Budgets: VooDoo, Quackery and Morality?

Do you recall what George H.W. Bush said about Ronald Reagan’s economic proposals when they were both running for the Republican nomination for President in 1980?  He called it “Voodoo economics.”  By which he meant, as I remember, that it was all smoke and mirrors, based on false premises and irrational thinking.  Unfortunately for the average American, that Republican tradition has been kept alive with the kinds of budgets presented by Paul Ryan and his House Budget Committee in the past five years.  Even though Ryan is no longer chair of that Committee, he is still influencing the kind of ‘voodoo’ that continues to pour forth from that particular group.  Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, put it in different but similar imagery, when he said:  “This takes budget quackery to a new level.”

On March 17, the new House Budget Committee Chair, Tom Price (R-Ga.), announced a budget proposal that offered deep cuts in many areas, although, as usual, the sponsors managed to cover over with rhetoric and vague symbols the true meaning of the document.  For instance, according to the NY Times, House Republicans called it “streamlining, empowering states or achieving sustainability. They couched deep spending reductions in any number of gauzy euphemisms.” 

The Times article went on to add: “What they would not do on Tuesday was call their budget plan, which slashes spending by $5.5 trillion over 10 years, a ‘cut.’  The 10-year blueprint for taxes and spending they formally unveiled (claimed to)…balance the federal budget, even promising a surplus by 2024, but only with the sort of sleights of hand that Republicans have so often derided.  The budget — the first since Republicans regained control of Congress this year —largely reflects the four previous versions written by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin when he was chairman of the Budget Committee. But this plan may fare better than Mr. Ryan’s since Senate Republicans will be under pressure to reach an accord.”

In my last Blog of March 22nd, I mentioned the summary that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had used to describe the Republican Budget.  His Democratic colleague in the House, Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, echoed Sanders words when he said, “The Republican budget means Americans will work harder and earn less. It will be harder to buy a home, harder to send your children to college and harder to save for a secure retirement. It will do nothing to grow wages or help people get ahead, but it will do one thing for the people in the middle class: it will give you a $2,000 tax increase so that the wealthiest in this country can get a tax break.”

Let’s take a brief look at what the Republican Budget would do if passed by both the House and the Senate Republican majority:

§  Their budget demands the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including the tax penalties that finance the health care law. But the budget plan assumes the same level of federal revenue over the next 10 years that the Congressional Budget Office foresees with those tax increases in place — essentially counting $1 trillion of taxes from the ACA that the same budget swears to forgo.  The Independent Payment Advisory Board — the unelected 15-member agency created under the PPACA that is charged with achieving Medicare savings — is also repealed under the proposed budget.

§  The budget proposal calls for transforming Medicare into a "premium support model." Under the new model, Medicare recipients would receive "premium support" to purchase private insurance off of an exchange for Medicare plans.

§  The plan contains more than $1 trillion ‘savings’ from unspecified cuts to programs like food stamps and welfare. The plan would cut billions of dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (better known as food stamps).  This is how the budget phrased these devastating reductions: “This budget converts SNAP to a State Flexibility Fund so state governments have the power to administer the program in ways that best fit the needs of their communities with greater incentives to achieve better results.”

§  Domestic programs would be cut $519 billion below the already restrictive caps set in 2011. White House officials estimated that between the Affordable Care Act repeal and the cuts to Medicaid, 37 million people would lose health insurance, more than doubling the ranks of the uninsured.

§  The budget cuts popular Pell Grants for higher education but makes it sound workable: it “makes the Pell Grant program permanently sustainable,” the document says.

§  Spending on Medicaid may fall $913 billion over a decade once the health program is turned to block grants to the states, but House Republicans preferred to say: “Our budget realigns the relationship the federal government has with states and local communities by respecting and restoring the principle of federalism.”

§  The House budget would bring total military spending higher than Obama’s request, a critical demand by some Republicans in both the House and the Senate. The House plan increases military “overseas contingency operation” spending. Without relying on tax increases, defense hawks added nearly $40 billion in “emergency” war funding to the defense budget for next year, while the Senate would create a fund to override current military spending caps. “My main concern is getting the numbers up, whatever it takes,” said Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican, and that seems to be the main concern of many Republicans as the discretionary spending on the military equals 55% of the entire budget. The Pentagon keeps having weapons they don't want shoved down their throat by those congressmen seemingly obsessed with military preparedness.  The availability of lucrative military contracts to their monetary supporters is the underlying reason for this, as I have indicated in past postings.

This presents a sharp contrast with the plan proposed by President Obama in early February.  Obama’s budget, in brief, would do the following:

·         Increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals and on corporations, including a one-time tax on corporate profits held overseas. Revenues would be $3 trillion more over 10 years than the Congressional Budget Office projects under current law.

·         Cancel automatic cuts known as sequestration to domestic and military programs and increase spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, compared with a situation in which all current laws stay in place. Includes new spending for immigration and education.

·         Flatten out deficits around 2.5 percent of G.D.P. because of the increases in revenue. Under current policies, the deficit is expected to slowly increase beginning in 2018.

·         Flatten out the debt around 73 percent of G.D.P. Under current policies, the debt is expected to climb to 79 percent by 2025.

·         Include language calling for an overhaul of the tax code. (Sources: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Congressional Budget Office; House Budget Committee; Senate Budget Committee; the White House and compiled By Alicia Parlapiano)

A budget you will not hear much about - the Progressive Caucus People’s Budget – went down to defeat on the House floor last week, but not before it picked up 96 Democratic votes, a majority of Democrats. The budget got 330 nays, including 86 from Democrats.

“The People’s Budget did get fewer votes than Democratic alternatives proposed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and the Congressional Black Caucus, but it got a larger share of Democratic votes than it did in previous years. Republicans, not surprisingly, were unanimous in opposition.

“Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, pointed out that the Progressive Caucus budget specifically promises to produce 8.4 million new jobs through a specific set of policies. The Republican budget, he noted, makes no similar job-creation commitment.

“Republicans are clearly angry we are ending this special treatment of Wall Street buddies, meanwhile they have no problem ending tax credits for low and middle-income families,” said Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), while including “a promise to spend hundreds of billions on high income and corporate tax cuts.”  Republicans “say they are seeking to balance the budget. They are balancing this budget on the backs of the middle class while cutting taxes for the wealthy and well-connected, and getting to balance through irresponsible budget gimmicks,” Grijalva said.

“House Republicans took the progressives budget to task because, unlike the House Republican budget, it does not slash domestic spending in a quest to “balance” the budget in 10 years. They pointed out under the budget government spending would take a larger share of the economy, and so would the taxes to fund it. But The People’s Budget boosts economic opportunity for more Americans and gives hardworking Americans a raise.”  (Ourfuture.org – Isaiah Poole - March 25, 2015)

An EXECUTIVE SUMMARY from Daily KOS gives us a fuller idea of what the Progressive Caucus promotes:

A RAISE FOR AMERICA
§ Creates more than 8 million good jobs by 2018.
§ Increases functionality of Worker Protection Agencies.
§ Includes a four percent raise for federal workers.
§ Provides Paid Leave Initiative and Child Care.
§ Supports a minimum wage increase and Collective Bargaining.

AUSTERITY TO PROSPERITY

§ Repeals sequester and all Budget Control Act spending caps.
§ Increases discretionary funding to invest in working families.
§ Reverses harmful cuts and enhances social safety net.
§ Invests in veterans, women, communities of color and their families.

FAIR INDIVIDUAL TAXES

§ Equalizes tax rates for investment income and income from work.
§ Returns to Clinton-era tax rates for households making over $250,000 and implements
new brackets for those making over $1 million.
§ Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Care Credit.

FAIR CORPORATE TAXES
§ Eliminates the ability of U.S. corporations to defer taxes on offshore profits.
§ Ends corporate inversions that allow U.S. companies to merge offshore to avoid taxes.
§ Enacts a Financial Transaction Tax on various financial market transactions.
§ Ends unlimited executive pay tax write-offs.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVERY STUDENT

§ Provides debt-free college to every student.
§ Allows refinancing of student loans.
§ Invests in K-12 and provides free pre-school.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE
§ Repeals excise tax on high-priced workers plans and replaces with public option.
§ Implements drug price negotiation for Medicare.
§ Reauthorizes Children’s Health Insurance Program.
§ Allows states to transition to single-payer health care systems.

PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT

§ Closes tax loopholes and ends subsidies provided to oil, gas and coal companies.
§ Enacts a price on carbon pollution without hurting low-income families.
§ Invests in clean and renewable energy and green manufacturing.

SUSTAINABLE DEFENSE

§ Modernizes our defense posture to create sustainable baseline defense spending.
§ Ends emergency funding for Overseas Contingency Operations.
§ Increases funding for diplomacy and invests in job transition programs.

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

§ Implements comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship.

ACCESS TO HOUSING

§ Fully funds programs to make housing affordable and accessible for all Americans.

PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS

§ Funds public financing of campaigns to curb special interest influence in politics.

Strangely enough, it is a Republican legislator who provides the conclusion to this summary of budgets for 2016.  Budgets are boring numbers to some, perhaps, but:  “A budget is a moral document; it talks about where your values are,” said Representative Rob Woodall, Republican of Georgia and a member of the Budget Committee. And President Obama blasted the lack of that dimension after a meeting with the Prime Minister of Ireland.

. "It's not a budget that reflects the future. It's not a budget that reflects growth. It's not a budget that is going to help ensure the middle-class families are able to maintain security and stability and that people who are trying to get into the middle class are going to have the rungs on the ladder to get into the middle class," he said, according to Politico. 

Although Congressional budgets are largely advisory documents, "they represent the broadest statement of governing philosophy each year” the NY Times has said.  And, every time the radical Republican majority produces a budget, their lack of a moral philosophy or a code of caring about the welfare of millions of ordinary citizens is obvious.  Unfortunately, too many of those citizens have not yet realized that a philosophy of discrimination, of tax-based support of small and powerful elites, the privatization of government services-for-profit (like education), and the uber-militarization of our nation are not in their best interests.  The cloaking of ultra-conservative Christian beliefs (as in Indiana) in legislating against certain practices (use of contraceptives, abortion; same-sex marriage); the belief that people who struggle with the exigencies of life are fully to blame for their circumstances, or the obvious belief that some people are just not worthy of protection, special treatment, or unique program help – all of these are beliefs and principles that are harmful to citizens and to our democracy.  Republican budgets are basically manifestos – declarations of motives and intentions of what this Party is about to do to 99% of us while exempting themselves and their sponsors from any responsibility for their lack of morality, caring or empathy for most of our citizenry. 

Too many voters have failed to learn that elections and budgets have consequences, and that under ultra-conservative Republicans, those consequences will essentially devastate liberty, justice, fairness, civil rights, mutual responsibility for one another, as well as very basic everyday concerns like costs, rents, loan rates, quality of schools, roads and services, or that most basic opportunity: a well-paying job.  Soon, their lack of caring will even affect what we can safely eat, drink or inhale.  My point:  it is dangerous to one’s health and welfare to ignore ANYTHING this cabal of Radicals attempts to foist upon the People.     

"Creeps in this petty pace from day to day"

There comes a time in the experience of some writers when a block rears its ugly shape and turns ideas and thoughts to mush.  So what can one do to break through this blockage?  Truthfully, I’m not sure, but I have an idea that might work:  I’m going to write pretty much what comes into my head.  I realize that may be a very scary thought, so I will cut out what just doesn’t seem right.  In other words, this may be something of a “stream of consciousness,” tempered by another stream of common sense.  Let’s give it a try....
I attended a memorial service last week for a colleague and friend who was a progressive activist.  He was someone who valued actions above mere rhetoric, and who cared for people with a big heart and who, with straight-forward words (and hugs), told others how much he loved them and valued who they are.  He was a remarkable person who acted upon principles of the Christian Gospel without apology but with an apologia that was clear and plain in a simplicity that could not be taken as weakness but as strength.  It was one of the only memorials I have ever attended where the several ministers who led prayers, readings and meditations as long-time friends and admirers of the deceased, were visibly moved and emotional over his passing and the life-lessons they had learned from him. 

Another memorial/burial service was being conducted in the area at about the same time.  It was for a very young man, married with children, who had died of a mass blockage in an artery while just three days into a training course to become a state trooper.  His story was prominent in both regular and social media.  State flags were ordered flown at half-staff.  Traffic was actually closed off in the area of the funeral because of the large crowd expected, including an influx of police representatives from all over the state.  It just so happened that the closed streets were on the way to my friend’s memorial service, causing some of us to use a detour, which was not a problem.  Let me be clear: I have no argument with the hero’s treatment given this young man from our area, and I sympathize with his young family left behind.

I just want to make a point for thoughtful consideration.   How do we decide what is heroic?  I certainly find heroic qualities in a young man who gives his life to serve others as a state trooper (he was also a marine by training).  I find heroic proportions in a young man who cares for others and who loves his family, but chooses to put himself on the line for citizens and others in the very doing of his job.  I admire this young man who deserves adulation. 

But equally I admire the heroic qualities of my friend who demonstrated his caring and concern for his fellow human beings in various modes over a full lifetime.  Is heroism a virtue or characteristic reserved only for those who fight for, or somehow serve others from dangerous positions?  Or, is there room for also recognizing the heroism of those who care for others by volunteer service that targets people with special needs?  Moreover, it occurs to me that some are far more prone to recognize (and reward and praise publicly) those who are in less-than-heroic circumstances, but are surrounded by bling and fame and money.  I just wonder if re-appraising our hero-worship tendencies would lead us to much greater praise of ordinary people who have lived extraordinary lives of caring, service and meaning. 

That brings me around to another consideration:  how often does anyone take time to speak directly to someone who has done something well; to tell them that their ability or caring nature or skill, or their service to you or someone else is appreciated?   I’ve been trying to do this much more lately for ordinary working people, volunteers, senior citizens, young children, and more.  The reaction is pretty much the same across all categories.  There is a look of disbelief that someone noticed; a look of joy that someone actually said something positive; a reaction that equals: “you made my day!”  If you’re not already doing so, try it – you’ll like it!  If you can’t be honest about your feelings, don’t try it because an insincere bit of canned praise is perhaps not worth uttering.  It has to come from a sincere sense of real appreciation.  The truth is, our daily lives seem to overcome a necessary virtue:  the gift of positive appreciation given freely to our fellow human beings.  And that leads me to another topic.

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.... (Act 5.5.17-23)"

"The repetition of tomorrow suggests tedium, endless repetition, and tomorrow creeps in slowly from one day to the next, always, and it is just as useless as all of the yesterdays.

Macbeth slips into nihilism, here, the belief that nothing matters, and nothing makes any difference. His wife's death is the trigger that moves him to hopelessness. All the yesterdays lead one only to the dusty grave. And between the beginning and the end what happens is irrelevant." – (an interpretation by a teacher)

I want to add that I think this particular quote from Macbeth has something to do as well with the "lighted fools" of yesterdays.  I disagree that all is irrelevant.  In fact, those yesterdays are full of meaning that we failed to discern, thus falling victim to that "petty pace" and acting as fools.  That is why we have activists: they know that the petty pace is fraught with danger and foolishness.  It distracts us from the issues that do matter.  It prevents us from discerning the implications of slow-creeping purveyors of destruction and negative change.  It keeps us from understanding how ideas and concepts totally foreign to us can take over our very lives and our institutions if simply allowed to grow.  It is like National Socialism (Nazism) or structured racism or an institution like public education -- the steady slow erosive pace of dogma, symbols and falsity creep in to our lives and we fail to see destruction until it is too late – then we find out what fools we have been!
What comes to my mind immediately is the slow steady pace of racial bias that creeps in to everyday life in the most insidious manner.  It comes in the form of real estate agreements and restrictive bank loans in order to segregate our neighborhoods and our schools.  It comes in the petty form of songs sung on a college bus, or chants at a fraternity party or in negative words posted online.  It comes to us in the form of a "War on Drugs" which was never waged against drugs, but against certain people. 

Ronald Reagan's War on Drugs was nothing more than a Big Lie that crept into people's minds as "law and order" or keeping criminals off our streets, or stopping the drug trafficking and the drug cartels.  It was never a War on Drugs because it never went after the roots of that particular problem: the drug cartels, the growers of plants and crops from which many drugs are produced; nor did it target drug kingpins and dealers who often happened to be white people.  If you haven’t already done so, read Michelle Alexander’s book, "The New Jim Crow" to understand the real meaning of that Big Lie. 

Reagan's furtive "War on Drugs" has led to the partial destruction of the 14th amendment (with the complicity of the Supreme Court) which guarantees citizen protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.  It has led to the militarization of local police forces who, under the guise of fighting drugs, are actually attacking people of color where they live and when they travel. It has led to no-knock raids on innocent people in their homes, resulting in injury or death for some.  It has led to the unwarranted and unjust over-incarceration of non-violent people who are being punished for the color of their skin.  It has led to the life-time stigma that cannot be removed of "convicted felon" which keeps many a man (and woman) of color from obtaining a decent job, raising a family, buying a house or car, getting further education, or being able to vote.  It has led to the largest prison population in the world; so large that prisons have become profitable businesses for some private companies who now run certain prisons.  It has led to federal government support of militarization of our local police forces by the transmittal of surplus military weaponry and equipment to them.  Some of those local police forces were even able to use federal stimulus money to increase their militarization.  Perhaps, worst of all, this "War" has led to seizure of property that is beyond the pale.  Some police forces even maintain quotas to fill in terms of arrests and property seizures.

Too many people of all races have been caught up in the "petty pace" and have missed the disastrous consequences of "the New Jim Crow" that threatens the very foundations of our democracy and our justice system.  We seem to have been diverted by the day-to-day pace of life without a thought of what is happening.  So often we awake from such stupor to realize that something has changed for the worse, and we can't get back what was lost.  That is why activism always stresses the imperative nature of "NOW."  We cannot wait until some tomorrow is “right” for us to act against such forces.  We must act right now as though the destructive implications have already happened.  Reform and rescue cannot be postponed!  Destructive forces will not indulge our complacency.  They continue to creep in among the elements of that petty pace, and are full-blown within a relatively short period of time.

It occurs to me in my continuing stream of consciousness writing that there is something to which we have not paid enough attention.   It is the ability of the Congress to pass laws that exempt certain people, groups, institutions or its own members from certain provisions (or the whole) of those laws.  I have written about this before in my Blogs, but a recent article sent to me by a colleague definitely caught my eye and my attention. 

In a recent posting, I wrote about Hillary Clinton's trouble with (mostly) the Republicans in Congress over her treatment of e-mails.  I raised the issues that what she did is not uncommon; that her "offense" is not one of legality but of compliance with rules, vague though they may be; and I also raised the issue of whether members of Congress had monitored their own behavior in this regard.  Turns out the NY Times raised the latter issue in a blog published on March 19th, titled: "In Congress, a Double Standard for Email."  I quote:

"The closest thing to a policy about lawmakers' transparency was some guidance in a resolution approved by the Senate and House in 2008 that says lawmakers should 'properly' maintain and preserve their office records.  But this leaves each member entirely free to decide what records to keep and when to make them public, if ever.  They are free from the sort of transparency standards for the Executive branch that Mrs. Clinton is accused of skirting....Lawmakers remain free to keep emails and other records hidden for decades or more."

In other words, "Congress has effectively exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act which governs executive agencies."

Congress has a rather active penchant for exempting members from legislation that applies to the rest of us.  Some base such behavior on the "speech or debate" clause in the Constitution "which grants broad immunity to protect the legislative process and the independence of individual lawmakers," says our NY Times blogger.  Not necessarily so, say I.  I believe that broad immunity" is circumscribed by the phrase that precedes the speech and debate clause.  Here is the whole of the constitutional provision in Article I, Section 6:

"They (Senators and Representatives) shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place."

In and of itself, that wording to me does not grant "broad immunity" to Congress.  It simply prevents them from being questioned in some other place than in their sessions.  Amendment I assuring freedom of the press would seem to have negated the thrust of this particular phrase.  Besides, this is vague enough to warrant much discussion.  I think it has to be seen in the context of the first phrase, meaning that public authorities are restricted from questioning them "in any other place."  As a writer for the Heritage Foundation submitted: "it is clear that activities not directly related to the legislative process are not constitutionally shielded."  The 'speech and debate clause' is not a substantial reason for members to be able to exempt themselves from the application of laws that are passed and signed. 

The fact that Congress can actually investigate another person for doing what they are exempted from doing is a gross injustice, and makes a mockery of "equal justice under the Law." 

Let us name just a few of the rather blatant and flagrant exemptions Congress has, in the past, reserved for itself:

The Equal Employment and Anti-Discrimination Law. Laws in this category deter discrimination based on such characteristics as race, sex, religion, and national origin. 

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires each office in the Executive Branch to submit an affirmative action plan for the disabled to the EEOC.

The Freedom of Information Act - Congress defined itself out of the scope of this Act, which is designed to ensure that the business of public bodies is accessible to the public.

The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, which governs the relationship between the federal government and public employee unions, does not apply to Congress. Neither does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which further protects federal employees’ right to organize.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which was intended to create a safer workplace, applied to all employers, but the legislation added that the term did not include the United States and therefore failed to include Congress.

The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes certain minimum workplace standards, such as pay floors for overtime work and prohibition of certain kinds of child labor.

However, Congress did also pass the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. It specifically made sure that most of the laws just mentioned, dealing with civil rights, labor and workplace safety regulations, applied to the legislative branch of government. The independent Office of Compliance was also established to enforce the laws in Congress.  But, that does not excuse Congress for their original actions, nor has it kept them from exempting themselves from provisions of other laws passed since 1995.

According to the investigative journalist experts on Propublica.org, Congress has continued to exempt itself from certain provisions of certain laws, but there is much misinformation that surrounds this subject, to the extent that citizens have been led astray as to the extent of the problem.  Nonetheless, Congress continues down a road that is not acceptable in my opinion.  So here’s an up-to-date list of certain exemptions from ProPublica (backed up by a similar listing on Fox News.com)

Whistleblower Protections: Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989, which protects workers in the executive branch from retaliation for reporting waste, mismanagement or lawbreaking. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act gives similar protections to private-sectors workers. But legislative-branch workers, as well as employees of the Library of Congress don’t get the same protections.

• Subpoenas for Health and Safety Probes:  The Occupational Health and Safety Act empowers the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate health and safety violations in private-sector workplaces. If an employer doesn’t cooperate, the agency can subpoena the records it needs. The Office of Compliance, the independent agency that investigates such violations in the legislative branch, doesn’t have the power to issue those subpoenas.  The agency’s inability to subpoena information regarding legislative workers’ complaints about health and safety often means the office must negotiate with congressional offices to gather the facts it needs. 

• Keeping Workplace Records: A number of workplace-rights laws require employers to retain personnel records for a certain period of time. But as a recent report on the congressional workplace notes, “Congress has exempted itself from all of these requirements.” Congress is also exempt from keeping records of injuries and illness the way private-sector employers must.

• Prosecution for Retaliating Against Employees: If a private-sector employer retaliates against a worker for reporting health or safety hazards, the Department of Labor can investigate and, if necessary, sue the employer. Congress’ Office of Compliance doesn’t have that power — legislative-branch employees must file suit personally and pay their own legal fees.

• Posting Notices of Workers’ Rights: Workplace-rights laws require employers to post notices of those rights, which often appear in office lunchrooms. Congress is exempt from this requirement, though the Office of Compliance sends legislative employees the same information each year, formatted “in a manner suitable for posting.”

• Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Training: The No Fear Act requires agencies in the executive branch to provide such training to employees, but the legislative branch is exempt.

• The Freedom of Information Act: The public can request information from federal agencies, but Congress, the federal courts and some parts of the Executive Office of the President are exempt.

The Office of Compliance has urged Congress to apply the laws listed above to itself — except the Freedom of Information Act — with little result. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate who represents the District of Columbia, introduced a bill in 2011 to do this, but it died in committee.

When I began this posting, I knew it might well lack a continuous thread that tied it together.  I was right, unless you count my questioning of easy acceptance of the status quo as a viable thread.  Did it remove the writer’s block?  Probably not completely, but it was helpful.  Will I do this again?  Probably not, but who knows.  Thanks for hanging in there while I seek to get back “in the groove!”

Has Hillary Clinton Done Something Wrong?

 A definitive answer is difficult to determine, because definitions of "wrong" can vary. The dictionary (American College Dictionary) defines wrong in several different ways: 1) not in accordance with what is morally right and good, 2) deviating from truth or fact; erroneous, 3) not correct in action,, judgment, opinion, method, etc. as a person; in error 4) not in accordance with requirements, 5) to do wrong to; treat unfairly or unjustly; injure or harm. And then, we find this definition related to Law: 6) an invasion of right, to the damage of another person. Let us hold those definitions in abeyance, and explore what has happened in brief.

Here is a timeline of Hillary Clinton's history with email, the federal guidelines that theoretically applied to her when she took office, and the events of this week, according to ABC, with some comments included from CNN:

2000

Hillary Clinton was videoed at a fund-raiser telling a donor that she didn't like using email for fear of leaving a paper trail.

"As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I?-- I don’t even want-- Why would I ever want to do e-mail?" Clinton said. One can understand her reluctance after all she has been through, but that doesn't satisfy her critics who believe she is paranoid and inherently evil. But then, that's the accustomed way those critics deal with everyone whose political views do not match their own.

2005

The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) was codified by the State Department, which ruled in 2005 that employees could use private email accounts for official business if they turned those emails over to be entered into government computers.

ABC News has reported that a Senior State Department official told them that under rules in place while Clinton was secretary of state, employees could only use private email accounts for official business if they turned those emails over to be entered into government computers. They were also forbidden from including 'sensitive but unclassified' information on private email, except under some very narrow exceptions.

This policy is still in place, according to the Department. Until any private emails are entered into government computers, the official says, an employee is in violation of the rules.

Clinton used a private email account for her entire tenure as secretary -- and did not even have a government-issued email. She only turned over some 55,000 pages of emails to be entered into government computer systems late last year, nearly two years after she stepped down from the State Department., and so may still be out of full compliance with this rule. If Clinton has now turned over all emails related to official business, she would be in compliance with State Department rules, an official said. But there is no way to independently verify that she has done that. Clinton’s spokesman said earlier this week that she has turned over about 90 percent of the emails she wrote as secretary of state, withholding only those that were strictly personal and not covered by the policy.

CNN reports further that "Clinton aides and department officials stressed this week that the former secretary of state did not violate State policy when she exclusively used a private email account for government work. However, it is currently unclear whether Clinton broke a State guideline dating back to 2005 that suggested "normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an (authorized information system), which has the proper level of security control. Those guidelines were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account."

 It is also possible that some of Mrs. Clinton's emails contained information "sensitive but unclassified" as defined by the federal government, a senior State Department official acknowledged, in potential violation of the 2005 department regulation as codified in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM).

"Reports claiming that by using personal email [Clinton] is automatically out of step of that FAM are inaccurate," the official told ABC News in a statement.

The Inspector General has warned that the use of non-governmental email accounts “increases the risk” of security breaches and the “loss of official public records as these systems do not have approved record preservation or backup functions.”

Clinton is believed to have established her own private email network based out of her Chappaqua, New York, home, where aides say she has personally preserved all messages before turning them over.

2007

In the midst of the 2008 presidential race, Clinton took a jab at the Bush administration's use of non-governmental email accounts. "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said in a 2007 campaign speech. According to CNN, "charges of hypocrisy have surfaced in the present given that an inspector general's report from 2012 - while Clinton was secretary - repeatedly cited Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration's use of "commercial email for official government business" saying it was against policy to do so "except in emergencies," which created morale problems, "confusion and discouragement within the embassy community. At the time, Clinton was using her own personal email account to conduct official business."

2008

Much of the mystery surrounding Clinton’s emails came from the fact that an IP address associated with the clintonemail.com domain she is believed to have used was registered to a person named Eric Hoteham on Feb. 1, 2008. No public records matching that individual can be found and it is possible that it was simply a misspelling of the name Eric Hothem, a former aide to Clinton while she was first lady. The IP address for clintonemail.com, along with others registered in Hoteham’s name, are all connected to the Clinton’s address in Chappaqua, New York.

2009

Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton, registered the clintonemail.com domain on Jan. 13, a little more than a week before Hillary Clinton took office as secretary of state on Jan. 21. This was also a year when another rule went into place regarding the use of private email. According to the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations in 2009, if an agency allows its employees to use a personal email account, it must ensure that the emails are “preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

Questions remain about what the National Archives considers an “appropriate agency recordkeeping system” and if they believe Clinton, who did not hand over any emails until last year, was in compliance with it.

2012

As mentioned above, in a 2012 report by the Office of the Inspector General, then-Ambassador to Kenya, Scott Gration, was reprimanded for using private email and other issues. The report suggested his "use of commercial email for official government business" amounted to a failure to "adhere to department regulations and government information security standards."

2013

Clinton stepped down from the State Department on Feb. 1.

Later that year, the National Archives updated their guidelines to say that agency employees should generally only use personal email accounts in “emergency situations.” If an employee does use a personal account, all of the emails must be preserved in “accordance with agency recordkeeping practices.”

2014

President Obama signed the Federal Records Act into law in late November, requiring the head of each agency to "make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions of the agency."

The realization that Clinton’s emails were not recorded at the State Department appears to have surfaced in two steps. According to the New York Times, first, the Congressional Committee investigating the Benghazi attack asked the State Department for all relevant emails. Second, that prompted the State Department to ask Clinton to turn over all of her non-personal emails from her time as secretary. She handed over 55,000 pages of emails late in 2014. The State Department also asked other former secretaries of state to turn over their government-related emails for preservation.

2015

 The New York Times reports that, in mid-February, Clinton handed over more than 300 emails to the House committee investigating the Benghazi, Libya consulate attack. Clinton’s use of a private email address did not become public knowledge until the New York Times reported on it Tuesday, March 3.  After growing pressure, Clinton asked the State Department to release all her emails.

I hope the ABC Timeline and brief commentary are as helpful to you as they have been to me in sorting out the circumstances of this political football. What follows now are some of my comments on this situation.

1). The fact that Hillary had a private email account from which she sent emails containing official business is not uncommon among private or public executives and managers. Part of the reason for public workers to have such accounts may extend to the fact that the government is often 'behind the times' as far as being equipped with up-to-date technology or with the restrictions that need to accompany it. But in Hillary's case, it sounds from her own 2008 comments that she had a particular interest in privatizing her emails - she was weary and wary of those who had made things difficult for her in the past by distorting information they had gotten in emails or other documents.

2).  The most we can say about Hillary's actions at this point would be to say that she may have been out of compliance with a 2005 rule in a department of State Manual that essentially suggested (or perhaps encouraged) state employees to use a federal government-issued account for emails having to do with government business. Indeed, she may still remain out-of-compliance with that 2005 rule and with the Federal Records Act of 2014.

However, this chatter about emails being hidden or kept back from the government is nothing more than speculation. There is no evidence that such has actually taken place -- no one knows yet. CNN reported on this by saying: "Clinton's use of private email was never hidden from anyone, according to a former State Department official. The former secretary of state sent thousands of employees messages from that account and in her four plus years at the State Department, nobody raised a red flag to say that she couldn't conduct her email communication in the manner she was conducting it, the former official adds."

"There were no big internal discussions among State Department lawyers, either, about Clinton's use of private email. The former official said it was simply accepted as her form of communication.

Clinton's exclusive use of a private email system has quickly ballooned this week into a controversy for the presumed Democratic frontrunner for president in 2016. Experts have said it doesn't appear Clinton violated federal laws, but that hasn't stemmed the issue that has become more about bad politics.

3).  Hillary may have been out of compliance with a state department rule, but she was not disobeying any law in existence before she retired Feb. 1, 2013. For one reason, Congress rarely makes laws before facts, circumstances and events require their promulgation. Rather, Congress is most always playing catch-up as far as technology is concerned. They haven't even supplied some departments with appropriate and reliable computer systems, let alone legal guidance on what constitutes illegal use. President Obama signed that Records Law about at home or private email systems two years after Hillary was using her private email system.

4).  OK. Let's grant that Hillary may have been "wrong" in terms of using "poor judgment," just from the point of view that she may have transmitted some sensitive state department information (although just how "sensitive" has not been determined). What was her "intent" behind doing so? Did she want or intend for other countries to have our secrets? Was she intent on causing some disruption or harm to our government? Is she simply an evil person? All of these opinions are from Right-wing attempts (lacking any evidence) to make it seem as though she has done a wrong in the sense of something illegal.  However, they fail to prove "intent;" they fail to cite laws broken; they fail to measure any "motive". They can't even point to any harm that has actually been done to anyone because of a personal email from Hillary.

They are very simply inventing the Big Lie - so they can tell it over and over again, as they have done with our current President who was never a Muslim, not born anywhere else than in this country, and who hasn't done one thing to actually advance socialism in this country (remember: socialism means government control of all aspects of production and distribution where nothing remains in private for-profit hands). The charge that Obamacare is socialistic when it promotes the use of private companies as vendors is patently ridiculous!

 So please - can anyone on the Right-wing tell us one example of an email sent from Hillary's private system that resulted in harm coming to this country or to any individual in this country? that resulted in a takeover of government secrets? that allowed any other country to thwart efforts by this country to keep our population safe? or, that harmed another country? Just one example will do. 

There's an old sports saying that applies here: No Harm, No Foul. If you can't prove a motive or intent to harm, or actual harm, you have no criminal case against Hillary, or Condoleezza or Madelyn -- all of whom used similar private email systems in addition to their government-assigned email accounts.

In the meantime, Fox News has pulled in one judge who has supposedly explained the charges the former-Secretary of State faces for her 'serious breach of the law and her responsibility.'

Question asked on Fox News:
What are the potential consequences for Hillary Clinton for using a personal email account during her time as secretary of state?
Judge Andrew Napolitano sat down with Martha MacCallum to go over the two potential criminal investigations that the former First Lady could face.

1. The less serious possibility is an investigation similar to what was brought against Gen. David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty this week for keeping classified documents in an unsecured location. The judge explained that in Mrs. Clinton’s case, she kept classified secrets on a home server that was not secured by the government. Napolitano said there’s no way Clinton did not have classified material on her home server, since she held the same security clearance as the president. That would only be a misdemeanor charge, however. Sorry Judge -- that's pure speculation on your part and it's unacceptable in most courts -- probably even in yours!
2. Napolitano said the far more serious charge would be a conspiracy to “conceal documents from government computers,” which carries a penalty of three years in jail per document. A conviction on that charge would disqualify her from holding public office again.
The situation seems perfectly clear. With the help of Judge Napolitano, Fox News will now feel emboldened to unleash an assault on Hillary claiming a conspiracy with Eric 'Hoteham' and aide Justin Cooper to conceal sensitive documents from government computers. That's right -- if you can't label something as a scandal than make sure to call it a conspiracy!  The invented unproven conspiracy, in case you haven't noticed, dear reader, is what Fox News thrives on!

CNN concludes: "The questions around Clinton's email use have captivated political watchers over the last week and allowed Republicans to cast Clinton in a similar way they did her husband, former President Bill Clinton: As a secretive politician pushing the boundaries of rules and regulations."

5).  The Right-wing is simply out to paint Hillary as some kind of cheater or traitor or lawbreaker. It's their biggest opportunity yet to tarnish her before she declares her candidacy, and that's exactly what this is all about. Maybe it started with journalists and not as a Republican plan. But, you can't tell me that journalists are starting this story without someone feeding them information. Of course they won't say who those people are because they are protected by law. Interesting that constitutional rights of free speech and free press protect reporters and informants from having to be up-front with the People about sources, factual vs. manufactured information, and their own motive or intent. Wow! we actually protect people who smear other people - or who attempt to ruin others' reputations -- from being held accountable for their questionable claims, their lack of facts, and their intent. So, contrary to present law, it appears you can holler FIRE! in a crowded theater, or you can imply wrong-doing where there is none without fear of legal reprisal! Fox News and Congress do it all the time.

6).  And, speaking of Congress.... Why don't we call for an investigation of their use of private email systems to conduct business? How many personal mobile phones are being used by congresspersons for government purposes? And turning that around a bit: how many government-issued phones are being used for personal purposes?

Let's not stop there: how many congress members are using government-issued supplies and equipment in their own homes or for personal use on the road?

Oh - and let's not forget the end game -- how many congress persons make off with government equipment and supplies at the end of their tenure? This could go on forever: how many congress persons use civil servants (office staff and others) to do their personal errands and chores for them? How many congress persons use government-contracted drivers or cars to conduct personal business? Shall we go on? how many of our elected legislators are using insider information to feather their personal investment nests? How many congress persons are (behind the scenes) using their influence to get contracts for local constituents ostensibly to improve local business, but who also use such contracts to enhance a relative's business, a friend's business, a business in which that esteemed congress person either has an interest or into which he or she will be hired once they leave office?

If Congress is going to investigate Hillary's phone use, should not Congress first have to show that its members eschew that very behavior? Or, put another way: is Congress worthy of investigating anyone else unless it first investigates itself?

Every time Fox News or a Right-wing candidate or proponent accuses someone else of some malfeasance, misdemeanor, or unlawful act, my antennae go up. Can he or she pass the smell test: is he or she free of transgression of the same sort? How can they continue to point out the speck in another's eye when there is a moat in theirs?

Hillary has done nothing morally wrong or unlawful as far as we know. She may have used poor judgment. She may have done something that government might want to circumscribe with clearer restrictions. But Congress needs to do its job and ask: what legislation can we pass -- after debate and due consideration - that will speak to the broad issue of using government-issued technology for personal uses or gain; and what legislation is needed to restrict the personal system transmission of official emails that might compromise government operations or secrets?

On the other hand, I personally don't want legislation that limits my use of email or of technology, and we need to caution against an over-restriction on government officials as well. Therein lies the rub. How do you trust Right-wing legislators to be liberal on the question of restrictions and constraints when they want us to know how ultra-restrictive they can be on abortion, marriage, the internet, immigration, and healthcare, to name just a very few!!!!!!

Funny, isn't it -- you just can't trust the current batch of radical Right-wing legislators to do much of anything that demonstrates responsible governing. They would rather lie about a government official and damage her reputation when they cannot prove that there is any malfeasance at all. They are much like John Boehner who wanted to sue the President for malfeasance, but knew he had no standing before an actual Court because he had no proof that harm had actually come to anyone because of the actions the President had taken. No standing is the perfect way to describe these Right-wing zealots -- they thrive on the Big Lie, the blocking of needed legislation like immigration reform. They delay on funding necessary operations like the Department of Homeland Security, threatening to shut-down the government, and they make lame excuses about not being able to show up at a national event to commemorate a turning point in American history - the March from Selma to Montgomery.

They have no honor! Keep focused on getting rid of them in 2016!

The First Fifty Days

January 6, 2015. That's when the 114th Congress got sworn in (some of us felt like we were being "sworn at"). At any rate, Feb. 23rd marked the 50th day of the takeover of both Houses of Congress by Republicans. So how or what are those Republicans-in-control doing so far? Well...I suppose the answer depends on which side of the political divide you may fall. So perhaps its best just to make a list of the major issues undertaken so far in terms of bills passed by one House or the other (or by both) since Jan. 6th when Republicans took over. (The listing of bills and their content is taken mainly from www.opencongress.org)

1.   Jan. 6 - H.R. 22: "Hire More Heroes Act of 2015" Ayes - 412   Nays - 0

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken into account for purposes of determining the employers to which the employer mandate applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Letter from Georgia constituent: "H.R. 22 is about taxes and counting people, in this case veterans, for the purpose of lowering tax burdens for businesses. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code Sec. 4980H  to add a provision to exempt any employee with coverage under a health care program administered by the Department of Defense, including the TRICARE program, or by the Veterans Administration, from classification as an eligible employee of an applicable large employer for purposes of the employer mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide such employees with minimum essential health care coverage. 
Lastly, I believe there are privacy issues in the U.S. from asking about a person’s health during an interview and in the long-term, would it legally (allow) businesses to deny veterans access to an employer-sponsored plan even if they are counted?" 

My comments: This is the first major bill passed and its Title can't even tell the truth! It doesn't deal with hiring more Veterans; it protects corporations from having to comply with provisions of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)! Thus, under the guise of a "jobs for vets" bill, the Republican Right-wing radical agenda begins: attack Obamacare! But that's not all. On Jan. 8th, the House passed H.R. 30 the 'Save American Workers Act of 2015.' Rather than saving or protecting or creating jobs, it changed the definition of 'full-time work' so that many employers can escape the mandate in the ACA of providing healthcare coverage. The Congress passed this bill to raise the number of hours required for full-time work to 40 hours from the previous standard of 35 hours.

2.  Jan. 7 - H.R. 26: "National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act"
             Ayes - 416   Nays - 5.
Otherwise known as the "Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act," this legislation does the following: extends the Terrorism Insurance Program through 2020, reduces federal share of payments beginning Jan. 1, 2016, to 80% of insured losses, caps aggregate industry losses and federal share of them through 2020; redefines 'acts of terrorism" as those which are certified by Secretary of the Treasury (previously by Secretary of State) and directs the Treasury Sec. to issue final rules for certification after suitable study. Requires President to appoint at least one member to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Establishes NARAB without contingent conditions as an independent nonprofit corporation to prescribe, on a multi-state basis, licensing and insurance producer qualification requirements and conditions; to provide a mechanism for the adoption and multi-state application of... just about all aspects of licensing, appointments, supervision, setting fees, membership criteria.(This bill passed the Senate on Jan. 8th). 

Constituent Comment: "I am writing as your constituent in the 10th Congressional district of Pennsylvania. I oppose H.R.26 - National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2015. I do not want banks trading SWAPS and then robbing the hard-working Americans who are forced to fund their illicit Trading Games on Wall Street. Enough is Enough! Banks Must keep these at-risk funds separate on their books and cover their Own losses.

My comments: it all comes down to the second prong of the right-wing attack against restrictions on banks and Wall Street firms: privatize regulations and oversight, exempt certain groups from liability (including banks that deal in 'swaps,' which is what Elizabeth Warren railed against but her amendment was defeated so she voted 'Nay' on the Senate bill) and reduce any liability of government for losses due to terrorism. Is it possible that the insurance industry helped bought congressmen write this bill? 
The same day - Jan. 7th - the attack continued with passage of H.R. 37 (276-146) - the "Small Company Disclosure Simplification Act" (Otherwise known as the "Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act" , it basically lifts restrictions, changes reporting requirements, opens up more swaps dealer operations, restricts role of the SEC and delays compliance with the Volker Rule for some banking entities and financial companies in relation to investment in debt securities).

In other words, these bills make it much easier for banks and financial entities to bilk the public once again without being liable themselves for losses. By the way - there is no "job creation."

3.  Jan. 9 - H.R. 3: "Keystone XL Pipeline Act"  Ayes - 266   Nays - 153
Keystone XL Pipeline Act Authorizes TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. to construct, connect, operate, and maintain the pipeline and cross-border facilities specified in an application filed by TransCanada Corporation to the Department of State on May 4, 2012. Deems the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding the pipeline issued by the Secretary of State in January 2014 to fully satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and any law that requires federal agency consultation or review, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Maintains in effect any applicable federal permit or authorization issued before enactment of this Act. Declares that this Act does not alter any federal, state, or local process or condition in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is necessary to secure access from an owner of private property to construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities.
 Jan. 29 - S.1: "Energy Efficiency Improvement Act (XL Pipeline)  Ayes - 62  Nays -36 Although there were many attempts to amend this bill in the Senate, the amendments failed, and the bill essentially passed the Senate in the same form as it passed the House.

Constituent Comment: "I oppose H.R.3 - Keystone XL Pipeline Act. All we are is a conduit for Canadian oil to leave through our ports in the Gulf. The majority of the jobs created are temporary until the pipe line is completed. Also, why isn't anyone asking why the Canadians don't build their pipe line to their costal cities (i.e. Vancouver, BC), I think the answer is, because the Canadian citizens didn't want to risk their environment on it. If so, then why should we take a risk for a Canadian company that their own citizens weren't willing to take. Anyone who votes for this must be on someone else's payroll, because they surely aren't considering our prosperity."

My Comments: Another piece of the Republican agenda is to attempt to put themselves in a better light related to "job creation." They have failed miserably since 2008 amid Bush's Great Recession to do anything positive in terms of stimulating the economy. Instead, they chose to oppose and block the President's agenda at every instance (even though contained therein were Republican measures!), and thus attempt to slow the recovery so the President would have to take the blame. Their strategy worked in both 2010 and 2012, as Republican gains in states and the House of Representatives, and now the Senate, were built on the false premise that the President failed us. He did not. The recovery is solid, despite rhetoric that gives a false impression that there are wide gaps in this recovery (if there are any gaps, they were created by Republican obstructionism on jobs, infrastructure repair, health care reform, wage increases and banking restrictions, as well as on tax breaks and social service improvements for the working poor and the middle class).

This legislation to approve the Keystone pipeline is a double-barreled attack: it promotes temporary jobs and therefore appears to be a Jobs bill; it keeps us focused on fossil fuel production (although we won't get any of the 'sludge' coming from Canada -- it's all going overseas!); thus providing an opportunity to emphasize the primacy of oil versus alternative fuels as well as more denial of climate-change-by-human-hands.

The approval of the Keystone Pipeline bill is one of the biggest bamboozles ever! It shows conclusively that Republicans have no intention of facing the primacy of alternative fuels as a life-saving, planet-saving, nation-promoting endeavor.  Fortunately, the President recently vetoed the Act, putting the ball back in the Houses of Congress for an override vote by a 2/3's count of those voting in each House: requiring 67 votes in the Senate and 290 in the House.

 4.  Feb. 3 - H.R. 596: "To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 
Ayes - 245   Nays -189   
"Provisions of law amended by that Act's health care provisions are restored. Specified committees of the House of Representatives must report legislation within each committee's jurisdiction with provisions that: foster economic growth and private sector job creation; lower health care premiums; preserve a patient's ability to keep their health plan; provide people with preexisting conditions access to affordable health coverage; reform the medical liability system to reduce unnecessary health care spending; increase the number of insured Americans; protect the doctor-patient relationship; provide states greater flexibility to administer Medicaid programs; expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs; prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers; eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful spending; or do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement programs or increase the tax burden on Americans.

My Comments: Republicans evidently don't much care whether or not over 11 million people have been helped by the Affordable Care Act. They believe it's more important to convince as many as possible that the ACA raises taxes, supports abortion, is a give-away to undeserving "welfare queens" and a burden on taxpayers at the same time. None of that has been proven to be true, but Republicans don't deal in truth -- they much prefer false rhetoric and made-up crises. They would rather denigrate the ACA than admit that it does what it promised: lowered premiums, covered many thousands of uninsured people whose use of emergency rooms and quick care clinics were costing us all a lot in premium increases. Their greatest fear is that a majority will begin to see Obamacare as a good thing that is working to hold down costs and improve coverage. Now that 11.5 million people know its benefits first hand, the reality of the situation is becoming clearer and clearer.

Republicans want to take us back to the days (not very far removed) when insurance companies could restrict health care coverage so that they could increase their already heady profit margin. Note how previous health care act provisions are "restored." All that is on their table in this bill is a required report from "specified committees (unspecified here) to come up with legislative suggestions that meet a vague list of concepts, such as: foster economic growth and private sector job creation; provide people with preexisting conditions access to affordable health coverage; reform the medical liability system to reduce unnecessary health care spending; ; protect the doctor-patient relationship. All of these admonitions are already being ignored by Republicans and we have little hope that they have the capacity to do better than nothing.

Then again, this repeal Act is somewhat specific telling those committees to lower health care premiums (when have Republicans ever told private businesses to cut their profits?); preserve a patient's ability to keep their health plan (most who want them already have them!); provide states greater flexibility to administer Medicaid programs (as have the Ryan Budgets); expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs (get those "lazy people" to buy their own insurance); prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers (oh yes, make sure that those employers with "religious objections" can override government laws - called 'sharia law' in some nations!); eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful spending or do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement programs or increase the tax burden on Americans (Yes, we know by now -- don't spend government money on "the unworthy" like poor children, people with disabilities, or single mothers who need reliable child care. Please don't over-burden the 1% who have to pay minimal government-subsidized taxes some of which might go to un-deserving people).

While the major bits of legislation in the first 50 days have been touched upon, there is a mixture of primary and secondary legislation that also needs some attention. Let us list a few without much comment because they pretty much speak for themselves.

 1.  Jan. 13th - H.R. 185: Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015     Ayes - 250   Nays - 175
To reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. This bill amends the Administrative Procedure Act to revise and expand the requirements for federal agency rulemaking by requiring agencies, in making a rule, to base all preliminary and final factual determinations on evidence and to consider the legal authority under which the rule may be proposed, the specific nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with the rule, any reasonable alternatives for the rule, and the potential costs and benefits associated with such alternatives. Additionally, the bill:
(1) sets forth criteria for issuing major guidance (agency guidance that is likely to lead to an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in cost or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or ability to compete) or guidance that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates; and
(2) expands the scope of judicial review of agency rulemaking by allowing immediate review of rulemaking not in compliance with notice requirements and establishing a substantial evidence standard for affirming agency rulemaking decisions.

My Comments: if only rule-making could seriously consider the effects on the lives of the people it affects, we would be further down the road toward fiscal and social sanity. These stringent requirements place upon rule-makers an almost impossible task because they target numbers and costs that are un-measurable until tested or evaluated. In other words, the Congress has the cart before the horse simply to satisfy their yearning for metrics and "adverse effects." But not to worry, Congress is even worse at oversight than they are at problem-solving or at requirements for keeping regulations ever harder to promulgate and more deceptive in their composition.

2.  Jan 14th - H.R. 240: Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2015   Ayes - 236  Nays - 191
Provides appropriations for Departmental Management and Operations for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. Provides appropriations for Security, Enforcement, and Investigations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service. Provides appropriations for Research, Development, Training, and Services for U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Science and Technology, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. Sets forth permissible, restricted, and prohibited uses for funds provided by this Act.

My Comments: a political football deflated more than once by Speaker Boehner during its tortured life. It also passed the Senate on 2/27, so is on its way to the President for signature. Although it contains some suspect provisions, it will probably be signed because it lasts just a week so we can soon start the hostage negotiations all over again!

3.  Jan 21 -HR 161: Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act  Ayes - 253  Nays - 159
To provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects. Amends the Natural Gas Act to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve or deny a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a pre-filed project within 12 months after receiving a complete application that is ready to be processed. Requires the agency responsible for issuing any federal license, permit, or approval regarding the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a project for which a certificate is sought to approve or deny issuance of the certificate within 90 days after FERC issues its final environmental document regarding the project.

My Comment: let's get those gas lines humming quickly so we can threaten the environment and the lives of people who live nearby.

4.  Jan. 22 - HR 7 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015          Ayes - 253   Nays - 169  (passed House; not yet voted on in Senate; veto threat from President)
TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS
(Sec. 101) Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, except in cases involving rape, incest, or life endangerment.) Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.
(Sec. 201) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from the definition of "qualified health plan" after December 31, 2015, for purposes of the refundable tax credit for premium assistance, any plan that includes coverage for abortion. Excludes from the definition of "qualified health plan," for purposes of the tax credit for small employer health insurance expenses, any health plan that includes coverage for abortions

My Closing Comments:  It's all right here in black and white.  We do get it -- we just don't agree with it. The Right-wing wants regression, repression, retribution, and responsibility applied to the welfare queens and the 47% of us who are takers. They prefer to give out favors to the elite of this country because they believe that those millionaires and billionaires are the innovators, creators, sustainers of status quo; that they are the leaders, the profit-makers, the successful economic generators. They are the salvation of our democracy and the progenitors of the efficiency found in a Plutocracy. Besides, they are the providers of the money that is needed to win elections and to prosper both during office-holding and afterward.  The plutocrats of the Koch Brother's cabal are already calling the plays, as it were. Just look more closely at the 50-day record of this Republican Congress and you will see the "Kochtopus" agenda written all over it. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have delivered on what has been hashed out in the secret meetings called by the Koch Brothers. There it is in living color:
          Destroy the Obama legacy - repeal ObamacareRemove the regulations and restrictions on business and corporations let Capitalism be unfettered and all of us will prosper
Protect the oil and energy cartels -- let them rule the world; and let Koch Industries lead the way. Use the XL Pipeline as our symbol.
Deny the science behind climate change; let factories and cars and machines pour forth their chemical waste; promote U.S. primacy in oil production instead
Pretend to create jobs or to protect workers, but attack all that gives labor unions their power: bargaining rights, pension benefits and protections, fees from non-union workers, 40 hour standard to be eligible for healthcare coverage, wage increases, lack of family or sick leave and especially allow movement of jobs and businesses to other countries without penalty
Promote (Evangelical) Christianity as the religious and moral foundation of the nation; downplay separation of church and state; emphasize religious freedom: impose beliefs on others such as no abortion, no contraception coverage under healthcare plans, teach creationism and downplay the importance of science
Continue to attack big government and devolve programs and operations to the states
Privatize as many government functions as is possible; we run things better!
I confidently predict that the next 50 days will follow this same pattern. After all, legislation is not being written based on a problem-solving model. It is being written based on what an elite cabal thinks is best for this country. Trouble is, they tend to think this country has a viable and capable population of around 400-500 people.

FIGHT BACK: Be informed - Inform Others - Prepare NOW for 2016 - become active. Encourage and support progressive Democrats to run for office at all levels. Get involved in someone's campaign. If you need some advice, ask your local Democratic Committee what you can do to help! Or, consider joining a Progressive organization like Organizing For Action, MoveOn, Bold Progressives, Citizen Action, Public Citizen, Democracy For America, Progressives United (for further information, all have websites online).