United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[Destiny]

Continued from here:

 

[fraurosena]

@DestinyGreat title. Really great. It's the greatest. The best.  

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo did a couple of good articles about tomorrow's election in GA. "The Georgia special election shows why Trump may sink the GOP"

Quote

Tuesday’s contest in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District to fill the seat of now-Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has gotten the president’s attention. He tweeted, “The super Liberal Democrat in the Georgia Congressioal [sic] race tomorrow wants to protect criminals, allow illegal immigration and raise taxes!” However unintentionally, this line of crude attack may well remind many upscale Republican and Democratic voters in this district why they dislike President Trump. He barely carried the district, running almost points behind Price in November. (NBC News finds: “Tom Price got 62% of the vote in this highly educated and affluent Atlanta-area district in 2016, and Mitt Romney took 61% in 2012. But Trump barely beat Hillary Clinton here in 2016, 48%-47%.”)

Democrat Jon Ossoff, for the record, is running as a moderate. On crime, his website says, “Violent crime, murder, rape, human trafficking, and corruption are rampant, while we spend billions locking up nonviolent drug offenders.” On taxes and the economy, he’s not supporting a tax hike. Rather, he argues, that as “a small business owner, executive, and entrepreneur — the CEO of a company that produces documentaries investigating organized crime and political corruption … he knows what it means to grow a company, meet a payroll, and balance budgets.” He says he wants “to reduce the tax burden on small businesses and simplify small business tax filing … [and] repeal wasteful, anti-competitive special interest subsidies that make it hard for entrepreneurs to raise capital, enter the market, create jobs, and compete with larger firms who have lobbyists in Washington.”

Ossoff is no doubt delighted to have gotten under Trump’s skin since he has been running right at Trump’s conflicts of interest, attempt to roll back Obamacare and unpresidential demeanor. Ossoff now has the president’s word for it — he really is the most anti-Trump candidate.

Ossoff is unlikely to break the 50 percent mark Tuesday and thereby avoid a runoff. Nevertheless, he would remain in a strong position to flip the seat in the general election. “While Republicans’ odds of holding on to this seat increase in a two-person race, the polling — which hasn’t been of the greatest quality, mind you — shows Ossoff running competitively against the top-tier Republicans in a runoff,” NBC News reports. “The nonpartisan Cook Political Report is designating the overall contest as a Toss Up.” Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight agrees that Ossoff has a real shot at the seat:

We’re in a somewhat Democratic-leaning environment right now, given Trump’s poor approval ratings, a modest Democratic advantage on the generic congressional ballot and the results of last week’s special election in Kansas. That should mitigate some of Georgia 6’s Republican lean. For another thing, a couple of polls, such as [the Opinion Savvy poll showing him winning by more than 20 points], have tested prospective runoff matchups, and they’ve usually shown Ossoff a percentage point or two ahead of Handel and other Republicans. It’s not much of a “lead,” but it suggests that a runoff might at least be a toss-up for him.

In other words, even in a very Republican district, Ossoff is demonstrating that running against Trump is a smart play. And as Trump’s numbers get even worse, that tactic will be the default setting for challengers in just about every marginally competitive race. The trend line for Trump and the GOP isn’t good.

...

Even worse for Republicans, Trump seems to be pulling down the image of the party as a whole. Pew finds: “The new Congress is viewed about as unfavorably as the previous Congress. And while both parties are viewed less positively than in January, the GOP’s ratings are more negative than the Democratic Party’s.” Republicans who stand foursquare behind Trump may want to rethink their position:

Trump’s overall job rating stands at 39%, the same as it was in February. As was the case then, his job rating today is lower — and more politically divided — than other recent presidents at comparable points in their first year. . . . In addition, fewer than half (46%) are very or somewhat confident in Trump’s ability to work effectively with Congress; in December, this had been seen as a relative strength for Trump – 60% were confident he could work well with Congress. Over this period, the share expressing confidence in Trump to avoid major scandals in his administration also has fallen eight percentage points, from 44% to 36%.

In sum, the GA-6 results on Tuesday are unlikely to preclude a runoff. Nevertheless, Ossoff is poised for a big win. Climbing over 17 other candidates with a resolutely anti-Trump message in a very Republican district is no small feat. Moreover, the election will speak volumes about the degree to which Trump is now a weight around Republicans’ necks. Democrats hope that continues through the 2018 election.

 

 

"Why the special election in Georgia’s 6th District matters"

Quote

Tomorrow’s special election in Georgia’s 6th District is important. The losers will want to play down the significance of what occurs, and the winners will want to overreach. The fact is, both parties are heavily invested in this race, and the outcome will matter. If Democrats win, their victory will speak to and embolden the intensity of their radical, left-wing, anti-Trump supporters. And if Republicans pull through, it will confirm that the GOP was organized and able to maintain control over traditionally red districts in the age of the “resistance.”

Until now, the Democrats have succeeded only in making a lot of noise. They’ve gathered around a cluster of campus liberals, Black Lives Matter agitators and the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in order to capture the reins of government with pledges of more regulations and benefits from Washington. They shouldn’t be taken seriously, but if Democrats win tomorrow, the new left’s platform of resistance will be emboldened. They will have learned that the loudest voice wins.

But if Republicans win tomorrow, the victory will speak to the party’s ability to lead, organize and maintain what has traditionally been ours — even during tumultuous and unpredictable times. If Republicans lose, however, excuses will be made to suggest that the field was fragmented and nearly impossible for a GOP candidate to win. But we can’t just blame the process. Either way, there will be lessons that should be taken to heart.

...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting: "Vice Chairman of Joint Chiefs Selva tells Congress off over CR issues"

Quote

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all but explicitly told the American public to vote out their members of Congress.

Gen. Paul Selva had harsh words for the nation’s legislative institution, blaming it for military waste and problems because it was unable to break the pattern of continuing resolutions and pass a meaningful budget.

“If it makes you feel better, we are all making history. We’ve had the longest period in American history where Congress has been unable to deliver a budget on schedule. We’ve had the longest period in American history where we have not complied with constitutional budget order and we have the first administration in the history of the United States that has transitioned under a continuing resolution.” Selva said during an April 13 Air Force Association breakfast in Arlington, Virginia. “Congratulations. All of your names will be in a history book somewhere. They should be in a history book as the American citizens who lost faith in the ability of Congress to do its job.”

Congress must pass at budget for 2017 by April 28 or the government will be shutdown. The nation has been operating under a continuing resolution since October 2016.

The military services already told Congress that continuing to operate under a continuing resolution for the rest of the year would be detrimental.

“It’s the cumulative effect. We’ve been doing CRs now for eight years and a shutdown in [20]13,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this month. “It’s like smoking cigarettes. One cigarette is not going to kill you, but you do that for eight, 10, 20 years, 30 years you’re eventually going to die of lung cancer.”

Selva asked Congress to simply pass a budget so the military could plan better for its future.

“There’s a little part of me that says ‘I don’t even care what size it is, just give us a budget,’” Selva said.

He added that the 2017 defense authorization act is mostly defunct without the appropriations to back it up.

He called the NDAA a “masterful piece of work,” but said by law under the CR the military has to do what it did last year and must ask for approval for anything new.

“You want to buy a couple more airplanes? Sorry, can’t do that. You want to increase your spend of preferred munitions so you’re capable of fighting the fight you’re in? Sorry, not allowed. You’re given the authority to recruit 20,000 more soldiers into the United States Army. Nice idea, not funded. Continuing resolutions force us to spend money on this we don’t need and prevent us from spending money on things we do need,” Selva said.

Selva admitted DoD has its problems with money, but the lack of budgeting is causing more waste.

He said if a budget not passed on the 28th, the military will have $6 billion in acquisition money it cannot spend and an unfunded mandate for growing the force totaling about $5.25 billion That’s due to the changes in what Congress mandated in the 2017 NDAA, but the restrictions of the military operating on a budget from 2016.

“One of you will ask me ‘How come the new aircraft carrier has another $300 million or $400 million cost overrun?’ and you’ll look at me quizzically when I say, ‘Well the first reason that is true is we had to lay off all the people that know how to build air craft carriers for four months because we didn’t have the money to continue the procurement to build the damn aircraft carrier,” Selva said.

Well, we had a Republican-controlled congress for the last seven years who refused to work with Obama, so they wouldn't consider any of his budgets. I can't see the current gridlock suddenly giving way.

[GreyhoundFan]

"How Republicans have already backed themselves into a corner on tax reform"

Quote

Having failed at their first big legislative push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are now turning their attention to their second priority, the one that was always first in their hearts: tax reform.

But they’re running into some problems there, too: substantive problems, procedural problems and political problems. Here’s a report on the latest from Jonathan Swan:

As full-blown tax reform looks more and more like an unreachable stretch, there’s increasing conversation on the Hill about what’s being called a “candy option” — all the goodies, with none of the pain.

That would mean lower personal and corporate rates, plus some limited repatriation, funded largely by deficit spending.

To be clear, this is a fallback, not what congressional Republicans would prefer. But it’s what I’ve been predicting. Faced with the complexity of sweeping tax reform and the difficulty of satisfying all the different interest groups and constituencies that have something to gain or lose and will thus be lobbying frenetically on the bill — there’s a reason Congress does this only once in a generation or so — they’ll throw in the towel and default to what they can agree on.

And what Republicans can agree on is cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations. The kinds of reform that are more complex and that some Republicans but not others support, such as a border adjustment tax or the elimination of significant loopholes (each of which has its influential defenders), will just have to be put aside.

But doing that presents a couple of major political problems. The first is that Democrats will shout that Republicans are just bestowing a gift on the wealthy, which is what Democrats always say. They say this because it’s true, and because it’s extremely effective.

The second political problem the candy option presents is that it’s another broken promise likely to dispirit the Republican base. For eight years, Republicans have been saying, “Give us power, and we’ll do all kinds of terrific things.” Now they have the power, but they failed to deliver on their first promise of ACA repeal, and another high-profile failure on top of that would be devastating.

So on one hand, they have to at least try to do the kind of comprehensive reform they said they would, but on the other hand, the harder they try, the worse it will be if and when it comes crashing down. That prospect has them considering giving up before they even start, which also would make them look weak and ineffectual. It’s quite the dilemma.

Republicans also face a procedural problem. According to Senate rules, they can avoid a filibuster (and its 60-vote requirement) of their tax reform bill by passing it through the magical tool of “reconciliation,” which would require only 50 votes (they have 52 seats in the Senate). The problem is that reconciliation has its own rules, which state that it can be used only for bills that don’t increase the deficit beyond 10 years. One way to get around that is to do what Congress did when it passed the George W. Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which is to make them sunset after 10 years, in the hope that a future Congress will renew them — then you can increase the deficit as much as you like. So this is an obstacle Republicans can surmount, but it would end with them not getting their first choice; they’d rather make permanent changes.

...

Republicans have said that they’ll be able to write a tax reform bill that is revenue-neutral, by doing things such as lowering tax rates while simultaneously eliminating loopholes, thereby making the whole thing balance out. Is that theoretically possible? Yes. Are they likely to do that? No. It’s just not in their nature. They want to cut taxes, especially on the wealthy. If you make everything balance out, you haven’t made the kind of progress in that direction that they want to make.

....

There’s one other matter that has been the subject of some complicated discussion. You may have heard it said that Republicans want to repeal the ACA before doing tax reform, because that would “free up” a large chunk of money that could then be factored into tax reform, getting them closer to the revenue-neutral score they’d need to make their tax changes permanent through reconciliation.

But according to budget experts I’ve spoken to, this is wrong.

The idea is supposed to be that by repealing the ACA and the taxes included in it, Republicans would lower the overall revenue “baseline” of the entire government, thereby meaning that they’d have to bring in less overall in taxes, which would allow their tax reform to include satisfyingly deeper cuts. The problem is that when it comes to the assessment of a tax reform bill, it will be judged on its own to determine whether it meets the requirements of reconciliation. That bill will include some provisions that raise more revenue (such as eliminating loopholes) and some that cut revenue (such as cutting rates), and the question is whether they balance out. Either they will or they won’t. It’s the changes to the tax code in that reform bill that matter. If they’re going to eliminate the inheritance tax, say, that will increase the deficit, and whether they lowered the baseline in a previous bill (by, say, eliminating the medical device tax in the ACA) doesn’t factor in (you can read more on this here).

Now, once again, Republicans can pass tax reform that increases the deficit via reconciliation if they sunset it after 10 years. Which brings us back to the candy option. Their best alternative may be to just pass some simple upper-end tax cuts with a 10-year sunset and declare victory. We’ll see how that goes over.

 

[fraurosena]

 

Republicans Prepare To Lose On A Government Funding Bill

 

Quote

Republicans may hold the House, the Senate and the White House, but when it comes to the upcoming omnibus spending bill, it’s Democrats who look in control.

There are still a number of tricky issues to settle, and there are plenty of ways a deal could blow up, but when Congress returns next week just a few days before an April 28 government funding deadline, the emerging bill seems likely to please Democrats and anger conservatives.

It’s the first real instance where Republicans and President Donald Trump need Democratic votes to enact their agenda ― short of once again blowing up Senate rules ― and that leverage has Democrats blocking many Republican priorities.

In the GOP dream world, Republicans would defund Planned Parenthood, restrict money for so-called sanctuary cities, fund Trump’s border wall, potentially blow up Obamacare, and provide significantly more for defense while starving other domestic programs that Democrats prefer. But it seems Republicans will get hardly any of that, save for a defense boost that lawmakers on both sides essentially consider pro forma at this point. Conservatives inside and outside Congress may soon rightfully ask: How is this deal any different than a bill Republicans would get if Hillary Clinton were president and Democrats controlled Congress?

The difficulty for Republicans is that they need eight votes in the Senate to pass an omnibus spending bill, which will fund the government until October. Needing eight Democratic votes in the Senate is basically akin to needing all Democrats, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will have to sign off on the bill. And if Schumer has to give the deal his blessing, it’s tough for Republicans to get much. [...]

The common paradox on these spending bills is that the more Democrats win on policy, the more they win on spending. If conservatives are going to vote no anyway over objections on issues like Planned Parenthood or the border wall, it’s Democrats who have to carry the bill to passage in the House and Senate. At this point, Republicans ― in the House, at least ― look to be playing for a “majority of the majority,” which has mostly eluded Republicans over the last several years on these large spending deals.

Perhaps the best sign of just where a deal stands is that Democrats told The Huffington Post that negotiations were going well, whereas conservatives sounded hopeless about supporting the measure.

Still, passing an omnibus bill with nearly unanimous Democratic support and just a little help from Republicans could be so unpalatable for Trump that he vetoes the legislation. [...]

The White House understands that failure to fund the government looks far worse for Republicans ― who control every lever of the federal government ― than it does for Democrats. And the last thing the GOP needs amid its inability to pass a health care bill is another reminder that they have difficulty governing. [...]

There's a definite David vs Goliath thing going on here... and we all know how that ended! 

[fraurosena]

Hey guys, is there any news on the turnout in Georgia yet?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/jon-ossoff-we-are-in-striking-distance-of-winning-it-today-923589187907

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hope that he gets the needed 50%. 

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Hey guys, is there any news on the turnout in Georgia yet?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/jon-ossoff-we-are-in-striking-distance-of-winning-it-today-923589187907

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hope that he gets the needed 50%. 

Me too!

 The polls close at 7pm in Georgia (UTC-4), so unfortunately we've got some time to kill until the hard data starts coming in. 

[formergothardite]

Burr and Tillis continue to avoid NC like we have the plague, so a group in Charlotte is holding a town hall tonight with live chickens to represent them. 

[GreyhoundFan]

59 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Burr and Tillis continue to avoid NC like we have the plague, so a group in Charlotte is holding a town hall tonight with live chickens to represent them. 

That's so great! Sadly, the chickens probably care about the citizens of NC more than Burr and Tillis do.

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Burr and Tillis continue to avoid NC like we have the plague, so a group in Charlotte is holding a town hall tonight with live chickens to represent them. 

I'm hoping for lots of videos from attendees of the town hall!

[fraurosena]

Dang... he didn't get the hoped for 50%. However, 48.1% is really good, especially as this is Georgia.

Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, Narrowly Misses Outright Win in Georgia House Race

Quote

Jon Ossoff, a Democrat making his first bid for elective office, narrowly missed winning a heavily conservative House district in Georgia outright on Wednesday, according to The Associated Press. It threw a scare into Republicans in a special congressional election that was seen as an early referendum on President Trump.

Mr. Ossoff received 48.1 percent of the vote, just short of the 50 percent threshold needed to win the seat, and he will face Karen Handel, the top Republican vote-getter, in a June runoff. [...]

Of course, the tangerine toddler thought the repubs had won the day, because he helped...

Quote

He recorded a robocall delivered Monday to Republican voters in the district, warning that Mr. Ossoff would “raise your taxes, destroy your health care and flood our country with illegal immigrants.” And he posted on Twitter a series of messages similarly criticizing Mr. Ossoff while prodding Republicans to “force runoff.”

So he tweeted this as a victory celebration:

 

Now I'm hoping even more that Ossoff wins in June. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

So now when republicans are forced to a runoff in a district they used to carry easily they "win the runoff". Trump spins even more than Spicey. If they believe it, namely that Trump has the popular consensus and there are just some paid protesters, they are delusional fools.

[Cartmann99]

Just a reminder to those who are asking themselves why the name Karen Handel  sounds sort of familiar to them: 

Quote

Handel was the most controversial Komen executive involved in the decision to pull cancer prevention grants from Planned Parenthood. While the organization’s founder, Nancy Brinker, insisted that Handel had nothing to do with the decision, internal emails obtained by the Huffington Post showed that Handel actually led the charge to kill the Planned Parenthood grants because some of the family planning provider’s clinics provide abortions.

After resigning from Komen under pressure, Handel wrote a book called “Planned Bullyhood,” in which she slammed Planned Parenthood and painted the organization as “a bunch of schoolyard thugs.” She implied in a speech to the Family Research Council in December that her battle with the family planning provider is far from over.

“Planned Parenthood counted on conservative elected officials to be quiet, and they were silent,” she said. “But they didn’t count on me. Cecile Richards has absolutely no idea who she’s picked a fight with, folks.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/karen-handel-senate_n_3291688.html

[fraurosena]

Well, well, well... 

Republican ethics chairman refusing to investigate Trump says he will not seek re-election

This is just a quick notification piece. More info is to follow.

[GreyhoundFan]

5 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Well, well, well... 

Republican ethics chairman refusing to investigate Trump says he will not seek re-election

This is just a quick notification piece. More info is to follow.

I was just coming to post about this. I'm so happy! One down, how many more to go?  The NYT pubished an article about Chapass' announcement.

Quote

WASHINGTON — Representative Jason Chaffetz, the powerful chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told supporters on Wednesday that he would not seek re-election to Congress — or for any office — in 2018.

Mr. Chaffetz, 50, a Utah Republican who plainly relished his oversight role more under a Democratic administration, said he was ready to return to the private sector after more than 13 years in public service, calling his decision a “personal” one.

“I have long advocated public service should be for a limited time and not a lifetime or full career,” he said in a statement. “After more than 1,500 nights away from my home, it is time.”

He said his decision was not based on either health or political concerns, adding that he was “confident” of his re-election should he have pursued it and retained support from Speaker Paul D. Ryan for his committee chairmanship.

More than 18 months out from the election in the heavily Republican district, there were already possible signs of a challenging race in Mr. Chaffetz’s future. Kathryn Allen, a physician and political newcomer running as a Democrat, has already raised nearly $400,000 more than Mr. Chaffetz this year, The Salt Lake Tribune reported Sunday — most of it from donors outside of Utah. And Mr. Chaffetz had also acquired a primary challenger: Damian W. Kidd, a lawyer and another newcomer who accused the congressman of caring more about himself than his district.

Even with his announcement, Mr. Chaffetz left open the possibility of his return.

“I may run again for public office,” he added, “but not in 2018.”

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Chaffetz has shown an opportunistic streak, often rushing toward television cameras with an eager smile. During the election, he vacillated several times before backing President Trump. He said he would not be able to look his teenage daughter in the eye should he vote for Mr. Trump after revelations arose that Mr. Trump had boasted in 2005 of sexually assaulting women. Then he voted for him. And he vowed to investigate Hillary Clinton whether she won or not.

With a ready foil in Mrs. Clinton, whose brushes with controversy have sustained many Republican congressional careers, Mr. Chaffetz appeared primed to emerge as a chief tormentor for a new Democratic White House.

Instead, as much as perhaps any member of Congress, his fortunes turned considerably with Mr. Trump’s victory.

During his time heading the committee, Mr. Chaffetz has focused often on two pet issues: criticizing the Secret Service for security lapses and holding Mrs. Clinton to account.

After the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, announced in July that the bureau would recommend that Mrs. Clinton not be charged over her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state, Mr. Chaffetz led House Republicans in rejecting Mr. Comey’s conclusion.

Five days after the announcement, Mr. Chaffetz asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton had lied in her testimony before Congress about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Mr. Chaffetz had been one of the first lawmakers to raise questions about the Obama administration’s role in Benghazi, traveling to Libya less than a month after the attacks to evaluate security standards.

...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"What Paul Ryan’s tax cut would mean for middle-class families"

Quote

A Republican plan for tax reform could be worse for the American economy than previously thought, according to an estimate published Monday by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

In a fresh look at a tax plan being pitched by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, the center estimated the proposal could reduce growth in the gross domestic product by 0.5 percent after a decade and by 2.6 percent after 20 years.

Ryan's proposal calls for imposing what on paper would be a new tax on imports and exempting any exports from taxes. Skeptics say that this provision, known as a border adjustment, would make goods imported from around the world more expensive for American consumers, eating into any tax cuts the plan would grant middle-class families. The plan's supporters say that fluctuations in global currency markets would cancel out the new tax on imports.

The Tax Policy Center's new forecast is an update from a previous center estimate that the GOP plan would have little effect on the economy over the long term.

...

Although the new report puts forward a worse forecast for the economy overall, the revisions suggest that some groups would benefit more from the GOP plan.

The older version of the report had projected that the plan would give the middle class a relatively stingy tax cut, with the country's wealthiest families enjoying the bulk of the savings. A typical household would save about $260 in the first year after the reform, compared to over $200,000 a year for a household in the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

According to the corrected forecast, it is possible that the relief for the middle class could be double that initial projection — but the real amount would depend on the border adjustment, one of the most controversial and uncertain elements of the GOP plan.

In their original analysis in the fall, Rosenberg and his colleagues took the skeptics' position, calculating that consumers would have to pay a new tax on imports. If so, the GOP plan would increase the typical American household's income by just 0.5 percent in the first year.

On Monday, the authors accounted for the chance that currency markets would absorb the new tax on imports, in which case the typical household's income would rise by between 0.8 percent and 1.1 percent.

The Tax Policy Center's Joseph Rosenberg, another one of the authors, said that the larger figures would likely prove more accurate in the long term as prices and currency markets would eventually adjust to the new system.

“In the short run, that’s not guaranteed,” he said. “There’s a lot of things that are up in the air.”

 

[fraurosena]

47 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“I may run again for public office,” he added, “but not in 2018.”

OH NO! 
What, is he thinking of running for governor then? Or, heavens forbid... presiduncy?

[GreyhoundFan]

3 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

OH NO! 
What, is he thinking of running for governor then? Or, heavens forbid... presiduncy?

Who knows? He has delusions of grandeur, so I could see him running for higher office. My hope is that when all the Russian connections finally come to light, his involvement will be shown and that would preclude him from getting elected as trash truck driver.

[candygirl200413]

I saw another article that he was like "my constituents bully me and they're so rude". He is a weak ass of a man.

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

On Monday, the authors accounted for the chance that currency markets would absorb the new tax on imports, in which case the typical household's income would rise by between 0.8 percent and 1.1 percent.

If you are really good at the store Timmy, Mommy will put 1.5 Tablespoons of Jim Bakker's freeze dried chicken beaks in your Ramen noodles tonight!

[fraurosena]

I like this Richard Painter!

Former Bush lawyer ‘congratulates’ Jason Chaffetz for leaving Congress

Quote

Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s former ethics attorney, celebrated the announcement that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) would not be seeking reelection in 2018.

“Good decision Rep. Chaffetz. If you can’t do a job right, quit and do something else,” Painter said on Twitter Wednesday.

Then he took it a bit further to criticize president Donald Trump along with Chaffetz: “And you, Mr. President?”

Painter has made news over the last several months for joining former President Barack Obama’s ethics lawyer Norman Eisen in criticizing the complicated ethics of Trump and his staff. He specifically took aim at Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka Trump for her position in the administration, calling it outright unlawful.

Chaffetz drew criticism for claiming that he would investigate Rt. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his ties to Russia while having top secret security clearance. Instead, Chaffetz waged Trump’s war against leaks to the media. Painter called the ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia an example of “treason.”

 

[47of74]

8 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Well, well, well... 

Republican ethics chairman refusing to investigate Trump says he will not seek re-election

This is just a quick notification piece. More info is to follow.

I'm under no illusions that the seat can be flipped but it sounds like Chapped Ass knew he would be facing an actual fight this time around and decided he didn't want to face the possibility of getting forced out.

[RoseWilder]

11 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Well, well, well... 

Republican ethics chairman refusing to investigate Trump says he will not seek re-election

This is just a quick notification piece. More info is to follow.

Thanks for the info. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go move my living room furniture so there will be room to do a cartwheel. 

[GreyhoundFan]

I thought this was an interesting take on Chappass' announcement: "Why is Jason Chaffetz suddenly retiring from Congress? One word: Ambition."

Quote

One of the most high-profile House Republicans is rather abruptly stepping out of politics. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, announced Wednesday that he won't be running for reelection in 2018 in his safely Republican district in suburban Salt Lake City.

...

Chairmen of House committees don't just leave for no reason. So why is Chaffetz doing so?

The most likely answer, theorize Republican strategists watching this play out, is that Chaffetz is just bored with his job. His job as chairman of the oversight panel is to investigate the government, and it probably would have been a lot more fun for this tea party-leaning Republican to investigate Hillary Clinton's government than President Trump's.

After Trump was inaugurated, Chaffetz rather provocatively suggested that he planned to remain a national figure because of Clinton, not Trump. That hasn't really materialized now that Congress is investigating Trump's potential ties to Russia.

... (you have to see his nasty Tweet about Hillary that is enclosed here in the article -- what a jerk)

The House and Senate intelligence committees are taking the lead on that, but Chaffetz has ducked calls to have his committee begin an investigation (earning much criticism from the left). He also has ducked some of Trump's own investigation requests. When Trump demanded that Congress investigate voter fraud, Chaffetz shrugged: “The president has 100,000 people at the Department of Justice, and if he wants to have an investigation, have at it,” he told CNN.

So what does that leave Chaffetz to do? Not much. And in a town full of overly ambitious people, he is especially known for dripping with ambition. It's possible that he got bored in his job and saw an opportunity elsewhere.

He certainly hinted at that in his Facebook retirement announcement: “After more than 1,500 nights away from my home, it is time. I may run again for public office, but not in 2018.”

Where elsewhere? Well two-term Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) announced that he wouldn't seek a third term in 2020. Josh Romney, Mitt Romney's son, said he's “strongly considering” running, but that wouldn't preclude Chaffetz from jumping in. “Definitely, maybe,” Chaffetz cheekily told the Atlantic's McKay Coppins just a few weeks ago when asked whether he'd run.

Chaffetz could certainly run for the governor's mansion from Congress, but maybe he just decided that his name recognition was high enough to do it from the private sector (where in-the-know members of Congress can make millions) than a so-so job. Also, he was bored.

Unlike Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price's Atlanta-area seat, Chaffetz's district isn't going to suddenly be competitive for Democrats. It's one of the most Republican districts in the nation.

But he was under a lot of pressure from the left lately, which, in the context of everything else, may also not have been fun for him. In February, Chaffetz was ground zero for the first round of raucous Trump-era town hall meetings. A few weeks later, he quickly acknowledged that he wasn't “smooth” when he said this on CNN during the health-care debate, even though it's something that is in line with years of Republican orthodoxy.

“Americans have choices, and they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.”

Chaffetz has never been a traditional politician. He makes political calculations slightly differently than the average lawmaker, and he doesn't really care if he raises eyebrows doing so.

To wit: At the end of the presidential campaign, Chaffetz famously set a modern record of flip-flopping on Trump. “I'm out. I can no longer in good conscience endorse this person for president,” the congressman said the day after The Post revealed Trump's “Access Hollywood” tape.

About two weeks later, he walked that back with this:

... (another stupid Tweet from the twit)

Trump was still not expected to win the election. But Chaffetz, we theorized, was gambling that his political future depended on at least supporting Trump/opposing Clinton. When John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) resigned last year as House speaker, Chaffetz announced a run for speaker. (He dropped out after Rep. Paul D. Ryan entered the race.) Supporting your party's nominee for president was kind of a minimal requirement for being speaker.

But Chaffetz has clearly decided that speaker is no longer a job he wants. (Watching Ryan take heat from his party for the recent health-care debacle probably didn't help sell the job.)

...

Chaffetz has passed up other political ladders to climb. He thought about, then decided against, challenging Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) in 2012. At the time, he said his upward mobility in the House was a factor.

This might be one of those cases in which the simplest answer is the right answer. And the simplest answer is that Chaffetz just decided he wanted out.