"So, the health care entitlements are the big, big, big drivers of our
debt. There are three. Obamacare, Medicaid, and Medicare. Two out of
three are going through Congress right now. So, Medicaid—sending it back
to the states, capping its growth rate. We’ve been dreaming of this
since you and I were drinking out of a keg."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/17/paul_ryan_s_college_dream_was_to_kick_poor_people_off_medicaid.html
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Monday, March 20, 2017
The GOP has become the party of white nationalism
By Michael A. Cohen
Scott Olson/Getty Images/File
Representative Steve King of Iowa spoke to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015.
There is no greater challenge in covering national politics these days than simply trying to keep up with the daily outrages emanating from Washington. Take, for example, the fact that, two weeks ago, all we were talking about was the fact that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general and nation’s highest law enforcement official, lied to Congress. This week you hear only crickets on Sessions.
But here’s one story that should not fall through the cracks: Representative Steve King of Iowa.
Earlier this week King shared an article on Twitter offering his support for the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has based his political ascendancy on bashing Muslim immigrants. King added the words, “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
These comments are catnip to white nationalists.
In fact, former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard David Duke retweeted King with the words “GOD BLESS STEVE KING.”
Not surprisingly, the reaction from Democrats was one of revulsion and demands for an apology.
King, however, was undeterred.
On Monday, King repeated his offensive words and added, “You’ve got to keep your birth rate up and that you need to teach your children your values and, in doing so, then you can grow your population and you can strengthen your culture, you can strengthen your way of life.”According to King, he wants to see an America that is “homogenous” and one where “we look a lot the same.”
This is not King’s first time at the racist rodeo. Back in July he raised questions about the contributions of nonwhite people to “civilization.”
A virulent opponent of immigration, King has called for an electrified fence to be built on the US-Mexico border to give electric shocks to those trying to enter the country. Back in 2013 he said that for every successful child of an undocumented immigrant there are 100 more drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling drugs. King also has been photographed with a Confederate battle flag in his congressional office.
To put it simply, Steve King is a racist.
And yet, it seems that being a racist — one who has repeatedly made prejudicial comments about blacks and Hispanics — is not the kind of thing that gets you drummed out of the modern Republican Party. Indeed, it seems to have no impact at all.
After King’s cantaloupe comment, then-House Speaker John Boehner called the congressman’s words “deeply offensive and wrong.” Current Speaker Paul Ryan’s reaction to King’s latest remarks was more muted. “I disagree with that statement,” Ryan said. He added, “I’d like to think that he misspoke and it wasn’t really meant the way that that sounds and hopefully he’s clarified that.”
But when it comes to mealy-mouthed condemnations of blatantly racist and xenophobic comments, Ryan can’t hold a candle to White House spokesman Sean Spicer, who said, “The president believes that this is not a point of view that he shares.”
Several Hispanic Republican congressmen condemned King’s remarks, but most Republicans have been silent. Calls to censure King or strip him of his chairmanship of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights have been ignored.
While some might be inclined to dismiss King as a fringe figure, the very fact that so few Republicans are willing to criticize him speaks volumes. They clearly don’t want to alienate those voters who agree with King’s racist remarks. It’s yet one more reminder of the extent to which white nationalism and open racism have become normalized within the modern Republican Party.
Indeed, earlier this month, the Huffington Post ran a disturbing piece on the grotesque, virulently racist book “The Camp of the Saints,” which top White House advisor Steve Bannon has used to describe the influx of nonwhite, Muslim refugees into Europe. The book describes the destruction of white, Christian Europe, by nonwhite immigrants led by an Indian demagogue. In the book, Europe is overrun by poor, nonwhite migrants.
Bannon’s endorsement of this grotesque piece of literature is at pace with the policies he’s promoted since becoming the president’s top strategist: from the travel-ban executive order that specifically targets Muslims to its focus on building a wall on the US-Mexico, all to keep out nonwhite immigrants.
Guess who else recently plugged “The Camp of the Saints.” Yup: Steve King.
Even after a campaign in which Donald Trump ran on an unambiguous platform of racism, xenophobia, and intolerance, it has, somehow, become inappropriate to identify the role that white nationalism plays in defining and uniting the modern Republican Party. Yet when people like Steve King continue to play leadership roles in the GOP and avoid condemnation for racist remarks, what more evidence do we need that many GOP voters, rather than being turned off by the open embrace of race-based appeals from Republican leaders, find them attractive. Steve King is not some fringe figure — he’s the mainstream of the modern Republican Party.
That’s one story that cannot be ignored.
Michael A. Cohen’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @speechboy71.
Scott Olson/Getty Images/File
Representative Steve King of Iowa spoke to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015.
There is no greater challenge in covering national politics these days than simply trying to keep up with the daily outrages emanating from Washington. Take, for example, the fact that, two weeks ago, all we were talking about was the fact that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general and nation’s highest law enforcement official, lied to Congress. This week you hear only crickets on Sessions.
But here’s one story that should not fall through the cracks: Representative Steve King of Iowa.
Earlier this week King shared an article on Twitter offering his support for the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has based his political ascendancy on bashing Muslim immigrants. King added the words, “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
These comments are catnip to white nationalists.
In fact, former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard David Duke retweeted King with the words “GOD BLESS STEVE KING.”
Not surprisingly, the reaction from Democrats was one of revulsion and demands for an apology.
King, however, was undeterred.
On Monday, King repeated his offensive words and added, “You’ve got to keep your birth rate up and that you need to teach your children your values and, in doing so, then you can grow your population and you can strengthen your culture, you can strengthen your way of life.”According to King, he wants to see an America that is “homogenous” and one where “we look a lot the same.”
This is not King’s first time at the racist rodeo. Back in July he raised questions about the contributions of nonwhite people to “civilization.”
A virulent opponent of immigration, King has called for an electrified fence to be built on the US-Mexico border to give electric shocks to those trying to enter the country. Back in 2013 he said that for every successful child of an undocumented immigrant there are 100 more drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling drugs. King also has been photographed with a Confederate battle flag in his congressional office.
To put it simply, Steve King is a racist.
And yet, it seems that being a racist — one who has repeatedly made prejudicial comments about blacks and Hispanics — is not the kind of thing that gets you drummed out of the modern Republican Party. Indeed, it seems to have no impact at all.
After King’s cantaloupe comment, then-House Speaker John Boehner called the congressman’s words “deeply offensive and wrong.” Current Speaker Paul Ryan’s reaction to King’s latest remarks was more muted. “I disagree with that statement,” Ryan said. He added, “I’d like to think that he misspoke and it wasn’t really meant the way that that sounds and hopefully he’s clarified that.”
But when it comes to mealy-mouthed condemnations of blatantly racist and xenophobic comments, Ryan can’t hold a candle to White House spokesman Sean Spicer, who said, “The president believes that this is not a point of view that he shares.”
Several Hispanic Republican congressmen condemned King’s remarks, but most Republicans have been silent. Calls to censure King or strip him of his chairmanship of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights have been ignored.
While some might be inclined to dismiss King as a fringe figure, the very fact that so few Republicans are willing to criticize him speaks volumes. They clearly don’t want to alienate those voters who agree with King’s racist remarks. It’s yet one more reminder of the extent to which white nationalism and open racism have become normalized within the modern Republican Party.
Indeed, earlier this month, the Huffington Post ran a disturbing piece on the grotesque, virulently racist book “The Camp of the Saints,” which top White House advisor Steve Bannon has used to describe the influx of nonwhite, Muslim refugees into Europe. The book describes the destruction of white, Christian Europe, by nonwhite immigrants led by an Indian demagogue. In the book, Europe is overrun by poor, nonwhite migrants.
Bannon’s endorsement of this grotesque piece of literature is at pace with the policies he’s promoted since becoming the president’s top strategist: from the travel-ban executive order that specifically targets Muslims to its focus on building a wall on the US-Mexico, all to keep out nonwhite immigrants.
Guess who else recently plugged “The Camp of the Saints.” Yup: Steve King.
Even after a campaign in which Donald Trump ran on an unambiguous platform of racism, xenophobia, and intolerance, it has, somehow, become inappropriate to identify the role that white nationalism plays in defining and uniting the modern Republican Party. Yet when people like Steve King continue to play leadership roles in the GOP and avoid condemnation for racist remarks, what more evidence do we need that many GOP voters, rather than being turned off by the open embrace of race-based appeals from Republican leaders, find them attractive. Steve King is not some fringe figure — he’s the mainstream of the modern Republican Party.
That’s one story that cannot be ignored.
Michael A. Cohen’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @speechboy71.
Trump Is The Biggest Failure In History As His Disapproval Rating Skyrockets To 58%
Donald Trump has set a record that has never
been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating
has reached 58% - two months into his time in office.
By Jason Easley
Donald Trump has set a record that disapproval rating that has never been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating has reached 58% two months into his time in office.
Here is the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll of Trump’s approval rating:
Trump’s approval rating has plunged to 37% as his disapproval rating has soared to 58%.
Never in US history has a president been this unpopular so early in his first term. Trump has lost 2 points in approval and gained three disapproval points since the CBO revealed that 24 million people would lose their health insurance under Trumpcare.
Trump has the worst job approval numbers since Gallup began tracking presidents in 1945. At this same point during his first term, President Obama’s job approval rating was in the low 60's. George W. Bush’s approval rating was in the low 50's. It took Ronald Reagan a year to have an approval rating as bad as Trump’s, and it was a year into Richard Nixon’s second term before he hit the low that Trump is at.
The practical political lesson for Democrats is that they should not shy away from linking Congressional Republicans to their unpopular president. What should be frightening for elected Republicans is that things will probably get much worse for Trump in the future. The first few months of his term are supposed to be the most popular point of his presidency.
How low can Donald Trump go? It is possible that he may set records for unpopularity that will stand for decades.
Trump promised to make America great, but instead, he has been a complete failure as president.
By Jason Easley
Donald Trump has set a record that disapproval rating that has never been reached before in the history of polling as his disapproval rating has reached 58% two months into his time in office.
Here is the latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll of Trump’s approval rating:
Trump’s approval rating has plunged to 37% as his disapproval rating has soared to 58%.
Never in US history has a president been this unpopular so early in his first term. Trump has lost 2 points in approval and gained three disapproval points since the CBO revealed that 24 million people would lose their health insurance under Trumpcare.
Trump has the worst job approval numbers since Gallup began tracking presidents in 1945. At this same point during his first term, President Obama’s job approval rating was in the low 60's. George W. Bush’s approval rating was in the low 50's. It took Ronald Reagan a year to have an approval rating as bad as Trump’s, and it was a year into Richard Nixon’s second term before he hit the low that Trump is at.
The practical political lesson for Democrats is that they should not shy away from linking Congressional Republicans to their unpopular president. What should be frightening for elected Republicans is that things will probably get much worse for Trump in the future. The first few months of his term are supposed to be the most popular point of his presidency.
How low can Donald Trump go? It is possible that he may set records for unpopularity that will stand for decades.
Trump promised to make America great, but instead, he has been a complete failure as president.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Young Americans: Most see Trump as an illegitimate president
WASHINGTON — Jermaine Anderson keeps going back to the same memory of Donald Trump, then a candidate for president of the United States, referring to some Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers.
"You can't be saying that (if) you're the president," says Anderson, a 21 year old student from Coconut Creek, Florida.
That Trump is undeniably the nation's 45th president doesn't sit easily with young Americans like Anderson who are the nation's increasingly diverse electorate of the future, according to a new poll.
A majority of young adults — 57 percent — see Trump's presidency as illegitimate, including about three-quarters of blacks and large majorities of Latinos and Asians, the GenForward poll found.
GenForward is a poll of adults age 18 to 30 conducted by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
A slim majority of young whites in the poll, 53 percent, consider Trump a legitimate president, but even among that group 55 percent disapprove of the job he's doing, according to the survey.
"That's who we voted for. And obviously America wanted him more than Hillary Clinton," said Rebecca Gallardo, a 30 year old nursing student from Kansas City, Missouri, who voted for Trump.
Trump's legitimacy as president was questioned earlier this year by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.: "I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."
Trump routinely denies that and says he captured the presidency in large part by winning states such as Michigan and Wisconsin that Clinton may have taken for granted.
Overall, just 22 percent of young adults approve of the job he is doing as president, while 62 percent disapprove.
Trump's rhetoric as a candidate and his presidential decisions have done much to keep the question of who belongs in America atop the news, though he's struggling to accomplish some key goals.
Powered by supporters chanting, "build the wall," Trump has vowed to erect a barrier along the southern U.S. border and make Mexico pay for it — which Mexico refuses to do. Federal judges in three states have blocked Trump's executive orders to ban travel to the U.S. from seven — then six — majority-Muslim nations.
In Honolulu, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson this week cited "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus" behind the revised travel ban, citing Trump's own words calling for "a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
And yes, Trump did say in his campaign announcement speech on June 6, 2015: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." He went further in subsequent statements, later telling CNN: "Some are good and some are rapists and some are killers."
It's extraordinary rhetoric for the leader of a country where by around 2020, half of the nation's children will be part of a minority race or ethnic group, the Census Bureau projects. Non-Hispanic whites are expected to be a minority by 2044.
Of all of Trump's tweets and rhetoric, the statements about Mexicans are the ones to which Anderson returns. He says Trump's business background on paper is impressive enough to qualify him for the presidency. But he suggests that's different than Trump earning legitimacy as president.
![Graphic shows results of GenForward poll on younger Americans’ attitudes toward Donald Trump and his presidency; 2c x 4 inches; 96.3 mm x 101 mm;]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"36","h":"40","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BByldsw.img?h=400&w=360&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
© The Associated Press Graphic shows results of GenForward poll on younger Americans attitudes toward Donald Trump and his presidency.
"I'm thinking, he's saying that most of the people in the world who are raping and killing people are the immigrants. That's not true," said Anderson, whose parents are from Jamaica.
Megan Desrochers, a 21 year old student from Lansing, Michigan, says her sense of Trump's illegitimacy is more about why he was elected.
"I just think it was kind of a situation where he was voted in based on his celebrity status verses his ethics," she said, adding that she is not necessarily against Trump's immigration policies.
The poll participants said in interviews that they don't necessarily vote for one party's candidates over another's, a prominent tendency among young Americans, experts say. And in the survey, neither party fares especially strongly.
Just a quarter of young Americans have a favorable view of the Republican Party, and six in 10 have an unfavorable view. Majorities of young people across racial and ethnic lines hold negative views of the GOP.
The Democratic Party performs better, but views aren't overwhelmingly positive. Young people are more likely to have a favorable than an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party by a 47 percent to 36 percent margin. But just 14 percent say they have a strongly favorable view of the Democrats.
Views of the Democratic Party are most favorable among young people of color. Roughly six in 10 blacks, Asians and Latinos hold positive views of the party. Young whites are somewhat more likely to have unfavorable than favorable views, 47 percent to 39 percent.
As for Trump, eight in 10 young people think he is doing poorly in terms of the policies he's put forward and seven in 10 have negative views of his presidential demeanor.
"I do not like him as a person," Gallardo says of Trump. She nonetheless voted for Trump because she didn't trust Clinton. "I felt like there wasn't much choice."
___
The poll of 1,833 adults age 18-30 was conducted on Feb. 16 through March 6 using a sample drawn from the probability-based GenForward panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. young adult population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The survey was paid for by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago, using grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods, and later interviewed online or by phone.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Trump budget cuts meals on wheels to fund defense contractors
"The preliminary outline for President Donald Trump's 2018 budget could
slash some funding for a program that provides meals for older,
impoverished Americans.
The budget blueprint suggests cutting funds for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by about $6.2 billion, a 13.2% decrease from its 2017 funding level.
Here's what Trump wants cut
Almost half of those savings will come by eliminating the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels."
The budget blueprint suggests cutting funds for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by about $6.2 billion, a 13.2% decrease from its 2017 funding level.
Here's what Trump wants cut
Almost half of those savings will come by eliminating the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels."
Mick Mulvaney defends meals on wheels cuts
"At a news conference Thursday, Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget
chief, defended proposed cuts to the Meals on Wheels program, which
provides food aid to needy senior citizens, by saying the program is one
of many that is “just not showing any results.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/16/trump-budget-chief-says-meals-on-wheels-is-not-showing-any-results-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.076df1fe6814
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/16/trump-budget-chief-says-meals-on-wheels-is-not-showing-any-results-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.076df1fe6814
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Jaws Drop As Trump WH Claims Starving Seniors By Killing Meals On Wheels Is Compassionate
Trump Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters today that
eliminating food for senior citizens via the Meals On Wheels program was
the compassionate thing to do because if a program can't demonstrate
results, it should get cut.
By Jason Easley
When Mulvaney was asked about the elimination of funding for Meals On Wheels, he answered, “I think you know that Meals On Wheels is not a federal program. It’s part of that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) that we give to the states, and then many states make the decision to use that money on Meals On Wheels. What I can tell you about CDBG's is that’s what we fund. Right? So we spend $150 billion on those programs since the 1970's. The CDBGs have been identified as programs since I think the second Bush administration as ones that we just not showing any results. We can’t do that anymore. We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good. Meals On Wheels sounds great. Again, that’s a state decision to fund that particular portion, but to take the federal money and to give that to the states, and say look we want to give you federal money for programs that don’t work. I can’t defend that anymore.”
Later Mulvaney was asked if this is a hard-hearted budget. He answered, “I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is one of the most compassionate things we can do to. You’re only focusing on half of the equation. Right? You’re focusing on recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients and the folks who give us the money in the first place, and I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard earned money anymore.”
In other words, screw the starving elderly and the kids who are going to go without afterschool programs, people like Donald Trump aren’t giving you their “hard earned” money anymore.
Meals on Wheels helps 2.4 million seniors have access to food while being able to stay in their own homes. The results for the program can be seen in both nutritional terms and increased independence for millions of Americans. Meals on Wheels saves taxpayers $34 billion a year in healthcare costs.
This is a vital program for America’s communities, and anyone who claims otherwise is not telling the truth. The selfish argument about taxpayers isn’t going to fly in this case.
The Trump administration has gone from being out of touch with America to trying to starve Americans.
By Jason Easley
When Mulvaney was asked about the elimination of funding for Meals On Wheels, he answered, “I think you know that Meals On Wheels is not a federal program. It’s part of that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) that we give to the states, and then many states make the decision to use that money on Meals On Wheels. What I can tell you about CDBG's is that’s what we fund. Right? So we spend $150 billion on those programs since the 1970's. The CDBGs have been identified as programs since I think the second Bush administration as ones that we just not showing any results. We can’t do that anymore. We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good. Meals On Wheels sounds great. Again, that’s a state decision to fund that particular portion, but to take the federal money and to give that to the states, and say look we want to give you federal money for programs that don’t work. I can’t defend that anymore.”
Later Mulvaney was asked if this is a hard-hearted budget. He answered, “I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is one of the most compassionate things we can do to. You’re only focusing on half of the equation. Right? You’re focusing on recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients and the folks who give us the money in the first place, and I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard earned money anymore.”
In other words, screw the starving elderly and the kids who are going to go without afterschool programs, people like Donald Trump aren’t giving you their “hard earned” money anymore.
Meals on Wheels helps 2.4 million seniors have access to food while being able to stay in their own homes. The results for the program can be seen in both nutritional terms and increased independence for millions of Americans. Meals on Wheels saves taxpayers $34 billion a year in healthcare costs.
This is a vital program for America’s communities, and anyone who claims otherwise is not telling the truth. The selfish argument about taxpayers isn’t going to fly in this case.
The Trump administration has gone from being out of touch with America to trying to starve Americans.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Texans Receive Notices To Sell Or Have Their Land Taken
By Rika Christensen
on March 15, 2017 1:44 am
Texas landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border have begun receiving notices from the federal government saying that they’re coming to either buy, or take, parcels of land for Trump’s pointless border wall. According to the Texas Observer, landowners are receiving “Declarations of Taking” notices that offer a price for the piece that the government wants. If the landowners refuse that, then they may see those parts of their property taken via eminent domain.
One landowner, Yvette Salinas, got her notice back in January. She’d been dreading it for a while because of George W. Bush’s focus on a border fence. Under Obama, she’d been able to relax a bit because he focused on patrolling and monitoring the border in ways that didn’t include taking land and building a wall.
Now, with Trump in office, this shit has just gotten real. Whether any of these preparations happened while Obama was still in office or not, it’s Trump who is pushing the wall forward as quickly as he can. It’s one of his focal points, and it will be his government that buys up or takes the land.
The introduction in Salinas’ letter reads like this:
Under Trump, though, Los Ebanos seems to have become a focal point. The government has already completed surveys and planning for a wall there. Despite increasing problems with costs, the fact that crossings are down, and the fact that Republicans are voicing their discomfort with the idea, Trump keeps hammering the wall as the way to secure the border.
It’s impossibly stupid. People who live along the border prefer the technological surveillance and the presence of the U.S. Border Patrol to a wall because they believe that’s more effective and costs a hell of a lot less. And they don’t have to give up pieces of land that have been in their families for generations for that.
They also know people will still cross whether there’s a wall or not.
Salinas doesn’t want to sell that bit of land but she doesn’t know what to do. The community doesn’t want to allow the wall to be built through there, either, but neither can they afford to have the U.S. government sue them, and they risk having their land taken without compensation if they try to fight.
Texas landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border have begun receiving notices from the federal government saying that they’re coming to either buy, or take, parcels of land for Trump’s pointless border wall. According to the Texas Observer, landowners are receiving “Declarations of Taking” notices that offer a price for the piece that the government wants. If the landowners refuse that, then they may see those parts of their property taken via eminent domain.
One landowner, Yvette Salinas, got her notice back in January. She’d been dreading it for a while because of George W. Bush’s focus on a border fence. Under Obama, she’d been able to relax a bit because he focused on patrolling and monitoring the border in ways that didn’t include taking land and building a wall.
Now, with Trump in office, this shit has just gotten real. Whether any of these preparations happened while Obama was still in office or not, it’s Trump who is pushing the wall forward as quickly as he can. It’s one of his focal points, and it will be his government that buys up or takes the land.
The introduction in Salinas’ letter reads like this:
“The United States of America is acquiring property along its border with Mexico in order to construct a fence and related improvements designed to secure the border, as required by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.”They offered Salinas and her family $2,900 for 1.2 acres of land – the same amount for the same land that the government offered her under George W. Bush years earlier. The tiny community in which she lives—Los Ebanos—lies entirely within the floodplain of the Rio Grande. That land is protected by a treaty with Mexico that forbids the building of structures that could force floodwaters into other communities, and has been an obstacle towards border wall construction.
Under Trump, though, Los Ebanos seems to have become a focal point. The government has already completed surveys and planning for a wall there. Despite increasing problems with costs, the fact that crossings are down, and the fact that Republicans are voicing their discomfort with the idea, Trump keeps hammering the wall as the way to secure the border.
It’s impossibly stupid. People who live along the border prefer the technological surveillance and the presence of the U.S. Border Patrol to a wall because they believe that’s more effective and costs a hell of a lot less. And they don’t have to give up pieces of land that have been in their families for generations for that.
They also know people will still cross whether there’s a wall or not.
Salinas doesn’t want to sell that bit of land but she doesn’t know what to do. The community doesn’t want to allow the wall to be built through there, either, but neither can they afford to have the U.S. government sue them, and they risk having their land taken without compensation if they try to fight.
Rachel Maddow Stands Tall And Refuses To Back Down When Threatened By Donald Trump
Rachel
Maddow refused to bow to Donald Trump's baseless threats. After the
Trump White House had threatened her, the MSNBC host reported on a leak
of Trump's 2005 tax return.
It’s true that the unauthorized release of federal tax returns is a criminal offense, however Maddow argued on the air that releasing the tax returns was a matter of public interest, given that every single president has done so since Nixon except for this one, who just so happens to be under scrutiny for his foreign ties. Thus MSNBC was exercising its First Amendment right.
Trump promised to release his tax returns if elected, and then once elected had his surrogates announce that no one cared. Polls disagree with the Trump administration’s claims on the matter of his tax returns. Americans think they do matter and they want to see them.
“You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago” and said it was “totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns,” a statement from the White House charged oddly, given that Rachel Maddow’s ratings are skyrocketing right now given her coverage of Trump’s Russia scandal.
Maddow discussed a 2 page 1040 tax filing said to be Trump’s and confirmed by the White House, produced by David Cay Johnston, who noted that it could have been Trump himself who leaked the documents to him because Trump has a habit of doing that.
The Trump White House picked the worst enemy in Rachel Maddow. They seem to have a real feel for making enemies of media outlets – like the New York Times and Washington Post – that will not back down to them.
Rachel Maddow is the last person Donald Trump should want to get into any kind of pissing match with, and if he’s looking for a “liberal” to kick around, an easy foil if you will, he picked the wrong one. Maddow is way, way, way too smart and knowledgeable to be intimidated by Donald Trump’s White House.
Rachel Maddow Terrifies Trump By Warning That The Tax Return Leaked To Her Won’t Be The Last
Rachel Maddow had a terrifying message for Donald Trump. The 2005 tax
return that was leaked to her may be the first, but it won't be the
last.
By Jason Easley
Maddow said, “The greater concern. The worry that this president may be financially beholden to an individual, to an institution, to a country, and now that he’s president we won’t know if he tries to use the resources and power of our country to pay off that entity to whom he is beholden. We can’t know any of that without getting his tax returns. That’s why presidents release their tax returns. That’s why there will continue to be unrelenting pressure to find Donald Trump’s tax returns, to expose Donald Trump’s tax returns, and that pressure will remain every single day that he is president and until he releases them that pressure will never let up, and that’s why somebody has decided to leak this portion of his 2005 tax return, which is how and why we got it tonight, and I am sure it is only the start, but it’s a start.”
The news isn’t what is on Trump’s 1040 from 12 years ago. The big story is that a tax return was published. Every news organization in the United States and others around the world have been trying to get their hands on Trump’s tax returns.
The fact that somebody was able to get one of Trump’s returns out to the public suggests that there are more of them out there, and it is only a matter of time before others reveal the secrets that this president has worked so hard to keep hidden.
Maddow got a 1040, but eventually, a whole tax return or returns will be made public. Trump isn’t worried about the details of what Rachel Maddow made public. What terrifies Trump is that his tax return secrecy has been shattered and the real damage is yet to come.
By Jason Easley
Maddow said, “The greater concern. The worry that this president may be financially beholden to an individual, to an institution, to a country, and now that he’s president we won’t know if he tries to use the resources and power of our country to pay off that entity to whom he is beholden. We can’t know any of that without getting his tax returns. That’s why presidents release their tax returns. That’s why there will continue to be unrelenting pressure to find Donald Trump’s tax returns, to expose Donald Trump’s tax returns, and that pressure will remain every single day that he is president and until he releases them that pressure will never let up, and that’s why somebody has decided to leak this portion of his 2005 tax return, which is how and why we got it tonight, and I am sure it is only the start, but it’s a start.”
The news isn’t what is on Trump’s 1040 from 12 years ago. The big story is that a tax return was published. Every news organization in the United States and others around the world have been trying to get their hands on Trump’s tax returns.
The fact that somebody was able to get one of Trump’s returns out to the public suggests that there are more of them out there, and it is only a matter of time before others reveal the secrets that this president has worked so hard to keep hidden.
Maddow got a 1040, but eventually, a whole tax return or returns will be made public. Trump isn’t worried about the details of what Rachel Maddow made public. What terrifies Trump is that his tax return secrecy has been shattered and the real damage is yet to come.
Trump Freaks Out After Rachel Maddow Shows His Tax Returns To The Country
Trump said Rachel Maddow's reporting on Tuesday night was "totally illegal."
In a statement released a short time ago, the White House said this:
You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago.First of all, with or without this exclusive reporting by Maddow, her ratings would have been just fine. As Jason Easley wrote yesterday, her audience is rapidly growing and even beat Fox News last week among key viewers.
Before being elected President, Mr. Trump was one of the most successful businessmen in the world with a responsibility to his company, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required. That being said, Mr. Trump paid $38 million dollars even after taking into account large scale depreciation for construction, on an income of more than $150 million dollars, as well as paying tens of millions of dollars in other taxes such as sales and excise taxes and employment taxes and this illegally published return proves just that. Despite this substantial income figure and tax paid, it is totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns. The dishonest media can continue to make this part of their agenda, while the President will focus on his, which includes tax reform that will benefit all Americans.
What was particularly striking, though, is that the White House accused Maddow of breaking the law by revealing this portion of Trump’s tax documents. Or, as they called her reporting, “totally illegal.”
But as Maddow pointed out during Tuesday’s program, sharing the returns – which were lawfully obtained – is part of a journalist’s first amendment rights, though we probably shouldn’t expect Trump to know anything about those since he has spent nearly every day of his first two months in office either attacking the press or avoiding them.
Still, Maddow fought back:
It’s clear that the MSNBC star hit a nerve in the Trump White House by revealing something that no one in the media has yet been able to – his tax returns, even if it was just a portion.
Perhaps the president is just angry because he’s afraid this is only the beginning of what could be more leaks into his financial background, which could show more than Trump’s earnings – but where the money came from.
Rachel Maddow Shatters Trump’s World By Exposing His Tax Returns On Live TV
Maddow's
exclusive reporting on Tuesday finally gave the American people a
much-deserved glimpse behind the curtain when it comes to Trump's
finances.
Maddow revealed just some of Trump’s tax documents from 2005, which were acquired by David Cay Johnston.
Video:
The tax returns Maddow exposed on Tuesday showed that Trump made $150 million in 2005 and paid $36.5 million (or 24 percent) in taxes when those in his income bracket were required to pay 35 percent that year.
As Johnston also noted on MSNBC, Trump made $418,000 a day in 2005.
Unfortunately, while the documents showed how much Trump earned in income and paid in taxes, it still doesn’t show the source of that income – which is the most important part of this story, due to Trump’s questionable ties to Russia.
Throughout the campaign and during his first two months in the White House, Trump and his team have stubbornly refused to release any of his tax returns – unprecedented for a presidential candidate and, now, president.
Maddow’s exclusive reporting on Tuesday finally gave the American people a much-deserved glimpse behind the curtain when it comes to Trump’s finances. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of more to come.
Monday, March 13, 2017
INDIVISIBLE
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA
Former congressional staffers reveal best practices for making Congress listen.
Donald
Trump is the biggest popular-vote loser in history to ever call himself
President. In spite of the fact that he has no mandate, he will attempt
to use his congressional majority to reshape America in his own racist,
authoritarian, and corrupt image. If progressives are going to stop
this, we must stand indivisibly opposed to Trump and the Members of
Congress (MoCs) who would do his bidding. Together, we have the power to resist — and we have the power to win.
We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. We saw them organize locally and convince their own MoCs to reject President Obama’s agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism— and they won.
We believe that protecting our values, our neighbors, and ourselves will require mounting a similar resistance to the Trump agenda — but a resistance built on the values of inclusion, tolerance,
and fairness. Trump is not popular. He does not have a mandate. He does not have large congressional majorities. If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.
To this end, the following chapters offer a step-by-step guide for individuals, groups, and organizations looking to replicate the Tea Party’s success in getting Congress to listen to a small, vocal, dedicated group of constituents. The guide is intended to be equally useful for stiffening Democratic spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.
We believe that the next four years depend on Americans across the country standing indivisible against the Trump agenda. We believe that buying into false promises or accepting partial concessions will only further empower Trump to victimize us and our neighbors. We hope that this guide will provide those who share that belief with useful tools to make Congress listen.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web
We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. We saw them organize locally and convince their own MoCs to reject President Obama’s agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism— and they won.
We believe that protecting our values, our neighbors, and ourselves will require mounting a similar resistance to the Trump agenda — but a resistance built on the values of inclusion, tolerance,
and fairness. Trump is not popular. He does not have a mandate. He does not have large congressional majorities. If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.
To this end, the following chapters offer a step-by-step guide for individuals, groups, and organizations looking to replicate the Tea Party’s success in getting Congress to listen to a small, vocal, dedicated group of constituents. The guide is intended to be equally useful for stiffening Democratic spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.
We believe that the next four years depend on Americans across the country standing indivisible against the Trump agenda. We believe that buying into false promises or accepting partial concessions will only further empower Trump to victimize us and our neighbors. We hope that this guide will provide those who share that belief with useful tools to make Congress listen.
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Trump likely fired US Attorney Bharara to sabotage ‘troublesome’ investigations
By David Ferguson
Saturday evening, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin appeared by phone to discuss the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara with anchor Ana Cabrera.
Mediaite.com said that Toobin believes Bharara was axed because he was pursuing lines of investigation that would prove “troublesome” to the Trump administration.
“The question arises,” Toobin said, “Is there something either that the Trump administration doesn’t want Preet Bharara to pursue, or are there things he knows that he might disclose later that could be troublesome for the Trump administration?”
Bharara was fired by Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions after he refused to comply with a Justice Department order for 46 U.S. Attorneys appointed by the Obama administration to vacate their posts immediately.
The call for the resignations came less than 24 hours after Fox News host and indefatigable Trump booster Sean Hannity called for a “purge” of federal officials appointed by the Obama administration.
Bharara has a reputation as a Wall Street enforcer and was looking into criminal allegations against Fox News. In 2012, Bharara’s office successfully extradited and prosecuted Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was known as “the merchant of death.”
He is believed to have been investigating connections between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government. In his statement after the firing, Bharara said, “I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”
Saturday evening, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin appeared by phone to discuss the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara with anchor Ana Cabrera.
Mediaite.com said that Toobin believes Bharara was axed because he was pursuing lines of investigation that would prove “troublesome” to the Trump administration.
“The question arises,” Toobin said, “Is there something either that the Trump administration doesn’t want Preet Bharara to pursue, or are there things he knows that he might disclose later that could be troublesome for the Trump administration?”
Bharara was fired by Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions after he refused to comply with a Justice Department order for 46 U.S. Attorneys appointed by the Obama administration to vacate their posts immediately.
The call for the resignations came less than 24 hours after Fox News host and indefatigable Trump booster Sean Hannity called for a “purge” of federal officials appointed by the Obama administration.
Bharara has a reputation as a Wall Street enforcer and was looking into criminal allegations against Fox News. In 2012, Bharara’s office successfully extradited and prosecuted Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was known as “the merchant of death.”
He is believed to have been investigating connections between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government. In his statement after the firing, Bharara said, “I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”
Saturday, March 11, 2017
'I Might As Well Have Not Voted': Details Of GOP Health Plan Leave Trump Voter Appalled
By Brad Reed
Donald Trump this week signaled his support for the House Republicans’ new health care bill — but it looks like that legislation is going over like a lead balloon with his base.
Not only are the Trump diehards at Breitbart News bashing the plan as “Obamacare 2.0,” but even some casual voters are worried about the president’s plan.
ABC News this week talked with North Carolina resident Martha Brawley, a 55 year old woman who cast a ballot for the first time in her life for Donald Trump. Brawley says that she voted for the president on the hopes that he could bring down the cost of health care — but she’s been appalled so far by what she’s seen from the Republican Congress.
“I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care,” she told ABC News. “I might as well have not voted.”
Brawley was particularly upset when she learned that, under Trumpcare, she would receive a paltry $3,500 tax credit to buy insurance. At the moment, she gets a federal subsidy of around $8,688 to buy insurance from Obamacare.
“All these people who talk in politics have insurance,” she told ABC News. “People like me don’t.”
Donald Trump this week signaled his support for the House Republicans’ new health care bill — but it looks like that legislation is going over like a lead balloon with his base.
Not only are the Trump diehards at Breitbart News bashing the plan as “Obamacare 2.0,” but even some casual voters are worried about the president’s plan.
ABC News this week talked with North Carolina resident Martha Brawley, a 55 year old woman who cast a ballot for the first time in her life for Donald Trump. Brawley says that she voted for the president on the hopes that he could bring down the cost of health care — but she’s been appalled so far by what she’s seen from the Republican Congress.
“I voted for Trump hoping that he would change the insurance so I could get good health care,” she told ABC News. “I might as well have not voted.”
Brawley was particularly upset when she learned that, under Trumpcare, she would receive a paltry $3,500 tax credit to buy insurance. At the moment, she gets a federal subsidy of around $8,688 to buy insurance from Obamacare.
“All these people who talk in politics have insurance,” she told ABC News. “People like me don’t.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)