|
FOCUS: What Should We Do if the President Is a Liar? |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44284"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Medium</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 08 March 2017 11:30 |
|
Sanders writes: "We face a very serious political problem in this country, and that problem is manifested in a post written yesterday by Amber Phillips of The Washington Post. In her piece, Phillips criticizes me for lowering the state of our political discourse, because I accused the president of being a 'liar.'"
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Vox/YouTube)
What Should We Do if the President Is a Liar?
By Bernie Sanders, Medium
08 March 17
 e face a very serious political problem in this country, and that problem is manifested in a post written yesterday by Amber Phillips of The Washington Post. In her piece, Phillips criticizes me for lowering the state of our political discourse, because I accused the president of being a “liar.”
What should a United States senator, or any citizen, do if the president is a liar? Does ignoring this reality benefit the American people? Do we make a bad situation worse by disrespecting the president of the United States? Or do we have an obligation to say that he is a liar to protect America’s standing in the world and people’s trust in our institutions?
I happen to strongly believe in civil political discourse. The vast majority of people in Congress who hold views different than mine are not liars. It is critical we have strong, fact-based debates on the important issues facing our country and that we respect people who come to different conclusions. In a democracy people will always have honestly held different points of view.
But how does one respond to a president who has complete disregard for reality and who makes assertions heard by billions of people around the world that have no basis in fact?
In her post, Phillips reprints five tweets that I sent out yesterday as examples of “the sorry state of political discourse right now.”
Here they are:
One of my great concerns is that there undoubtedly will be major crises facing the United States and the global community during Trump’s tenure as president. If Trump lies over and over again what kind of credibility will he, or the United States, have when we need to bring countries around the world together to respond to those crises? How many people in our country and other countries will think that Trump is just lying one more time?
Trump said three to five million people voted illegally in the last election. This is a preposterous and dangerous allegation which intentionally opens the floodgates for an increase in voter suppression efforts. Amber Phillips herself previously wrote, “There is just no evidence of voter fraud. Why launch an investigation into something that nearly everyone in U.S. politics?—?save one notable exception?—?doesn’t believe warrants an investigation?”
Trump claimed that his victory “was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan.” Anyone with access to Google could see that this is factually incorrect. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all had bigger electoral margins of victory than Trump.
And then there are the trivial lies. Trump stated “it looked like a million and a half people” at his inauguration. Who cares? But none of the people who are trained to estimate crowd size believe that one and a half million people attended his inauguration.
More importantly, Trump helped lead a baseless and dangerous attack against the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency by suggesting over and over again that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore not eligible to become president. This was not a disagreement with Obama over policy. It was a deliberate and dishonest effort to appeal to racist sentiment in this country and deny the right of our first African-American president to serve.
Lastly, my tweet which states that the United States will not be respected or taken seriously around the world if Trump continues to shamelessly lie is self-evident. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. If we have a president who is not taken seriously by people throughout the world because of his continuous lies, our international standing will clearly suffer.
I find it interesting that Ms. Phillips did not take issue with my facts. Her complaint appears to be that it is improper for a United States senator to state the obvious. And that is that we have a president who either lies intentionally or, even more frighteningly, does not know the difference between lies and truth.
What do you think?
It is easy to know how we respond to a president with whom we disagree on many, many issues. I disagree with Trump’s support for repealing the Affordable Care Act. I disagree with Trump’s plan to give huge tax breaks to billionaires. I disagree with Trump’s appointment of an anti-environmental EPA administrator. I disagree with Trump’s appointments of major Wall Street executives to key economic positions and his plans to loosen regulations on Wall Street designed to protect consumers. And on and on and on! These strong policy disagreements are a normal part of the political process. He has his views. I have mine.
But how do we deal with a president who makes statements that reverberate around our country and the world that are not based on fact or evidence? What is the appropriate way to respond to that? And if the media and political leaders fail to call lies what they are, are they then guilty of misleading the public?
What are your views on this extremely important issue? I look forward to your comments.
 |
|
The Dark Strategy at the Core of the GOP Health Care Plan |
|
|
Wednesday, 08 March 2017 09:53 |
|
Dickinson writes: "The driving principle of Tryancare is to dangerously erode federal support for health insurance over time - both for individual policies bought in the marketplace and for Medicaid recipients."
Tryancare will strangle the budgets both of middle-class families trying to renew insurance policies and of state governments working to provide health services to the working poor and the elderly. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
The Dark Strategy at the Core of the GOP Health Care Plan
By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone
08 March 17
How the House Republican plan to overhaul Obamacare went from repeal-and-replace to cap-and-strangle
 aul Ryan and House Republicans have introduced a Trump-approved plan to overhaul Obamacare. But Tryancare – "our wonderful new Healthcare Bill," to quote the president – is not "repeal and replace." It is "cap and strangle."
The driving principle of Tryancare is to dangerously erode federal support for health insurance over time – both for individual policies bought in the marketplace and for Medicaid recipients.
The bill accomplishes this in a tricky way. It trades in Obamacare's guaranteed payouts for a new program of federal spending that looks vaguely adequate in year one. But Tryancare then caps future payouts – at a growth rate far below health care inflation.
Even over a short time horizon, Tryancare will strangle the budgets both of middle-class families trying to renew insurance policies and of state governments working to provide health services to the working poor and the elderly.
What does Tryancare do?
Leave aside for now the budget machinations of Tryancare – in short, the bill would give massive tax cuts to a lot of rich people – and focus just on the policy changes.
First, give the plan a bit of credit for what it does not do: It doesn't kick young adults off their parents' plans. It doesn't end protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. It doesn't allow insurers to impose lifetime caps on benefits.
So what are the big changes?
In the individual market:
Tryancare does away with Obamacare's premium supports – by which the government now pays a large percentage of the monthly insurance bill for millions of middle-class Americans. Instead, Tryancare would mail out a monthly refundable tax credit – essentially, a check from Uncle Sam – for Americans to buy their own health plans.
Unlike Obamacare, Tryancare does not account for huge, regional variations in the cost of insurance. And it does not offer larger subsidies to the poorest Americans. The tax credit varies only by age, growing more generous with each decade reached. The subsidy does phase out for Americans with incomes over $75,0000 (individuals) or $150,0000 (couples) per year.
Here's the gist: If you're under 30, you get $2,000 a year in federal support. If you're between 40 and 50 years of age, you get $3,000 to buy premiums. And if you're over 60, the payout jumps to $4,000 a year. The credits accrue to each member of a family – but the payout maxes out at $14,000.
Because these are flat tax credits, Tryancare shifts money out of the pockets of the poor and gives it to the upper middle class. A 60-year-old with an income of $20,000 would lose more than half the premium support now paid for by Obamacare (average: $9,874), while a 60-year-old making $75,000, who today does not qualify for subsidies under Obamacare, would get $4,000 under Tryancare. (Numbers courtesy of the Kaiser Family Foundation.)
Under Tryancare, there would be no IRS penalty for failing to get or maintain a policy. Instead, Tryancare would punish people who don't maintain insurance coverage by allowing insurers to charge 30 percent higher premiums in the first year of their enrollment or re-enrollment.
For Medicaid:
Medicaid is a health insurance program for low-income Americans; the federal government pays the lion's share of program costs, with states picking up the rest. Obamacare provided funds to expand Medicaid from a program generally limited to women and children in poverty to create, instead, universal coverage for the poor and working poor. But a Supreme Court decision made expansion optional in the states; as a result, the U.S. now has a patchwork system where Medicaid benefits vary dramatically across state lines.
Tryancare doesn't immediately reverse Obamacare's Medicaid expansion; it sustains expanded funding for Medicaid recipients who enroll before a 2019 deadline – and don't later lose their coverage. But because Medicaid recipients bounce in and out of the system frequently due to income fluctuations, many beneficiaries of the expansion will soon lose their federal funding boost. The net effect, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, is that states would have to pony up an additional $280 billion over the next decade to preserve the benefits of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.
What is cap-and-strangle?
At first blush, the new GOP proposal looks like a less-charitable version of Obamacare. But the hidden cruelty of Tryancare reveals itself as the years go by.
Both for individual policies and Medicaid beneficiaries, the Tryancare contribution is capped. It grows only at the rate of the increase in the Consumer Price Index (a measure of inflation) plus one percent. In 2016, the CPI was 2.1 percent. Under the Tryancare formula, federal health care supports for 2017 would have risen by only 3.1 percent.
The problem? Health care inflation far outpaces regular inflation. And the inflation in premiums on the individual market has experienced staggering hyperinflation. Consider that premiums soared by an average of 25 percent for 2017 coverage.
Under Obamacare, premium support is not capped. It rises in tandem with insurance rates. Subsidies climbed from an average of $291 a month in 2016 to $367 in 2017, a boost of $76 a month.
Now let's run similar numbers through Tryancare. The program would give $3,500 a year – or $292 a month – to Americans between the ages of 50 and 60. Let's assume this was in place in 2016. Apply the Tryancare's growth formula, capped at 3.1 percent, and the tax credit for 2017 would have increased to $301, a boost of just $9 a month.
For 2017, Tryancare would leave our hypothetical 50-year-old paying an extra $66 a month compared to Obamacare – or an extra $792 for the year. To put it in terms that even Rep. Jason Chaffetz would understand, that's an iPhone.
Compound this difference between the Tryancare growth cap and actual premium inflation, year after year, and it's easy to imagine how a family's budget gets strangled by the spiraling cost of insurance premiums.
The problem in Medicaid is basically the same – though the inflation numbers are a bit lower given the efficiencies of the massive state-administered programs. Still, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects that the Tryancare growth cap would leave the states an additional $280 billion in the red after just one decade.
Is there any good news?
Tryancare may be dead on arrival.
The problem is that Republicans disagree – vigorously – on how to fix Obamacare. Hardliners in the House object that Tryancare effectively enshrines a new entitlement and breaks their promises to constituents to repeal Obamacare in full. The Heritage Foundation is now marshalling its activists to call GOP lawmakers and "tell them this bill is not acceptable."
Centrists in the Senate, on the other hand, want to preserve Medicaid expansion in states where it has been crucial in driving down the uninsurance rate. Four GOP senators, led by Rob Portman of Ohio, have warned that Tryancare's changes to Medicaid risk making it a non-starter.
Tryancare is an attempt at a compromise, but it appears to be satisfying no one. And Trump – sitting at 43 percent approval – does not look like he has the political capital to bring the competing flanks of the GOP in line. These divisions are stark even before the Congressional Budget Office has given any guidance as to how much Tryancare might cost – or how many Americans stand to lose insurance, compared to Obamacare.
For now, Democrats can sit back and watch as the GOP wrestles with what Nancy Pelosi has hashtagged an #RxForDisaster.
|
|
|
Only Mass Mobilization Can Save the EPA |
|
|
Wednesday, 08 March 2017 09:22 |
|
Henn writes: "Public opinion is on our side, but the politics are steeply against us. That means that our primary job isn't to convince people to 'care' about what's happening, they do. It's to mobilize the millions upon millions of Americans who are deeply concerned and want to do something about it."
A coal-fired power plant, near St. Mary's, Kansas. (photo: Charlie Riedel/AP)
Only Mass Mobilization Can Save the EPA
By Jamie Henn, 350.org
08 March 17
 t's not yet halfway through Trump's first 100 days in office and his administration has already shown they'll go to any length to dismantle the laws and regulations that protect our air, water and climate.
Trump's team has already started to dismantle some of the nation's most important environmental laws, from the Waters of the United States rule that keeps our rivers and streams free from pollutants, to regulations intended to prevent dangerous methane emissions from fracking, an already dangerous and controversial practice.
Now, reports in the New York Times and elsewhere that Trump and his denier cabinet are going to start dismantling the the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that limit pollution from cars and trucks, rules that save consumers trillions of dollars by getting automakers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Also on the chopping block is the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's rules cutting back on carbon emissions from coal fired power plants.
We already know that we won't be able to count on Congress to intervene. The GOP didn't bat an eye in approving climate change denier Scott Pruitt as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency he'd sued numerous times. Revelations that Pruitt worked directly with industry to weaken environmental laws only seemed to encourage Republicans to vote for him. They saw him as one of their own: a fossil fuel industry shill, ready to put profits over public health each and every time.
That means that it's up to all of us. The American people still overwhelmingly support laws to protect our air, water and climate. Recent polling shows that even Trump voters support rules to put a price on carbon pollution. And why not? Climate change won't just impact blue states and leave red states alone. From sea level rise in Louisiana to increased drought in Utah, conservative areas are also beginning to feel the impacts of climate change.
Public opinion is on our side, but the politics are steeply against us. That means that our primary job isn't to convince people to "care" about what's happening, they do. It's to mobilize the millions upon millions of Americans who are deeply concerned and want to do something about it. We need to remind people (and ourselves) that there are clear and powerful ways to make our voices heard, to push back on Trump's agenda and to hold our representatives accountable.
One of those ways is by taking part in the People's Climate Mobilization this April 29. Marches and rallies are already being organized across the country and in Washington, DC. We're going to show Trump that he can try and deny the reality of the climate crisis, but he can't deny the power of the American people. Together, we're going to stand up to this administration's attacks on our climate and communities and put forward the vision of a clean energy economy that works for all.
We know that the real opportunity to create a better economy isn't by stripping away environmental regulations, but by investing in the transition to 100 percent renewable energy. We also know it's often low-income workers and people of color who get hit the hardest when we roll back environmental protections and that those same communities would benefit most from a new, clean energy economy.
With a week of action kicking off with the Science March on April 22, the People's Climate Mobilization will be a powerful way to help defend the EPA and continue to demonstrate that the public cares deeply about climate, jobs and justice. Trump and the GOP can only continue to get away with their radical, anti-climate agenda if we stay silent. Sustained public outcry is our best shot at beginning to reign in the worst excesses of this administration and force other politicians at the local, state and national level to stand up and fight back.
The EPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Protection Act weren't put into place because their was some hippy environmentalist in the White House, but by none other than Richard Nixon, who couldn't have given a damn about the environment. The only reason Nixon took action was because tens of millions of Americans took the streets during the first Earth Day in 1970 and turned that into real political power by sustaining that pressure.
Now, nearly 50 years later, it's our turn to fight and protect that legacy—the future that depends on it. The People's Climate Mobilization on April 29 is a huge chance to show that we won't let our climate and communities be sacrificed so that the fossil fuel industry can have one last hurrah before renewables inevitably take their place. Let's get to work.
|
|
FBI Challenges Justice Department to Tell Truth About Presidents |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 07 March 2017 15:20 |
|
Boardman writes: "'that Obama had' - it's unlikely Trump could know whether Obama did or didn't do anything like this without Trump's learning about classified information to which he has little or no legal access. As has been widely reported, Obama (like Trump) has no such authority to 'wire tap' private citizens, any more than Nixon did."
Donald Trump, James Comey. (photo: Getty Images)
FBI Challenges Justice Department to Tell Truth About Presidents
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
07 March 17
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
– President Trump Tweet, March 4, 2017, @ 6:35 a.m.
 irst, let’s look at the text and its inherent anomalies:
- “Just found out” – shortly after 6 a.m., just before sunrise? Really? How?
- “that Obama had” – it’s unlikely Trump could know whether Obama did or didn’t do anything like this without Trump’s learning about classified information to which he has little or no legal access. As has been widely reported, Obama (like Trump) has no such authority to “wire tap” private citizens, any more than Nixon did.
- “my ‘wires tapped’ [sic]” – perhaps the Trumpian quote marks around “wires tapped” indicates his awareness that most if not all his communications are wireless, but “wires tapped” is more understandable to his base. This phrase is also useful for “my,” which more or less limits the accusation to Trump and his extensions – NOT most of the 58-story Trump Tower.
- “in Trump Tower” – makes little sense, since “wire taps” in Trump Tower would be of limited coverage and usefulness. Almost surely, any surveillance secretly authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the FISA Court) would be based on evidence of criminal activity that would require a much broader reach than just Trump Tower.
- “just before the victory” – like days? Weeks? Relevance? If there were “wire taps” then, is Trump suggesting Obama knew Hillary was going to lose? Or is there some other obscure point to this alleged timing?
- “Nothing found.” – Trump apparently also learned this around 6 a.m. on March 4, assuming it’s a fact. If true, it could be evidence of innocence. It could be evidence of good cyber-security. Whatever it might mean is easily clarified by de-classifying whatever exists.
- “This is McCarthyism!” By definition, it’s NOT McCarthyism, certainly not if this claim refers to the body of the Tweet that precedes it. In that context, the claim of McCarthyism is as absurd as it is inflammatory.
On March 2, radio commentator Mark Levin (“Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America”) devoted part of his two-hour radio show to castigating Republicans for not defending Attorney General Jeff Sessions against what he derided as spurious attacks on Sessions for not revealing two meetings with the Russian ambassador. Then Levin, an attorney and former chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese, said:
But there’s a bigger scandal here, folks, and this is what I want to walk you through again. There is a much bigger scandal here. We have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates – who were supporting Hillary Clinton and their party, the Democrat Party – who were using the instrumentalities of the federal government – intelligence activities – to surveil members of the Trump campaign! And to put that information out in the public! Those are police state tactics! Nothing General Flynn did, nothing General Sessions has done are even in the same category as that!
Levin went on to elaborate his perception of conspiracy: “This is a silent coup – a silent, non-violent coup. That’s what’s going on here.” The next day, March 4, his analysis was reported and enlarged on Breitbart.com with a timeline starting with a FISA court request by the FBI on June 16 that was “uncharacteristically” denied. Breitbart also noted another “new, narrow” FISA Court request that was granted. One unintended takeaway from Breitbart’s reporting is that the FBI thought it had enough evidence to pursue a criminal investigation that included two Russian banks and the Trump campaign, all lodged in Trump Tower.
Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
– President Trump Tweet, March 4, 2017 @ 6:49 a.m.
Shortly after sunrise in Palm Beach at 6:42 a.m., and with fourteen minutes to consider his first Tweet, the President sent another misleading Tweet accusing President Obama of exercising authority he lacked, still offering no evidence. Saying “Turned down by a court earlier” he effectively lied by omission of the second, approved FISA Court order. “A NEW LOW!” would be accurate, applied to the Trump Tweets. Three minutes later, Trump tripled down on his allegation, which he now characterizes as “fact” (although the fact is that the fall surveillance was FISA Court-ordered):
I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
– President Trump Tweet, March 4, 2017, @ 6:52 a.m.
Ten minutes later, President Trump has completed his investigation and trial, reaching not only a verdict but a psychological conclusion about his predecessor:
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
– President Trump Tweet, March 4, 2017, @ 7:02 a.m.
In response to inquiries as to what the President meant and what evidence he had to support his escalating claims, the White House didn’t respond for more than 24 hours. Then the press secretary’s office tried to shut the story down with a brief written statement (here in its entirety) on March 5:
Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.
President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.
Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted.
The statement is bizarre. The first sentence refers to President Trump’s Tweets, falsifies them (by using “potentially”) and, with presumably unintended irony, calls them “very troubling.” Indeed, they are. Then the statement mischaracterizes – or lies about – what President Trump said, claiming he was calling for expanded Congressional investigations. That is simply false. No wonder “neither the White House nor the President will comment further….” When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s daughter, went on ABC talk shows Sunday and Monday, falsifying the Trump Tweets in an effort to back the President away from his accusations presented as fact. Both Martha Raddatz and George Stephanopoulos challenged Huckabee’s false assertions. On March 5, Martha Raddatz accurately said of Trump’s Tweets about the “wire tapping” that: “He said it did happen.” Huckabee responded evasively and falsely:
Everybody acts like President Trump is the one that came up with this idea and just threw it out there. There are multiple news outlets that have reported this. And all we’re asking is that we get the same level of look into the Obama administration and the potential that they had for a complete abuse of power that they’ve been claiming that we have done over the last six months….
After further circular discussion, and no showing of “multiple news outlets” reporting the President’s allegations as facts, Raddatz summed up her frustration:
Well, what about these accusations? You keep saying, if, if, if. The President of the United States said it was a fact. He didn’t say I read a story in Breitbart or “The New York Times” or wherever else. He said, “Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower.” That’s not an if.
At that point, the best Huckabee was able to say was: “I will let the President speak for himself.” That’s what he did in the first place. And the White House has yet to explain why the President made has series of sunrise Tweets, or to offer any supporting evidence that they are true. All of this leaves us with President Trump accusing the Obama administration of illegal wire-tapping so late in the game it couldn’t prevent Trump’s election or, among the alternatives, a Trump Tweet-attack designed to distract from the ever-growing evidence of the Trump campaign’s long and complex interactions with Russian officials and non-officials.
Meanwhile, inside the Justice Department on March 4, FBI director James Comey responded to the Trump Tweets by asking the Justice Department to rebut them, according to the Monday New York Times. Reportedly, Comey objected to the Trump Tweet storm “because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law.” Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department commented publicly on the story. Similarly, the White House refused to comment on the reported Comey request. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, “I’m not aware that that occurred.” He also said the White House had not asked either the Justice Department or the FBI for clarification.
This is classic cover-up behavior. The late Maurice Stans was a high-level Nixon fundraiser and Commerce Secretary who was never convicted of crimes but admitted violating campaign finance laws and paid fines. Early in the Watergate cover-up, when his underling Hugh Sloan asked him about money anomalies, Stans famously replied with this instruction in cover-up tactics: “I don’t want to know, and you don’t want to know.”
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
