Gorsuch’s Record Invites Some Phone Calls

The 45 Administration would very much like to have Judge Gorsuch confirmed as a member of the US Supreme Court. The judge for his part has been loathe to offer any more than Name, Rank, and Serial Number during his confirmation hearings. Not that this tactic is anything new in the process.  Famous for his Hobby Lobby decision, his dissent in TransAm Trucking v. ARB-DOl, (PDF) is attracting attention.  This is the now infamous Frozen Trucker Case in which Judge Gorsuch opined that taking such things as common sense, and legislative intent, were extraneous and if to operate a truck means to drive a truck (and its trailer with the frozen brakes) then that’s all there is to say on the subject. It’s interesting to note that Judge Gorsuch was dismissive of reinterpreting the wording of a statute, while interpreting the wording of a statute in such a way as to defend the indefensible actions of the trucking company.  In less complimentary terms, the Gorsuch rule appears to be an interpretation is acceptable if and only if that reading agrees with his interpretation.

There is still time to reach Nevada’s Senators, Heller (702-338-6605) (775-686-5729) and Cortez Masto (702-388-5020) (775-686-5750) (202-224-3542) on this subject.  Little wonder that Democratic Senators interviewed on the topic have said things like “his answers are unacceptable,” and “his answers are evasive,” and “his answers have been less than forthcoming…”

Judge Gorsuch needs to supply more than the Alito/Roberts song and dance routine to the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators need to attend to the fundamental problems with his nomination to the highest court in the land. His responses so far have been noncommittal and apolitical, but his decisions have been those of an activist ultra conservative. Actions do, indeed, speak louder than words.

Heller Takes The Easy Road: Cadillac Health Plan Target

Nevada Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) took aim at one of the more vulnerable (and questionable) parts of the Affordable Care Act as his contribution to the Republican Repeal – and eventually replace with something we don’t know what – plan.   [LVSun]

First, a “cadillac plan” is an exceptionally generous health care plan offered by some employers.  There’s good and bad news herein.  On the bright side, the plans offer very full coverage.  On the darker side, maybe there’s a bit too much coverage, and that has implications for restraining health care costs.

At this point it’s necessary to focus on what’s is important for the employees. Is it the continuation of the generous health care coverage OR is it health care cost containment. 

The Herring & Lentz report (2011) describes the cost and tax issues involved in summary form:

“One controversial aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the provision to impose a 40% excise tax on insurance benefits above a certain threshold, commonly referred to as the “Cadillac tax.” We use the Employer Health Benefits Survey, sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, to examine the number and characteristics of plans that likely will be affected. We estimate that about 16% of plans will incur the tax upon implementation in 2018, while about 75% of plans will incur the tax a decade later due to the indexing of the tax thresholds with the Consumer Price Index. If the Cadillac tax is ultimately implemented as written, we find that it will likely reduce private health care benefits by .7% in 2018 and 3.1% in 2029, and will likely raise about $931 billion in revenue over the ensuing 10-year budget window from 2020 to 2029.”

Senator Heller calls this “onerous,” however the Senator has often called any form of regulation on the insurance and banking sectors “onerous.”  Thus, it’s helpful to remember why this element was inserted in the bill in the first place.

Consider the following examples:

1) A patient with an extravagant health plan, often dubbed a Cadillac plan, goes to the doctor’s office. She’s told by her doctor that she should take a bunch of tests, even though the tests seem unnecessary. The patient knows most the tests are unnecessary, but she figures that since her health insurance covers everything, it’s better to be safe than sorry — it’s not like it’s costing her anything except a little time, anyway.

2) Another patient with a less generous health plan goes to the doctor’s office. She’s also told by her doctor that she should take a bunch of tests, even though the tests seem unnecessary. But this time the patient also knows her health insurance will charge her a bunch of extra fees for each test. Wanting to avoid a lot of costs, she decides to talk to her doctor about what tests are actually necessary, and she declines to take any of the tests that she and her doctor decide are unnecessary.

The Cadillac tax attempts to move more health plans from example No. 1 to example No. 2. [Vox]

The Cadillac Plans are popular – why not? Most medical costs are covered.  And, therein, as the examples suggest, lies the problem.  The employer can boast to prospective employees that “everything’s covered” in our health care plan; the employee can spend as much on medical care as is practical and then some; and, unions representing employees can boast about their prowess in gaining exemplary health care insurance coverage.  However, none of these positions suggests any form of health care cost containment.

There is no incentive built into the Cadillac  health insurance plans to contain rising health care costs. 

There are a couple of ways to address health care cost containment – none of which are evident in the Cadillac plans — (1) there could be limits on coverage, the bug-bear of the junk insurance policies sold before the ACA which put a lifetime limit on health care insurance coverage; met quickly if the person had a serious illness or accident; (2) there could be limits on the type of coverage sold to policy holders – unpopular with those who want (and can afford) the addition of vision, dental, etc. etc. (3) put an excise tax on the Cadillac plans to encourage employers and other policy holders to move from over-generous plans to more cost sharing models.  The third option was the intent of the ACA.

Repealing the excise tax on the Cadillac plans would completely remove any incentive for cost controls in this part of the ACA.

One of the trickier issues the Republicans will have to address in their Repeal and Replace operations is how to contain rising health care costs.  Repealing the “onerous” excise tax will eliminate one element of health care cost containment in the ACA. So, what do Senator Heller and other Republicans want as a way of replacement?  Junk insurance? Surely not. Limits on policy provisions for individual policy holders? Doesn’t sound very “freedom” or “customer oriented” to me at least.

Thus, the question Senator Heller, and others in his party, must face is how to “repeal” the ACA without opening the floodgates to rising health care costs?  Has anyone ask him about the implications of his suggestion?

Obstruction By Blue Slip: GOP assault on Federal Courts

Senator Dean Heller’s (R-NV) slip is showing, or rather it isn’t showing up. President Obama nominated Ann Rachel Traum to the Federal District Court (Nevada) on April 28, 2016.  So, where’s the blue form from the Senator’s office indicating the Judiciary Committee should move forward with this nomination?

One theory has it that not only are Senate Republicans blocking a Supreme Court nomination but they’re doing it down the line, right down to the overworked, understaffed federal district courts level.

“There are lots of GOP senators doing this. Sen. Dan Coats (Ind.) hasn’t turned in his blue slip for his judicial nominee, Myra Selby. Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) haven’t turned in their blue slips for their nominee, Abdul Kallon. Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) haven’t turned in blue slips for their nominees, either. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn’t turned in his blue slip for his nominee, Lisabeth Hughes.”  [HuffPo]

It isn’t like the current nominee isn’t qualified. The resume is remarkable:

“Anne Rachel Traum is a Professor of Law at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law.  She is currently on leave from the law school and serving as Special Counsel in the Office for Access to Justice at the United States Department of Justice.  Professor Traum joined the University of Nevada-Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law faculty in 2008, and she has served as the Director of the Appellate Clinic since 2009.  She also served as the Associate Dean for Experiential Legal Education from 2013 to 2015.  From 2002 to 2008, Professor Traum served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Las Vegas, Nevada.  She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada from 2000 to 2002, while on detail from the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice, where she worked from 1998 to 2000.  She began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Professor Traum received her J.D. Order of the Coif and cum laude from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1996 and her A.B. with honors from Brown University in 1991.” [WH] 

This obstructionism is egregious on so many levels.  Politically, it’s the equivalent of a toddler’s temper tantrum – if we can’t have exactly the courts we want then we don’t want any.  This, in turn leads to the next layer of political idiocy.

It doesn’t do to complain about the time and expense required to litigate cases and at the same time keep courts short handed such that they cannot schedule hearings on a timely basis. This affects both plaintiffs and defendants in both civil and criminal cases.  Nor, are we merely speaking of the vacancies at the top of the judicial roster.

“While Senate battles over nominees to the Supreme Court and appeals courts draw more headlines, the less-noticed openings are increasing workloads and delaying trials in federal courts that take in hundreds of thousands of cases a year — compared with the 80 or so cases heard by the nation’s highest court.

Of 673 U.S. district court judgeships, 67 — or 10 percent — are vacant under President Obama, nearly twice as many as at this point of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency and 50 percent higher than at this time under Bill Clinton (D) or George H.W. Bush (R), according to data kept by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The number of federally designated district court “judicial emergencies” — where seats carry particularly heavy caseloads or have been open for an extended period — is also roughly double what it was in May 2008 and May 2000, according to the administrative office.

Heavy caseloads in some places slow resolution of everything from commercial disputes to workplace discrimination claims to federal regulatory challenges, in which district court rulings are often the last word because most are not appealed.” [JDnom] (emphasis added)

Consider this last paragraph carefully.  “Commercial disputes” is one category worthy of attention – someone, somewhere, who is engaged in interstate commerce may not be getting paid in a timely fashion because there is no judge with docket time available to hear the case?  Someone, somewhere would like to challenge a federal regulation, but hasn’t the “float” required to engage in protracted litigation because of the docket backlog?

We do have a constitutional guarantee of a “speedy and public trial,” under the provisions of the 6th Amendment, but this applies only to criminal prosecutions – not to those commercial disputes, discrimination claims (and defenses), regulatory challenges, and other civil litigation.  We have a backlog, and it’s getting deeper:

“Combined filings for civil cases and criminal defendants in the U.S. district courts decreased by 28,836 (down 7 percent) to 361,689. Terminations once again held steady, declining by 2,634 (down less than 1 percent) to 347,828. Because filings exceeded terminations, the total for pending cases and defendants rose by 12,268 (up 3 percent) to 438,808.” [UScourts.gov] (emphasis added)

Pending civil cases are reported up by 5%, to 340,925 nationwide.  And, still the Senate Republicans will not act.

Senator Heller, Where is your blue slip?

Feinstein Amendment Fails, and Heller Helped

Senator Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment (S.Amdt 4720 to S. Amdt 4685) to H.R. 2578 failed on a 47 to 53 vote June 20, 2016.   In contrast with many pieces of legislation, the Feinstein Amendment was short and relatively simple:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
      Sec. ___.  Hereafter, the Attorney General may deny the
    transfer of a firearm if the Attorney General determines,
    based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
    transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a
    reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has
    been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in
    aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material
    support or resources therefor. For purposes of sections
    922(t)(1), (2), (5), and (6) and 925A of title 18, United
    States Code, and section 103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18
    U.S.C. 922 note), a denial by the Attorney General pursuant
    to this provision shall be treated as equivalent to a
    determination that receipt of a firearm would violate section
    (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or
    State law. A denial described in this section shall be
    subject to the remedial procedures set forth in section
    103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) and the
    intended transferee may pursue a remedy for an erroneous
    denial of a firearm under section 925A of title 18, United
    States Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such
    remedial procedures and judicial review shall be subject to
    procedures that may be developed by the Attorney General to
    prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information that
    reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national
    security or ongoing law enforcement operations, including but
    not limited to procedures for submission of information to
    the court ex parte as appropriate, consistent with due
    process. The Attorney General shall establish, within the
    amounts appropriated, procedures to ensure that, if an
    individual who is, or within the previous 5 years has been,
    under investigation for conduct related to a Federal crime of
    terrorism, as defined in section 2332b(g)(5) of title 18,
    United States Code, attempts to purchase a firearm, the
    Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General shall
    be promptly notified of the attempted purchase. [text] (emphasis added)

It’s simple – Been under investigation for suspicious activity related to terrorism? Been investigated or under investigation for aiding abetting terrorists – the purchase of a gun can be delayed.  If a person thinks they have been unfairly denied such a purchase – there’s an appeal process.

And Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) couldn’t bring himself to vote for it.  There will be some excuse offered – was the wording not perfect? Was the appeal process not made clear? Was it not going to exactly prevent the last couple of terrorist related mass shootings? Will it not prevent all gun violence? Or, the silliest reason yet offered, WE have to fight them over there so they don’t come here.  (Hint: some are homegrown here) No matter – The Senate Has Spoken – the terrorists cannot take a full bottle of shampoo on a commercial airliner but they can walk into any gun store at any time and buy any gun to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Sad.  Just who is looking out for our national security?

Senator Heller’s Choke Point

One thing in life is almost more certain than death and taxes – if there is legislation that the banking industry wants then Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) will be quite happy to sponsor it, carry water for it, vote for it, and then remind anyone who is still listening how he’s a Man for the Consumers because he once voted against the “bail-out.”   To see Senator Heller’s latest foray into playing the Banker’s Boy one needs to dig a bit, unearthing S.Amdt 4715 to S.Amdt 4685 amending HR 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016.

Senator Heller has teamed up with Senators Vitter, Crapo, Paul, Lee, and Cruz to insert the following: 

Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may
    be used to carry out the program known as “Operation Choke
    Point”. [Cong.gov]

What is Operation Choke Point and what was it intended to do?  The Department of Justice was disturbed by reports that fraudulent merchants had found a way around federal banking regulations and once they inserted themselves into the banking system they could team with payment processors to initiate debit transactions against consumer’s accounts and have the amounts transmitted to their own accounts.

Even more disturbing, the Department’s investigations revealed that some third party processors knew that the merchants with whom they were working were frauds but they continued to process their transactions in direct violation of federal law.  [Harris pdf]

So, for example, Quickie Check Instant Lending could get a customer to sign a loan agreement for some outrageous amount of interest, and then hand the item over to a payment processor.  With some cooperation from the bank (usually garnered by providing a handsome fee thereto) the payment processor would have the bank make automatic debits to the person’s account.  Or, say, the Fast Weight Loss Pill Factory got an order from John Q. Public, and the payment processor + bank would insure that John’s bank account was regularly debited for the fraudulent product, or for products not delivered, or whatever scam was being run.

The idea behind Choke Point was to gather information from banks which appeared to be engaged in fraud, or might have evidence of fraudulent conduct by others. Subpoenas were issued, and indeed there were some banks doing some rather obnoxious business.  [See Fair Oaks Bank]  The Fair Oaks Bank had received hundreds of notices from consumers’ banks that the people whose bank accounts were being charged had NOT authorized the payments; had evidence that more than a dozen merchants served by the payment processor had “return rates” over 30% and one had a “return rate” over 70%; and, Fair Oaks had evidence of efforts by merchants to conceal their real identities.

One of the obvious targets are payday lenders who were operating in violation of state regulations regarding the amount of interest that could be charged to a customer.  As the New York Times explained back in January 2014:

“The new, more rigorous oversight could have a chilling effect on Internet payday lenders, which have migrated from storefronts to websites where they offer short-term loans at interest rates that often exceed 500 percent annually. As a growing number of states enact interest rate caps that effectively ban the loans, the lenders increasingly depend on the banks for their survival. With the banks’ help, the lenders that typically work with a third-party payment processor that has an account at the banks are able, authorities say, to automatically deduct payments from customers’ checking accounts even in states where the loans are illegal.”

The object of Choke Point was to cut the insidious relationship between the banks, the processors, and the fraudsters – or choke it off.  If one wanted to promote the interests of the payday lenders, third party processors, and banks willing to turn a blind eye toward the nature of these transactions – there are fewer ways much better than to hamstring the Department of Justice’s investigations into these kinds of transactions.  However, that is precisely what Senator Heller is proposing.

The DoJ’s investigations were also reviled because some of the ammosexuals among us got the idea that if pawn shops couldn’t use the untraditional routes for payment, therefore the whole operation was one giant gun grab. Senators Cruz and Lee bought this horse and have been riding it for some time now.  One quick visit to Politifact will demolish the SunTrust Bank/Brooksville Pawn shop story that made the rounds in 2015.

“SunTrust announced in a Aug. 8, 2014, press release that the bank had “decided to discontinue banking relationships with three types of businesses – specifically payday lenders, pawn shops and dedicated check-cashers – due to compliance requirements.” The bank still works with firearms dealers, according to the release.” [Politifact]

Hence, the policy decision made by SunTrust was no more “anti-gun” than it was anti-jewelry, anti-guitar, anti-CD, anti-work out equipment, or anything else  in a pawn shop.

There are some salient features of this story – once again Senator Heller who delights in his description as a “moderate,” has teamed up with some of the most radical members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate (witness his previous alliances with Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).  Once again Senator Heller has sided with the payday lenders against any action taken to regulate their relationships with their customers. And, once more Senator Heller has demonstrated his willingness to carry any water in any bucket the American Bankers’ Association wants him to transport to the Senate floor.

Dean Heller’s Immoderate Vote

Once again, Nevada junior Senator Dean Heller gets stretched out into Immoderate territory in Senate votes this week.  On September 22, 2015 Senator Heller voted in favor of the unscientific and pretty thoroughly politicized “Pain Capable…” forced birth bill (H.R. 36) [roll call 268]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained the opposition to the bill by noting it is  (1) unconstitutional because it bans abortion procedures before a fetus is medically considered viable and it does not include exceptions for a situation in which a woman’s health in endangered – both elements contradict Roe v. Wade and other precedents.  [RealityCK]

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) added: “Do we really want to make a criminal out of a physician who is trying to prevent a woman with preeclampsia from suffering damage to her kidneys or liver, or having a stroke or seizures?” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). “Do we want the threat of prison for a doctor who knows that his pregnant patient needs chemotherapy or radiation treatments?” [RealityCK]

For those unfamiliar with lady parts and how they function (which unfortunately seems to include a majority of Republican men in Congress) let’s note that preeclampsia generally occurs after 20 weeks, and one of the first signs is an increase in the woman’s blood pressure.  There is one and only one cure for preeclampsia – the delivery of the fetus. [MayoClinic]  The decisions made by the woman and her physician are going to be really tough at this point. 

The delivery has to happen before damage to the kidneys or liver becomes permanent – or fatal.  What happens to the fetus is problematic.  The usual assumption of viability in the U.S. is 24 weeks of gestational age.  Less than that gestational age and the fetus will likely not be physically mature enough to survive into the neo-natal period and achieve the capacity to be an independent human being. [NCBI]  However, there is another factor which isn’t biological.  The technology must be available to sustain the fetus delivered this early.  For example, even in developed western European countries such as Portugal the age of assumed viability is higher than in the U.S. [NIH]

What makes Senator Heller’s position so radical is his vote to criminalize the efforts of a physician who is confronted with preeclampsia in a pregnant woman after 20 weeks into the pregnancy – when the condition most often appears – and his assumption that all pregnant women and their physicians have access to the kind of neo-natal technology associated with a neo-natal intensive care unit.  And, not just any neo-natal care unit, in cases of extremely pre-mature infants we’re talking about Level III care capacity.

Now scroll through the Nursing Institute of Nevada list of hospitals and their technical and staff capabilities.  Two list Level II nursery care, six list Level III facilities – and they are all located in either the Las Vegas or Reno area.  Treating preeclampsia outside one of Nevada’s two metropolitan areas requires all the emergency training and equipment for the most extreme emergencies.

As if the situation weren’t complicated enough, preeclampsia’s early symptoms – headaches, nausea, plus aches and pains are all things that happen in a normal pregnancy.  However, when the headaches are severe, there’s blurred vision. severe abdominal pain,  and  shortness of breath – it’s time for the emergency room. [MayoClinic]   The condition occurs in about 5%-8% of all pregnancies, and can appear at any time during pregnancy, delivery, and up to six weeks post-partum, although it most frequently happens in the final trimester. [PreecOrg]

It would be very useful if more Republican men knew that a pregnancy involves more than having a wife who reacts to certain smells, and  has trouble with shoe laces, in addition to the general knowledge that it’s a good idea to keep the gas tank filled in the family wagon.

The radical forced-birth crowd in the U.S. Senate seems not to understand that their anti-abortion grandstanding has implications in the real world in which not all pregnancies are trouble free, not all women and infants have immediate access to the very latest technology and medical expertise, and not all complications in pregnancies take place conveniently before some artificially established gestational age.  It’s too bad Senator Heller has joined this herd.

Recommended reading for Republican men: “Frequently Asked Questions,” Preeclampsia Foundation. “Familial Occurrence of Preeclampsia,” National Institutes of Health, NCBI. “Late Pregnancy Complications,” Patient.Info. “Preeclampsia,” Mayo Clinic. “Medline Plus: Preeclampsia,” NLM, NIH. “Preeclampsia,” WebMD.

They have nothing: The GOP and Modern American Life

Answer: They have nothing!  Question: What does a political party do when it has failed to research, compile, and publicize a platform of policy proposals addressing American issues?  What’s happened to the Republican Party?  There area clues.

They fall back on old issues, pounding away at uninspired and unoriginal grandstanding rhetoric as if the grandstanding were an alternative in itself.  Witness the latest “vote” to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The only alternative proposal in the hopper is Coupon Care or “Voucher Hospital,” which didn’t withstand scrutiny for the last several rounds.  The Republicans talk as if the extension of family benefits for children up to age 26 can be maintained, or the provisions disallowing elimination of insurance for pre-existing conditions can be continued, without sending the whole system into a downward spiral – unfortunately for the GOP, the system IS working.  However, that didn’t stop one more amendment to:

“To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 entirely,” from hitting the floor of the U.S. Senate for another vote.  [rc 253]

You read that correctly – the Senate Republicans wanted to repeal the ACA entirely – repeal the prohibitions on refusing insurance for pre-existing conditions, repeal the insurance for young people who stay on their parents’ policies until 26, repeal  the prohibition of arbitrary rescission of coverage, repeal your guarantee of a right to ask that your insurance plan reconsider a denial of payment.  Repeal prohibition of that bogus insurance that put limits on lifetime coverage; repeal the review of premium increases; repeal the provision that at least 80% of what’s paid in for premiums must be used to pay for medical treatment.  Repeal preventive health care; repeals insurance company barriers to emergency services…. [DHHS]

It’s been five years since the Affordable Care Act and Patients’ Bill of Rights became law.  Meanwhile, the Senate tried once again to repeal the ACA and Patients’ Bill of Rights “entirely.”   Who were the 49 Senators who voted for repeal?

And, so Senator Heller, exactly what do you propose to replace the measure which has added  16.9 million more Americans to the number of those with health insurance? [Forbes]  Spare us the vague rhetoric about “free market solutions,” or “protecting individual choices,” or “big government intrusion into American lives.”  Those 16.9 million people aren’t rhetorical place-holders, they are real Americans who want real health insurance – so, what’s your plan?  Crickets.

We can expect more rhetoric about abortion! about immigrants! about Tyranny! about anything EXCEPT those issues which should be attracting our attention, and precipitating practical remedies.

They avoid rational responses to current policy issues.  (1) What do we hear from our Republican representatives and officials about gun violence in America?   Reaction to the Charleston, Chattanooga, and Lafayette shootings have drawn the same old responses we heard after the IHOP shooting in Carson City, NV,  the VA Tech shooting, the Aurora Theater shooting….  The Republican response has been little more than a recitation of NRA talking points which conveniently boil down to we can’t do anything about the proliferation of guns because: 2nd Amendment.

So, they talk about “mental health,”  but between 2009 and 2011 the legislatures of 34 states cut funding for mental health care services by a total of $1.6 billion.  Some House Republicans tried to bring a funding bill to the floor last January, but as with most legislation in the GOP controlled House it got chopped into bits in the hope that some portion of it could survive. [TheHill]

It’s instructive to note that Representative Murphy introduced his bill (HR 3717) in December 2013, and it bounced around committees until a last subcommittee hearing in April 2014. [Cong]  Then came the portion of the program known as Dueling Bills, the GOP version (HR3717) vs. a Democratic party member sponsored HR 4574 – and the fight was on concerning funding for substance abuse treatment, and treatment under Medicaid, and for veterans.  [NAMI pdf]

Less rationally, Republicans tell us that our personal safety is an individual responsibility and we’d all be safer if we went to the restaurant or theater with weapons.   Former Texas governor Rick Perry:

“I will suggest to you that these concepts of gun-free zones are a bad idea,” Perry said. “I think that you allow the citizens of this country, who have appropriately trained, appropriately backgrounded, know how to handle and use firearms, to carry them. I believe that, with all my heart, that if you have the citizens who are well trained, and particularly in these places that are considered to be gun-free zones, that we can stop that type of activity, or stop it before there’s as many people that are impacted as what we saw in Lafayette.”[CNN]

And who might these “backgrounded” appropriately trained, knowledgeable, people be?  In a dark theater… and how many of these “backgrounded,” trained, knowledgeable people will it take to create complete chaos? And, more casualties?  Are we willing to create the possibility that our schools, churches, and theaters could become shooting galleries?

(2) What do we hear from the Republicans about terrorism?  Plenty, as long as we’re speaking of ISIS or Muslims.  Not so much if we’re speaking of the home grown variety.   The propaganda wing of the GOP can’t seem to remember any reports of domestic terrorism which can’t be attributed to Muslims.  Interesting, because in September 2011 the FBI released its warning about the Sovereign Citizens and their form of domestic terrorism.  The timing is important because by June 2011 the Department of Homeland Security had eviscerated the analytical unit that produced their report on domestic terrorism including white supremacist and Christian Identity activities. [WaPo]

“Last night, a shooter who held white supremacist and extreme anti-government, anti-feminist views “allegedly killed two people and wounded nine others who were watching the new comedy ‘Trainwreck,’ a film written by and starring the feminist comedian Amy Schumer.”  As the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out in wake of the Lafayette, Louisiana, shooting, “in the last five years, an attack from the radical right was carried out or thwarted on average every 34 days and that the overwhelming majority of those attacks, 74 percent, were carried out by a single person, or a group of no more than two people.” [RRW]

We might add that two individuals associated with right wing extremism assassinated two police officers in Las Vegas in June 2014, and draped the Tea Party flag over one of their bodies. [ABC]  

The Republican formula “Say No Evil” about radicalized anti-abortionists, anti-immigrant, anti-integrationists, may work well in fund raising e-mails about Tyranny In America! or, Big Brother, or whatever the fear du jour may be, but it’s obviously NOT helping track the lone wolves who shoot police officers, or threaten to shoot BLM employees, or shoot patrons in movie theaters.

(3) What happened to that Comprehensive Immigration Bill?  A comprehensive immigration policy reform bill passed the U.S. Senate in June 2013. [NYT]  More specifically that would be 760 days ago, or 108 weeks plus 4 days, and it’s politely referred to as Stalled.  The stall began in December 2013, as the House decided to go “piecemeal.” [MPI] As of February 2014 the Speaker was whining the House couldn’t pass the bill because it didn’t trust the President. [WaPo] However, in April 2014 the Speaker was mocking conservatives for blocking the bill. [WSJ]   By June 2014 Senators were blaming ultra-conservative members of the House for the Great Stall. [9News]  The calendar moved on to January 30, 2015 and the internal struggles of the House Republicans still kept the bill in abeyance. [MPR]

760 days, 108 weeks + 4 days, or 18,240  hours later, there is still no passage of an immigration reform bill in the House of Representatives – whole or piecemeal.

In this morass it may be counted as a minor miracle if Congress can manage to pass a relatively uncontroversial highway funding bill. [TheHill]

Once upon a time, not so long ago, Congress was expected to be filled with Republicans and Democrats who having different perspectives would file differing bills on the same general topics.  Compromises would be worked out among the ladies and gentlemen of the august legislative bodies, and conference committees would work out the differences between measures.  This requires that both sides bring something to the table.  How do we know the GOP isn’t packing anything in its collective briefcase?

When the highway bill comes up they want to “repeal Obamacare” just one more time, or when legislation stalls it is everyone’s fault and no one’s fault that we can’t seem to enact comprehensive immigration policy reform.  How many votes on various and sundry “anti-abortion” proposals has the House taken, instead of taking any votes on whether or not to have universal background checks for gun sales? 

How many hours has the House spent on the Benghazi attack compared to the number of hours it has taken testimony on the condition of our roads, airports, dams, and bridges?  How much time was expended dreaming up a bill to exempt veterans from the ACA and Patient’s Bill of Rights if those individuals already had “government” insurance? (A specious proposal if there ever was one.)

How much more time before the Republicans come to realize that most of the American public – that portion not infatuated with the celebrity bashing all immigrants – would very much like to see something accomplished. 

It’s hard to accomplish anything when what’s being brought to the table is essentially nothing.

Council of Conservative Citizens and the Problem of Money in Nevada Politics

On August 21, 2010 the Friends of Sharron Angle received a $500.00 donation from one Earl Holt, Longview, Texas.  There was another donation from the same source on October 12, 2010, also for $500.00.  However, pouring money into Mrs. Angle’s failed campaign wasn’t Earl Holt’s only interest in Nevada.  On September 30, 2012 the Heller for Senate received $500.00 from the generous Mr. Holt. [LVSun]

Mr. Holt and his organization have come under scrutiny since the Charleston church massacre as the probable source of inspiration for the killer.  From the Associated Press, the Guardian, and Politico. And, now Senator Heller has announced he will give his prize money from Holt to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund. [LVRJ]

The donation is good news indeed, the bad news is that the $500 from Holt’s Hate Band has been in Senator Heller’s account from September 30, 2012 until June 22, 2015 without notice on the part of Heller’s own staff.

This says something about money in politics and Republican money more specifically.

Given the massive costs of running a statewide campaign, especially in the top echelon races, it’s comprehensible that individual donations of relatively small amounts wouldn’t be cross checked for provenance.  However, it’s not like the Council of Conservative Citizens is an unknown group. 

“The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is the modern reincarnation of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South. Among other things, its Statement of Principles says that it “oppose[s] all efforts to mix the races of mankind.” Created in 1985 from the mailing lists of its predecessor organization, the CCC, which initially tried to project a “mainstream” image, has evolved into a crudely white supremacist group…” [SPLC]

As the Republican Party has been co-opted or at least significantly  influenced by the ultra-conservative Tea Party membership, the origins of money are ever more likely to come from organizations which have dubious racial and ethnic agendas – i.e. white supremacists.

Our second “given” is that it is always easier to beg forgiveness than to ask  permission.  Several prominent members of the Republican Party have donated CCC money to charity in the last week, all presumably because the tainted nature of the origins came to light.  Granted this is speculation, but what IF by some miracle the killer in Charleston had not acted on his evil ideation? What if the basis for the hate wasn’t the propaganda of the white supremacist’s associations?  Would those donations still be available to the politicians to buy air time and advertising?

In an era of Dark Money, Big Money, PAC money, and questionable non-profit money – here’s some unsolicited advice:

Well coordinated campaigns have good lines of internal communication.  Policy advocates and specialists should know where the money’s coming from, and the finance specialists should be aware of the image the candidate wants to project.   If a candidate doesn’t wish to be guilty by association with white supremacist groups then that needs to be conveyed to the finance directors with an admonishment to screen donations which appear questionable.

Bluntly speaking, Citizens United, while beneficial to Republican candidates in terms of corporate donations, may have made it harder for individual campaigns to discern the ultimate origins of campaign donations, which when discovered could prove embarrassing – or career ending.  We have a current example – Rep. Scalise, his speech to a David Duke related organization, and Duke’s threat to reveal his connections to other politicians. [HuffPo]

When in doubt – there’s always Google?

Yes, Heller Embarrassed Nevada

The Reno Gazette Journal adds its editorial voice to the backlash over the #Iran47 participation of Senator Dean Heller (R-NV), in “Heller embarrassed Nevada with Iran letter.”   Thus, the Gazette Journal joins a chorus including the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Nashua, NH Telegraph, the Concord, NH Monitor, the Peoria Journal Star, the Salt Lake Tribune, the New York Times, the Kansas City Star, the Sacramento Bee,  the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Baltimore Sun, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times,  and others. [Pol]

Senator Heller’s web site doesn’t include any press releases explaining the inexplicable.  Perhaps he’s adopting some of the other incredulous statements made, like Senator McCain’s “snow storm” excuse?  [Pol] Or, he might use the Senator Rand Paul template: “I signed the Iran letter in Order to Help Obama?”  Or, how about the former Governor Jeb Bush idea, “I approved it out of frustration?”  There’s always 60+ day Senator Tom Cotton’s version: “If Congress doesn’t approve the deal it may not last.”

Maybe the junior Senator from Nevada could mash them all together?

“I signed the Iran Letter because I was frustrated with the snow storm, and in order to help the President I thought I’d let the Iranians know that the Constitution allows the Senate to offer “advice and consent” to treaties before they’re ratified, just in case the fellows weren’t educated.”

The last part is really amusing given that the Iranian government has the highest number of US college graduates serving in any foreign government cabinet in the world.  President Rouhani has a PhD from the prestigious Glasgow Caledonian University (Scotland), Zarif has a PhD from the University of Denver; the Science, Research & Technology minister (Mohammad Ali Najafi) did post graduate work at MIT.  Vaezi, Minister of Communications, began his PhD at LSU and finished at the Warsaw University in Poland, the Minister for Industry, Nematzadeh, graduated from Cal Poly in 1968, and studied industrial management at Cal Berkeley. Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the AEO, has a PhD in nuclear engineering from MIT.  Chief of Staff, Mohammad Nahavandian, has a PhD in economics from George Washington University.  [IranPrimer]

The junior Senator from Nevada might want to consider his response and rationale very carefully because when an editorial board uses terms like “condescending, embarrassing, clueless, damaging, and hypocritical,”  the Senator’s next words should be very carefully weighed and measured.

GOP Age of Un-Enlightenment: Heller one of the #Iran47

Nevada’s junior Senator, Dean Heller (R) is one of the  signers of the now infamous ‘enlightenment letter’ to the Iranian leadership.  Heller, who has a certain flare for the dramatic – if not the practicable – has demonstrated his willingness to participate in amateur political theatricals before.   Witness the “Balanced Budget Amendment” which he hauls out every session only to be reminded that the budget of a sovereign nation doesn’t have the same characteristic as a household budget in East Deer Breath.  Or, there was the gallant attempt to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act, in tandem with former Senator (now Heritage Foundation guru) Jim DeMint. This scene evaporated as well.   Considering the matter at hand, here are some absolutely unsolicited bits of advice for the junior Senator:

#1. “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.”  Before signing on to this line, one might be aware that the recipients include  Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who attended Drew College Prep in San Francisco, got his B.A. in International Relations from San Francisco State University in 1981, and a Master’s in 1982. He did post graduate work at the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, and received his PhD in International Law and Policy in 1988. Here’s guessing that the Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs might have some knowledge of U.S. governmental operations?

Opening lines such as this are patronizing or at least condescending, and one of the Things Not Done in international relations is being… patronizing or condescending.  Iran, love it or loathe it, is a sovereign nation, and that pompous, supercilious, opening sounds suspiciously like the #Iran47 would like to teach their “little brown brothers” about U.S. politics. 

#2. Don’t make obvious errors.  It really doesn’t do to have a legal heavyweight from the Bush Administration tell you that the Senate may “offer advice and consent,” but “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). [Goldsmith]  In athletic parlance, this fumble is often called an Unforced Error.

#3. You will be known by the company you keep.  Very junior Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) has made it very clear that he wants to scuttle all attempts at diplomacy with Iran.  “The end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak,” Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America.” [Huffington Post]  This puts the #Iran47 deep in the realm of American hardliners who see no practicality in negotiating a deal with the current Iranian government.  Not everyone has dived into that pool, including acknowledged foreign policy expert former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).  If Senator Heller would like to retain his “periodically moderate” label, this is not the way to do it.

#4. The more flexible you are the more options you’ll have.  Taking the hard line stance as a signatory to the Cotton Letter means that diplomacy is off the table.  What does that leave?  Let’s assume the old adage is correct: War is the failure of diplomacy.  If diplomacy is removed as an option then the only way to resolve an international dispute is with armed forces.  But, what of economic sanctions?

#5. Don’t discard options merely because they require assistance.  Unilateral economic sanctions never work.  At best they can be functional in about 13% of their applications, at least since 1970, and  usually with small countries. (Rhodesia comes to mind)  [Hill]  Then there’s this observation from the Director, Institute for International Economics, a panelist at the CFR:

“There is no case—repeat, no case—where unilateral sanctions have ever worked to induce a sizable country to make a major change in policy, no case in history that we have been able to discover. The simple reason is that the United States no longer dominates the world economy. There are always alternative sources of export, import markets, finance, whatever it may be. We alone cannot coerce others. And there are always alternatives, and they will always be available.”

And, this leads us to the next point.

#6. The more friends you have the better.  The current negotiations involve  members of the P5+1 who are actually negotiating the deal with Iran.  The U.S. isn’t the only country with a negotiating interest in the talks, the other nations include the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Germany, and the U.S.  Some care should have been taken that what was perhaps meant as a poke at Iran wouldn’t be received as a slap in the face of the other negotiating countries.  Now, consider the next point —

#7. If the #Iran47 intend for the talks to collapse, then the intended (or unintended?) consequence could be the U.S. wedded to a unilateral policy calling for a military solution to the issue of Iranian nuclear development? After all, why would the UK, France, or Germany participate in military operations if they assume their negotiations were in good faith, and the U.S. was the one to pull out?

Should the U.S. become embroiled in a war with Iran,  a nation with about 450,000 regular military personnel, some 120,000 in the Army of the Guardians, and about 3 million combat trained paramilitary Basij, it should be reasonably obvious that the conflict would not be a simple matter of a few air strikes.  And, while the U.S. is thus engaged what happens in, say, Ukraine? Iraq? Central Africa? Nigeria? North Korea? Libya?

#8. “Regime Change” is a term freighted with negative associations. In an ethereal world of ideals, as opposed to the practical one in which we are living, we could bargain very nicely with a ‘new’ regime in Tehran.  That is, IF, the new regime was cooperative.  However, as we learned to our dismay in Iraq, a new regime doesn’t necessarily equate to a cooperative ally.  The ‘new regime’ in Iraq refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement with two American administrations, insisted on the pull out of U.S. combat forces, and then proceeded to make a hash of Sunni-Shia power relationships giving ISI a wedge into the fray.

#9. Striking a pose and taking a position are two different things. Striking a pose is easy.  One may be belligerent – fists at the ready, emotions on high;  or pacific – fists down, brain engaged. Taking a position requires thought, especially forethought, and the inclusion of a host of factors which may or may not prove to be critical elements.   One of the conveniences of militarism is that it requires little forethought – have a problem with someone? Simply shoot’em up.   The current situation in the Middle East is not a scripted melodrama from film writers; the good guys are difficult to identify and may not always be ‘good,’ and the bad guys may be helpful in one area (think Iran and its assistance against ISIL) and unhelpful in others.

Signing on as an original founder of the #Iran47 wasn’t the best idea Nevada’s junior Senator has had, and in fact it may prove to be one of his worst moments.  Unless, of course, he would like to posture as a belligerent, mindless subscriber to militarism and the notion that not only is might always right but it also always works.  This is a dubious proposition at best, and it certainly offers a future challenger an opening on an unforced error.