subsidiaries failed to disclose to the Defense Department in their procurement filings that they were owned by TransDigm, according to Khanna.

TransDigm did not respond to requests for comment. The company’s chief executive, W. Nicholas Howley, received $18.7 million in 2016-- more than the chief executives of Apple, Boeing or Citigroup.

Khanna’s interest in the TransDigm case reflects a broader concern in Washington over concentrated economic power. In early March, the Center for American Progress hosted a forum on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, focused on his antitrust record...

Khanna is waiting to hear back from the Defense Department before taking further action, but he hasn’t ruled out a congressional investigation.

“This is a bipartisan issue,” Khanna told HuffPost. “There are many of my Republican friends who want to see our dollars going to troops and readiness and not to anticompetitive behavior.”

It's going to be a long 4 years... or maybe not. One of Europe's preeminent betting houses, PaddyPower in Dublin is now offering 3 different opportunities to bet on impeachment:
1. What Year Is Trump Impeached?

2017-- 3/1
2018-- 9/1
2019-- 16/1
2020-- 20/1

2. Will Trump Be Impeached In His First Term?

Yes-- 11/10

3. What Will Trump Be Impeached For?

Tax Evasion-- 3/1
Bribery-- 10/1
Perjury-- 12/1

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Did Señor Trumpanzee Inadvertently Help Merkel Win Today's Saarland Election?


Germany will go to the polls September 24 to elect a new parliament (Bundestag). Right now Merkel's right-of-center Christian Democratic Union has a coalition government with the slightly left-of-center Social Democrats (emphasis on "slightly"). Her party holds 311 seats (41.5%) and the Social Dems hold 193 seats (25.7%) of the 598 members. The only other parties with Bundestag seats are The Left (64 seats) and the Greens (63 seats). The AfD, the neo-Nazi Putin-Backed Alternative for Germany Party of Frauke Petry is trying to break into Parliament in the upcoming elections.

Today there were state elections in Saarland, the smallest of Germany's states, tucked between Rhineland-Palatinate and France, with a population of just over a million people. The election was the first in a series leading up to the big federal elections in September, with Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia coming in May. The Social Democrats, who have been gaining popularity over the last few months with a new leader, Martin Schultz, were looking to knock Merkel off her stride. They didn't. Early returns showed voters defied polling showing a close call between Merkel's CDU and Schultz's SPD. And Putin's neo-Nazi allies were a mere asterisk.
CDU- 40.7%, up from 35.2%-- 24 seats
SPD- 29.6%, down from 30.6%-- 17 seats
The Left- 12.9%, down from 16.1%-- 7 seats
AfD (neo-Nazis)- 6.2%-- 3 seats
Greens- 4.5%
FDP (right-wing CDU allies)- 3.0%
The SPD had been hoping to form a state coalition with themselves as the senior parter with The Left and the Greens (as they've done in Berlin's local legislature), but instead, they are likely to be back as the junior partner with the CDU. The neo-Nazis did go over the 5% mark, making them eligible to have members in the state Parliament. Currently they have members in 10 of German's 16 state parliaments.

Why did Merkel's CDU do so much better than polling showed it would? There was some speculation that Saarland voters rallied around her when news broke over the weekend that the universally detested Trump had handed her an invoice for $374 billion (including Señor Trumpanzee's demand for $62 billion in interest) when she visited the White House last week, back payments, he contends, are owed for German participation in NATO.
The bill-- handed over during private talks in Washington-- was described as “outrageous” by one German minister.

“The concept behind putting out such demands is to intimidate the other side, but the chancellor took it calmly and will not respond to such provocations,” the minister said.

Trump has criticised a number of NATO countries-- Germany among them-- for insufficient military spending, leaving America to pick up more than its fair share of the tab. He wants them to honour a commitment made in 2014 to invest 2% of their GDP in defence-- a target met at present only by the US, Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland.

Trump appeared to go one step further during his meeting with Merkel. Taking 2002 as a starting point, his officials calculated the extent to which German defence spending had fallen short of the 2% target each year, added the amount together-- and then put interest on top.

...A source close to Merkel was dismissive. “The president has a very unorthodox view on Nato defence spending,” the source said. “The alliance is not a club with a membership fee. The commitments relate to countries’ investment in their defence budgets.”

Merkel is said to have “ignored the provocation,” but did commit to raise German defence spending gradually, although she asked for spending on international development to be taken into consideration.
Ignoring the evil clown Trump seems to have paid off for her-- at least in Saarland. But Trump is so hated around the world-- outside of Russia and other fascist-leaning countries-- that campaigning in any way that resists him is a real positive.


If We Had A Real President...


If we had a real president in the White House, instead of a grifter pretending to be a clown, he would have announced that his party has tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act and that the next step is to have the Republicans and the Democrats sit down together and figure out-- for the good of the country-- a nonpartisan/non-ideological approach (based on Trump's own campaign promises) for fixing the problems in the ACA. Instead, Trump lamely tried blaming the Democrats for his own party being unable get its huge congressional majority to even take up the bill they had spent 7 years "working" on. So rather than opting for something vaguely presidential, he sent out this mean-spirited and destructive tweet Saturday morning:

Ted Lieu (D-CA), one of the most effective and consistent voices of the congressional resistance, responded angrily at the implied threat-- and in kind:

People are worried-- rightfully so-- that Trump and Ryan will now go on an orgy of recriminations against people who get medical treatment based on the Affordable Care Act. They are committed to causing it to crash and burn and they can do tremendous damage-- as they already have. In fact, on Wednesday, even before their own TrumpCare bill went down in flames, Thom Hartmann, writing for Alternet, noted that the GOP has been sabotaging the Affordable Care Act even before Trump was sworn in.
When the ACA was rolled out, telling insurance companies that they had to insure anybody who signed up, regardless of previous conditions or sickness, everybody realized that the insurance companies would probably lose money in the first decade or so, until previously-uninsured-but-sick people got into the system, got better, and things evened out.

To get the insurance companies to go along with this danger of losing money, the ACA promised to make them whole for any losses in any of the first decade’s years.  At the end of each fiscal year, the insurance companies merely had to document their losses, and the government would reimburse them out of ACA funds provided for by the law.

The possibility of their losing money was referred to as the “risk corridor,” and the ACA explicitly filled those risk corridors with a guarantee of making the insurance companies, at the very least, whole.

And then something happened. As the NY Times noted on December 9, 2015, “A little-noticed health care provision slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law.”

Rubio and a number of other Republicans had succeeded in gutting the risk corridors. The result was that, just in 2015, end-of-fiscal-year risk corridor payments to insurance companies that were supposed to total around $2.9 billion were only reimbursed, according to Rubio himself quoted in the Times, to the tune of around $400 million. Rubio bragged that he’d “saved taxpayers $2.5 billion.”

And, indeed, he had. But the insurance companies were thrown into a crisis. And, with Republicans in Congress absolutely refusing to re-fund the risk corridors, that crisis would get worse as time went on, at least over a period of a few years.

So the insurance companies did the only things they could. In (mostly red) states with low incomes and thus poorer health, they simply pulled out of the marketplace altogether. This has left some states with only one single insurer left.  In others, they jacked up their prices to make up their losses.

As Robert Pear in the Times noted, Rubio’s “plan limiting how much the government can spend to protect insurance companies against financial losses has shown the effectiveness of quiet legislative sabotage.”
This is a big problem going forward-- one that Trump and Ryan will pour gasoline on so they can repeat their bullshit about how Obamacare is collapsing. Democrats in Congress absolutely must be able to effectively communicate an affirmative health care agenda that moves toward Medicare for All (alongside alongside employer coverage that 150 million people now have). The Democrats should consistently be advocating for the public option-- in effect, Medicare for All-- along with the federal government setting prices for prescription drugs. The alternative is chaos and misery. Just ask Samantha Bee:

Labels: , , , , , ,

Most Southerners Didn't Own Slaves, So Why...?


When Frank Hyman-- whose essay on racism in the News&Observer I want to discuss below, was in first grade, he got in trouble for calling a classmate the N-word. The classmate was Hispanic. It reminded me of a run-in with racism I once had in San Francisco when I was much younger. I met a farm boy who had run away from home in the Sacramento Delta area and hitch-hiked down to San Francisco. On our way back to my apartment in my old Ford Fairlane we drove through the Fillmore district and we stopped at a light at a corner where there were 4 or 5 black guys hanging put. My young farmer friend started cursing "the fucking Jews." He wasn't joking. I later learned he was raised by a Nazi grandfather who taught him that blacks are... "fucking Jews." A strange world we live in. (Aside: he was a lovely boy and he eventually had his Nazi tattoos removed to facilitate a closer relationship between us.)

Anyway, Mr. Hyman grew out of the racism he learned at home in a southern military family and came to understand the ugliness of the Confederate flag and what was behind that ugliness. He wrote that he "learned that for black folks the flutter of that flag felt like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And for the most prideful flag waivers, clearly that response was the point. I mean, come on. It’s a battle flag. What the flag symbolizes for blacks is enough reason to take it down. But there’s another reason that white southerners shouldn’t fly it. Or sport it on our state-issued license plates as some do here in North Carolina."
The Confederacy-- and the slavery that spawned it-- was also one big con job on the Southern, white, working class. A con job funded by some of the ante-bellum one-per-centers, that continues today in a similar form. 
You don’t have to be an economist to see that forcing blacks-- a third of the South’s laborers-- to work without pay drove down wages for everyone else. And not just in agriculture. A quarter of enslaved blacks worked in the construction, manufacturing and lumbering trades; cutting wages even for skilled white workers.

Thanks to the profitability of this no-wage/low-wage combination, a majority of American one-per-centers were southerners. Slavery made southern states the richest in the country. The South was richer than any other country except England. But that vast wealth was invisible outside the plantation ballrooms. With low wages and few schools, southern whites suffered a much lower land ownership rate and a far lower literacy rate than northern whites.

...[M]ost Southerners didn’t own slaves. But they were persuaded to risk their lives and limbs for the right of a few to get rich as Croesus from slavery. For their sacrifices and their votes, they earned two things before and after the Civil War. First, a very skinny slice of the immense Southern pie. And second, the thing that made those slim rations palatable then and now: the shallow satisfaction of knowing that blacks had no slice at all.

How did the plantation owners mislead so many Southern whites?

They managed this con job partly with a propaganda technique that will be familiar to modern Americans, but hasn’t received the coverage it deserves in our sesquicentennial celebrations. Starting in the 1840s wealthy Southerners supported more than 30 regional pro-slavery magazines, many pamphlets, newspapers and novels that falsely touted slave ownership as having benefits that would-- in today’s lingo-- trickle down to benefit non-slave owning whites and even blacks. The flip side of the coin of this old-is-new trickle-down propaganda is the mistaken notion that any gain by blacks in wages, schools or health care comes at the expense of the white working class.

Today’s version of this con job no longer supports slavery, but still works in the South and thrives in pro trickle-down think tanks, magazines, newspapers, talk radio and TV news shows such as the Cato Foundation, Reason magazine, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. These sources are underwritten by pro trickle-down one-per-centers like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch.

For example, a map of states that didn’t expand Medicaid-- which would actually be a boon mostly to poor whites-- resembles a map of the old Confederacy with a few other poor, rural states thrown in. Another indication that this divisive propaganda works on Southern whites came in 2012. Romney and Obama evenly split the white working class in the West, Midwest and Northeast. But in the South we went 2-1 for Romney.

Lowering the flag because of the harm done to blacks is the right thing to do. We also need to lower it because it symbolizes material harm the ideology of the Confederacy did to Southern whites that lasts even to this day.

One can love the South without flying the battle flag. But it won’t help to get rid of an old symbol if we can’t also rid ourselves of the self-destructive beliefs that go with it. Only by shedding those too, will Southern whites finally catch up to the rest of the country in wages, health and education.
There's been lots of progress in Virginia, some in Florida, some in Texas. And the Deep South? That's another signal Georgia voters in the Fulton, Cobb and DeKalb county 'burbs north of Atlanta may soon be sending the rest of the country when they turn out on April 18 and June 20 for Jon Ossoff. Replacing Mick Mulvaney in South Carolina (May 2 for the primaries and also June 20 for the runoff) with a non-Confederate will be a lot harder. The Republicans are likely to run a backward-facing state Rep., Tommy Pope, and the DCCC is pimping for some Goldman Sachs guy, Archie Parnell.

Labels: , ,

Holding Republicans Who Wanted To Take Away Their Constituents' Health Insurance Accountable


Let's go beyond the orgy of recriminations and finger-pointing over the massive and devastating Ryan-Trump-Pence-Price health care loss. This weekend, Wall Street Journal readers are being told to see it as "a major blow to the Trump Presidency, the GOP majority in Congress, and especially to the cause of reforming and limiting government."
The damage is all the more acute because it was self-inflicted. President Trump was right to say on Friday that Democrats provided no help, but Democrats were never going to vote to repeal President Obama ’s most important legislation. And that’s no excuse. Republicans have campaigned for more than seven years on repealing and replacing ObamaCare, and they finally have a President ready to sign it. In the clutch they choked.
The Journal accused the Freedom Caucus of sabotage: "When one of their demands was met, they dug in and made another until they exceeded what the rest of the GOP conference could concede. You can’t have a good-faith negotiation when one party doesn’t know how to say yes-- or won’t." They suggest that Señor Trumpanzee may be able to recover from this debacle, but as an opening act to a new Presidency the collapse of his first legislative campaign is ominous. In business Señor Trumpanzee "liked to 'get even.' He’s got some scores to settle with the Freedom Caucus." That was an unsigned editorial.

The writer wasn't interested in facing the fact that the bill was untenable and indefensible-- and politically suicidal. The Washington Post documented calls coming into Congress over the last day or two before Ryan pulled the bill and finally threw it in the trash. Calls to House members in support of Trumpcare: 1,130. Calls to House members in opposition to Trumpcare: 59,337. And not just to Democratic members. This bill was unpopular among Republican voters, especially among Republican voters in swing districts. In a poll released Thursday by Garin-Hart-Yang for Priorities USA and Patriot Majority USA, it became obvious Ryan shouldn't force Republicans-- in the words of Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton-- to walk the plank by voting for this hated concoction. Forget the frightening enough national 17% approval rating, the poll looked at 20 battleground congressional districts currently held by Republicans-- including 11 carried by Hillary Clinton in November, and nine carried by Donald Trump. These are the Clinton districts polled:
AZ-02- Martha McSally had announced she was voting yes
CA-25- Steve Knight was flip-flopping all over the place
CA-45- Mimi Walters had announced she was voting yes
CA-49- Darrell Issa flip flopped half a dozen times between yes and no
CO-06- Mike Coffman had announced he was a yes vote
IL-06- Peter Roskam was always a big supporter of TrumpCare
MN-03- Erik Paulsen said he was likely to vote yes
NY-24- John Katko wisely read the tea-leaves and came out against the bill at the last minute
PA-07- Pat Meehan was another likely yes vote but said he was undecided to the end.
VA-10- Barbara Comstock got scared at the last minute and said she was opposed.
These are the districts polled that went for Trump in November but where buyers' remorse appears to be strong now and which the Democrats may target in 2018:
FL-18- Brain Mast was a strong TrumpCare supporter
IA-01- Rod Blum wanted an even more draconian bill
IA-03- David Young announced he would vote no and Ryan's superPAC cut off his campaign funds
ME-02- Bruce Poliquin was consistent-- as a tap-dancer who never told anyone how he would vote
MN-02- Jason Lewis voted for Trumpcare in the House Budget Committee
NY-01- Lee Zeldin never wavered in his TrumpCare support
NY-19- John Faso was a little flip-floppy but he voted for the bill in the House Budget Committee
PA-08- Brian Fitzpatrick came out against the bill after the CBO report
VA-02- Scott Taylor was a zombie-like supporter.
All 20 districts have something in common today-- aside from having a Republican copngressmember-- dissatisfaction with TrumpCare. The survey found that information about the Republicans’ plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act-- combined with voters knowing their Republican member of Congress supports the plan-- resulted in a net 13-point swing away from the Republicans in the vote for Congress, including substantial movement in districts President Trump carried in November.
Across districts, Republican incumbents (respondents each heard the name of their own representative) have a 35% positive and 30% negative personal favorability rating-- with a combined 35% saying they are neutral or don’t know enough to offer an opinion. (This compares to a much cooler 39% positive, 51% negative rating toward President Trump, even though this set of districts as a whole was evenly split in November.) Across districts, the Republicans’ job approval stands at 46% approve, 34% disapprove, with 1 in 5 (20%) volunteering that they are not sure.

At the outset of the poll, voters are inclined to re-elect their incumbent over a generic Democratic challenger, but only by 44% to 38%-- with these Republicans notably under the 50% mark. With no information given, Trump districts vote for the Republican by 9 points (43% to 34%) with almost 1 in 4 (23%) saying they are not sure, while Clinton districts begin at a near dead heat (43% Republican, 42% Democrat).

However, on both approval and the trial heat for Congress, there is potential for real, substantial movement toward the Democrats--including in districts Trump won in November. After hearing a positive argument in favor of the GOP plan, information about its provisions and consequences, and messages against their own incumbent for supporting it, we are able to really move the needle in a way that is rarely driven by a single issue, as it is in this case. Overall, voters move from approving of their congressperson by 12 points (46% approve, 34% disapprove) to disapproving by 21 points (35% approve, 56% disapprove)-- a net shift of 33 percentage points. This includes a net shift of 31 points across the Clinton districts (47% approve, 36% disapprove to 37% approve, 57% disapprove) as well as a notable 36-point shift across the Trump districts (44% approve, 32% disapprove to 32% approve, 56% disapprove).

And movement on the actual vote for Congress is substantial as well, including a net 13-point shift away from the Republicans among voters overall.

...Despite President Trump’s warnings that House Republicans will lose their seats if they do not repeal the ACA, this poll suggests that support for this proposal presents a significant danger for Republicans come 2018. Democrats have a clear opportunity to harness the current battle over ACA repeal-- an issue with which voters are unusually engaged, and one which affects them directly-- to show that their Republican members of Congress are not looking out for them, instead putting the health and economic wellbeing of Americans at risk. Finally, instead of focusing on only a narrow swath of districts carried by Hillary Clinton in November, this poll suggests that communicating across a wider playing field of competitive districts can potentially pay big dividends for Democrats in 2018.
The bottom line takeaway is this: on the average, when those surveyed were told their Republican member of Congress supported the plan, they moved from saying they would reelect their congressman, 44-38, to saying they will elect a Democratic challenger, 45-38 (a net 13-point swing away from the Republicans).

Dr. David Gill is an ardently progressive, long-time Medicare-for-all candidate for Congress in central Illinois' swingy 13th district, which runs from up in Normal, western Bloomington and Champaign and heads south through Decatur to Calhoun and Jersey counties in the suburbs north of St. Louis. The district profile would have worked perfectly for the poll but it wasn't included. This was Bernie country in the primary but Trump won it in November-- 49.7% to 44.2%. On March 17, the clueless incumbent, Rodney Davis, tweeted that TrumpCare was "must pass legislation." A week earlier he told the News-Gazette that he was proud of TrumpCare. When we asked Dr. Gill about Davis' support for TrumpCare and his refusal to hold public town hall meetings with his constituents he told us he was "extremely disappointed to learn that Mr. Davis is supportive of the American Healthcare Act of 2017, aka Trumpcare. This disastrous bill is a tax break for the millionaires and billionaires wrapped in a terrible healthcare bill, which strips insurance coverage from tens of millions of Americans. How can Mr. Davis even be sure that this is what his constituents want, given his repeated refusal to meet with his constituents on this issue?

Blue America has endorsed him and you can contribute to his campaign here. He reminded us that "while Davis won't face his constituents, I can and will. I've been a practicing physician for nearly 30 years, and over that time I've gained a great understanding of healthcare and its financing. As a small businessman, I'm well aware of the flaws of our current healthcare system. While Obamacare has its problems, I have the expertise to fix them. As a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, I have been a supporter of a single-payer healthcare system for the last 25 years. Rodney Davis has spent almost 20 years receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage; this is ironic, given his intention to strip 43,000 of his constituents of their healthcare coverage."

Labels: , , , , ,