United States Congress of Fail - Part 4

[Cartmann99]

4 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

He is deaf, right? Right?? 

 He crammed a bag of Cheetos in each ear to block out the truth. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Paul Ryan moves to shore up his staying power a week after announcing his retirement"

Spoiler

A week after his surprise decision to leave Congress, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan moved on several fronts this week to reassert control of the House Republican conference and snuff out efforts to accelerate his departure.

On Tuesday morning, Ryan (R-Wis.) told House GOP lawmakers that he had the support of the constituency that might matter most: big-dollar Republican donors, who have written and will continue to write checks to finance GOP campaigns ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Inside a closed-door meeting of lawmakers at the Capitol Hill Club, Ryan told his fellow Republicans that he had spoken to virtually all of the top GOP donors with whom he has developed relationships over his two-and-a-half years as speaker and had gotten assurances that they would continue to give through the 2018 cycle.

That, according to three people in the room who heard his presentation and described it on the condition of anonymity, was widely interpreted as a direct rebuttal to fears that Ryan’s fundraising would drop off a cliff as he remains a lame duck — which emerged last week as a prime argument for a quicker departure. Ryan said, according to those present, that no fundraisers have been canceled and that he fully intended to maintain, if not exceed, his current fundraising pace in the coming months.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said Tuesday that Ryan appeared to have tamped down some early chatter about forcing a quicker departure and installing a new speaker before November. While Walker acknowledged that some members might feel otherwise, “The bulk of the conference is okay with him staying on and focusing on what we told the American people we need to do,” he said.

Last week, in the immediate aftermath of Ryan’s retirement announcement, members mused that it would not be tenable for Ryan to remain as a lame duck speaker until after the Nov. 6 elections. Much of the chatter came from allies of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), who has wide support across the Republican conference to succeed Ryan as the top GOP leader but has not secured the necessary majority of sitting House members to be elected speaker.

Even though Ryan endorsed McCarthy as his successor in a Friday NBC interview, the question of who will be next for the House GOP remains in limbo. The emergence last week of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — a leader of the GOP’s hard-right bloc, which has been skeptical of McCarthy — as a potential speaker candidate added to the uncertainty.

“We’re not going to just rearrange the deck chairs around this place and keep doing the same stuff with different people,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, which Jordan co-founded.

People familiar with Ryan’s thinking but not authorized to discuss it publicly said Tuesday that he would not step aside unless another Republican — McCarthy or someone else — has the votes to succeed him as speaker. And none of the lawmakers who discussed the matter Tuesday thought that threshold could be reached before the election.

“I think Paul still has a lot to offer,” said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), who said it would be best for Republicans to “start fresh with a new Congress and a new leadership.”

McCarthy himself has stayed silent on the leadership derby since the immediate aftermath of Ryan’s announcement, even after winning endorsements from Ryan and No. 3 GOP leader Steve Scalise (La.), the majority whip. McCarthy has yet to formally announce he intends to seek the top leadership spot and by all accounts is taking a much more deliberative approach to the race than when he last sought the speakership, and fell short, in 2015.

A handful of McCarthy allies — including in the California delegation and in the House class of 2010, whose members McCarthy helped recruit — remain open to a quicker transition.

“With the fact that this is such a turbulent year, the uncertainty … you’ve got to have your act together as soon as possible,” said Rep. Paul Cook (R-Calif.). “The longer you wait with leadership being uncertain, I think the more problems you have.”

But others said that Ryan’s posture has all but snuffed out any discussion of a quick switch atop the GOP ranks: “We’re focused on finishing this session and allowing an election to happen afterwards,” said Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), a close McCarthy friend. “The speaker’s made himself clear. The whip’s made himself clear, and our conference is pretty clear on the issue, as well.”

Ryan has also approached individual members to assure them he remains fully engaged in the job and make the case for his continued tenure. One of them was Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), a McCarthy ally who had been openly agitating last week for snap leadership elections.

Ryan has also worked outside of the confines of the House chamber to shore up his standing. During a Monday afternoon meeting with conservative movement leaders, he made clear he had no intentions of leaving before the election.

One attendee, GOP tax expert Ryan Ellis, said that Ryan brought the matter up without being asked and quickly cut off speculation when attendees asked about what he might do next year.

“He’s not leaving, and he’s not thinking ahead,” Ellis said. Instead, he added, Ryan made clear he is entirely focused on the 2018 midterms.

And in a Tuesday afternoon interview on a home-state radio station, Milwaukee’s WISN-FM, Ryan also reiterated his intention to stay in office — and defended his ongoing utility to House Republicans.

“There’s a lot more to do, and I want to see it though,” he said. “One of the reasons why I need to stay and run through the tape is I can help keep our majority. I can help our grass roots. I can help make sure that we have the resources to run our campaigns.”

 

[fraurosena]

In other words, he’ll be announcing his immediate departure next week.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh. McTurtle and Lyan need to go. "Republicans fear political risk in Senate races as House moves to extend tax cuts"

Spoiler

Heading into a contentious campaign for control of Congress, Republicans are increasingly divided over how to bolster their signature legislative achievement — a $1.5 trillion tax cut — amid signs it is not the political gift they had expected it to be last year.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) aims to pass another massive tax cut this summer, which Republicans hope will rev up the GOP base and improve the standing of Republicans at the polls.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is under pressure to block a vote, which Republican campaign strategists worry could allow red-state Democrats to vote for additional tax cuts and undermine one of the GOP’s most effective lines of attack in conservative-leaning states: that Democrats voted against a big tax cut last December.

“That’s a very serious concern, and Senator McConnell is going to have to decide what happens in the Senate,” said Ryan Ellis, senior tax adviser with the conservative Family Business Coalition.

The GOP debate shows how the tax bill, which Republicans rushed to pass in December despite the enormous complexity of overhauling the tax code, has not become the campaign booster Republicans said it would be.

Republicans had bet that increasing the take-home pay of Americans would help them defeat Democrats come November. But months after the tax cut started to affect paychecks, polling shows the legislation remains unpopular. A Wall Street Journal and NBC News poll published this week found that 27 percent of respondents thought the tax law was a good idea, while 36 percent said it was a bad idea.

That is a major problem for Republicans, who since taking control of the government last year have dealt with party infighting, high-profile retirements, multiple stalled attempts to repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care law and the constant swirl of controversy surrounding President Trump.

Some Republicans have even suggested that voters might not have noticed increases of $40 or $60 or so in their paychecks, partly because many workers no longer get paper pay stubs. That, too, points to the need for Republicans to work harder to sell the law, they said.

“Ninety percent of Americans have received a notice saying your withholding is going to be less, or they’ve seen it in their paycheck,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). “So they may not have noticed it, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.”

The $1.5 trillion legislation was primarily focused on cutting taxes for companies. It also trimmed individual taxes, but those cuts were left to expire in 2026 to comply with Senate budget rules.

Democrats have seized on the unbalanced approach, which Republicans promised would be rectified.

“We fully intend to make these things permanent, and that’s something we’ll be acting on later this year,” Ryan said this week.

Conservative leaders met with Ryan on Monday and expect a vote in June or July. That would give lawmakers time to discuss the issue with constituents over the August recess and ahead of Labor Day, the traditional kickoff to the election campaign season.

McConnell hedged when asked this week whether the Senate would also hold a vote on tax cut permanency.

“Of course we would like to make the individual tax cuts permanent,” McConnell said. “We may. We’ll take a look at it, yes.”

But privately, Republicans trying to knock off Senate Democrats in states including West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri don’t want McConnell to take such a vote and are urging him against it, according to two GOP strategists knowledgeable about the conversations.

“Holding another vote would take away one of the bigger hits we have against Democrats for this fall and gives them a chance to take credit for work and progress made by President Trump and Republicans,” said one Senate Republican campaign official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the issue candidly.

Another Republican strategist closely involved in Senate campaigns said that officials with the National Republican Senate Committee were urging McConnell not to hold a vote on individual tax cut permanence out of concern for the benefit to endangered Democrats. The strategist also requested anonymity to discuss the deliberations.

For their part, red-state Democrats appear ready to take advantage of a vote if Republicans schedule one. While enough Democrats would vote against additional tax cuts because of how much they’d add to the deficit, some such as Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia or Sen. Jon Tester of Montana could end up supporting them, thereby undercutting a major GOP line of attack against them.

“Oh, I’ve always been for the middle class getting a permanent tax cut. Absolutely,” Manchin said. “[Republicans have] thrown caution to the wind about anything being fiscally responsible, but these are the people who should have gotten that [tax cut].”

Tester said that if legislation comes up to extend the individual tax cuts, whether he votes for it “depends on what else was in the package. Depends on how it’s paid for.”

“I’m absolutely open to it,” Tester said.

Still, GOP leaders in the House and some conservative leaders argue that additional tax cuts would offer Americans another reminder that Republicans passed tax cuts in the first place and that Democrats broadly oppose them.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) is developing what he calls “Tax Reform 2.0,” which would include making the individual cuts permanent along with some other changes he said he’s working on with the White House.

“That includes permanence of our tax provisions,” Brady said in a speech Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation. “It’s time to do that.”

Extending the individual tax cuts, along with several other key provisions in the law, would cost about $650 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

All along, GOP leaders anticipated that the individual tax cuts would end up getting extended permanently, as Congress has done in the past with tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush’s administration.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, argued that Democrats couldn’t do much to help themselves, having voted unanimously with their party against the tax law in the first place.

“Perhaps there’s a political reason they would vote yes now,” Gardner said. “But my position is why did they vote against individual tax cuts in the first place.”

And as Republicans have tried to keep the party on message, Trump has not always helped. He threw his prepared remarks in the air at a tax roundtable event this month, declaring them “a little boring,” and instead waded into other dramas facing his presidency.

“The president of the United States, when he tweets on anything other than the tax bill, is getting in the way of the message,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “You have to give them nothing but the tax bill.”

The struggles have led some Republicans to urge candidates to redouble their efforts to sell the tax law, which on average increased after-tax income for taxpayers in all tax groups this year, according to the Tax Foundation, while adding more than $1 trillion to the deficit.

GOP leaders and lawmakers used the opportunity of this week’s tax deadline to make the point repeatedly that this is the last year that Americans filed their taxes under the old tax code and that next year they will encounter a new, simpler and more favorable set of tax rules. Still, some fret that the message should be broadcast more strongly and consistently.

“Members sometimes think, well, osmosis, it’ll sort of happen over time. They just need to go make the case,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). “And the more challenging the environment — and this is going to be a challenging environment — the more you have to make your own argument, and if you don’t do that, you’re going to be in trouble in November.”

Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, who was also in the Ryan meeting Monday, argued that even if Democrats such as Manchin or Tester voted in favor of extending individual tax cuts, that wouldn’t outweigh their earlier vote against the new tax law.

“You could make the case that it creates a John Kerry-like moment where they say, ‘I voted for the tax cuts after I voted against them,’ ” Reed speculated, referring to Kerry’s campaign trail gaffe as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 when he argued that he had voted for military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan before voting against it.

Good grief, Ralph Reed is hanging out with Lyan. Not good.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Senate just voted to kill a policy warning auto lenders about discrimination against minority borrowers"

Spoiler

The Senate on Wednesday voted to kill a five-year-old Obama administration policy warning auto lenders not to discriminate against minority borrowers.

The legislation, which passed 51 to 47 largely along party lines, is the latest Republican rebuke of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s history of aggressive tactics. Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) was the only Democrat to vote in favor of the measure.

The auto industry complained for years about the CFPB guidance, which they said was unfair.

“The CFPB wrongly used its overreaching, indirect auto-lending guidance as an enforcement weapon, proceeding down the path of an aggressive enforcement action in search of ‘market-tipping settlements,’ ” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who sponsored the legislation.

Democrats and consumer advocates cautioned that rescinding the CFPB guidance would encourage bad behavior in the more than $1 trillion auto finance market. “Many auto dealers are actively discriminating against people of color. This behavior is pervasive, and the CFPB’s guidance would help to end it,” said Karl Frisch, executive director of the consumer watchdog organization Allied Progress. “They may try to dress it up with political spin, but today the Senate endorsed discrimination.”

The fight centers on guidance issued by the CFPB in 2013 that took aim at a common industry practice that allows auto dealers to mark up interest rates offered by finance companies. Finance firms such as Ally set an interest rate based on objective criteria — including borrowers’ credit history and the size of their down payments. Auto dealers are then free to raise the interest rates within certain limits. The finance companies and the dealers split the extra profits.

The CFPB argued that auto dealers were using that discretionary markup to charge black and Hispanic borrowers more than white ones, even if they had the same credit scores. Over several years, the agency fined several auto lenders millions of dollars for discriminating against minority borrowers, and some lenders stopped allowing discretionary markups, cutting into auto dealer profits.

The guidance quickly became one of the CFPB’s most controversial campaigns. House Republicans launched a multiyear investigation into the matter, arguing that the CFPB used faulty data to support the policy. The guidance, auto dealers said, made it more difficult to offer consumers discounts on their car purchases out of fear they would be accused of discrimination.

The Senate legislation relies on the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, to rescind the guidance, a tool Republicans have used to block more than a dozen Obama-era rules. It is expected to quickly gain approval in the House, which has passed similar measures. The CFPB overstepped its legal authority by trying to regulate auto dealers, said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “Studies showed that the rule could lead to many credit-worthy borrowers paying more for their auto loans,” he said in a statement.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I wonder if Ted just got confused and supported women by mistake or if he's worried he's going to lose to Beto: "Cruz joins male Dem senators in push for vote on Hill harassment overhaul"

Spoiler

Ted Cruz on Thursday became the sole Republican male to join the men of the Senate Democratic Caucus in calling for a vote on rewriting Capitol Hill’s workplace harassment rules — a public show of solidarity with every female senator in both parties.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) organized the planned appeal to the chamber’s leaders in both parties for a floor debate on modernizing the Hill’s misconduct policy in support of a recent push by all 22 female senators. Cruz, the chief GOP co-author of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-N.Y.) strict Hill harassment overhaul bill, was courted to sign on to the Democratic men’s letter and ultimately agreed in the final hours before its release.

"Senator Merkley is pleased to have Senator Cruz join this critical effort," Merkley spokesman Ray Zaccaro said. "There is no place for sexual harassment in Congress, and Senator Merkley looks forward to a broad bipartisan effort to make the Senate a harassment-free workplace."

Merkley's office was prepared to send the letter without having won any GOP signatures but extended the deadline for Cruz to sign on after the Texas Republican's spokeswoman made positive comments on the harassment push Wednesday night.

“Sen. Cruz appreciates Sen. Merkley’s efforts to urge a vote on Gillibrand-Cruz, and he told Sen. Merkley last week he’d be more than happy to sign a letter,” Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said late Wednesday. “In fact, Sen. Cruz has personally urged GOP leadership to mark up Gillibrand-Cruz, and he is working to get additional senators to sign the letter in support of the legislation.”

Asked earlier Wednesday whether he would join Democratic men on the letter pushing for a harassment vote, Cruz called the harassment legislation “the right thing to do.”

“We should have passed it weeks ago, and so anything I can do to encourage my colleagues — Republican or Democrat — to take it up on the floor of the Senate, I’m supportive of doing,” Cruz said in an interview.

The Thursday letter calling for changes to Hill harassment policy is addressed to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and is co-signed by 31 male Democratic senators as well as Cruz.

Schumer was the sole male Democrat to not sign on, as a leader on the receiving end, but he has long supported taking up the harassment legislation that the House passed on a bipartisan basis in February.

“If we fail to act immediately to address this systemic problem in our own workplace, we will lose all credibility in the eyes of the American public regarding our capacity to protect victims of sexual harassment or discrimination in any setting,” the male senators’ letter states.

The letter also aligns with all 22 female senators in expressing “disappointment” that the Senate has failed to follow the House in taking up workplace misconduct legislation.

Despite the absence of all but one male Republican from the letter, others in their ranks are vocal proponents of taking up the proposed modernization of Hill harassment policy that was first established more than two decades ago.

"I think we ought to pass it," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chief author of the 1995 law that first applied workplace safety regulations to Congress, told reporters Thursday.

The House-passed harassment bill, the product of extensive bipartisan talks in that chamber, would require lawmakers to personally pay the costs of harassment or discrimination claims filed by employees that stem from their behavior, among other reforms. The legislation stemmed from a wave of sexual misconduct scandals that gripped Congress last fall, forcing the resignation or retirement of a half-dozen lawmakers in both parties.

At the same time as it passed that legislation, which requires Senate action and President Donald Trump’s signature to become law, the House also passed a separate, immediately executed change to its own internal rules that creates an Office of Employee Advocacy to represent the interests of workplace misconduct victims, among other changes.

Senate negotiators in both parties had hoped to attach Hill harassment legislation to last month’s $1.3 trillion government spending deal. But sources said those talks ran aground amid resistance from some in the Senate to force lawmakers to pay out of pocket for discrimination settlements stemming from their behavior, as well as harassment claims.

House Republicans and Democrats have maintained support for their chamber’s more expansive lawmaker-liability language, while Senate Democrats have said they would raise no objection. A McConnell spokesman said in response to the female senators’ appeal last month that the majority leader “supports members being personally, financially liable for sexual misconduct in which they have engaged.”

A McConnell spokesman said Wednesday night that Senate negotiators in both parties were continuing to work on harassment legislation.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

Because of course they did.

[AmazonGrace]

 Because he wanted justice 

i guess Ryan would fire Jesus if he could.

[AmazonGrace]

He's got a point. If you can't hire a super corrupt guy who is hellbent to destroy what his job is to protect, who can you hire? 

[AnywhereButHere]

@atrupar

.@SteveKingIA argues that Scott Pruitt's real problem is that Democrats' standards are too high.

"If these standards are applied to the next presidency, it's going to be really hard to get anyone to serve in the next administration.

I keep using the term cognitive dissonance, because it seems lees rude than just asking if all of these guys have had full frontal lobotomies. But seriously, have all of the republicans left in office had full frontal lobotomies? Because they've all lost their damn minds!

These standards should be applied to the next presidency. In fact, they've been applied to all previous presidencies. It's just this, current presidency that has had the standard bar set this low (and they can't even meet THAT!). As far as getting anybody to serve - can we say *cough* turnover rate *cough*.

[GreyhoundFan]

Another One Bites The Dust: "GOP Rep. Patrick Meehan resigns from Congress amid ethics probe"

Spoiler

Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), who previously announced his retirement from Congress following reports he had paid a secret settlement to a staffer who accused him of harassment, resigned outright Friday.

His resignation came as the House Ethics Committee continued a probe into his behavior that could have resulted in serious sanctions. The former aide, a younger woman, alleged that Meehan had confessed romantic feelings for her after she became involved with another man. Meehan, she alleged, later retaliated after she repelled his advances.

“I have decided that stepping down now is in the interest of the constituents I have been honored to serve,” Meehan said in a statement. “While I do believe I would be exonerated of any wrongdoing, I also did not want to put my staff through the rigors of an Ethics Committee investigation and believed it was best for them to have a head start on new employment rather than being caught up in an inquiry. And since I have chosen to resign, the inquiry will not become a burden to taxpayers and committee staff.”

Meehan said that within 30 days he will repay taxpayers for the $39,000 settlement that was paid as a severance payment to his former staffer.

“I did not want to leave with any question of violating the trust of taxpayers,” he said, adding: “Though I wish my time in Congress would have finished in a more satisfying manner, I am proud of our accomplishments and thank the residents of my District for their confidence in me over the last eight years. I recognize that there are constituents who are disappointed in the manner in which I handled the situation that [led] to my decision not to seek re-election and wish I had done better by them.”

The statement said Meehan “has no future plans to discuss at this time.”

Meehan’s departure could prompt a special election in his suburban Philadelphia district. That decision will be made by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who is also considering whether to hold a special election in the Allentown-area district that Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) is expected to vacate later this year.

Buh-bye

[fraurosena]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Another One Bites The Dust: "GOP Rep. Patrick Meehan resigns from Congress amid ethics probe"

  Reveal hidden contents

Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), who previously announced his retirement from Congress following reports he had paid a secret settlement to a staffer who accused him of harassment, resigned outright Friday.

His resignation came as the House Ethics Committee continued a probe into his behavior that could have resulted in serious sanctions. The former aide, a younger woman, alleged that Meehan had confessed romantic feelings for her after she became involved with another man. Meehan, she alleged, later retaliated after she repelled his advances.

“I have decided that stepping down now is in the interest of the constituents I have been honored to serve,” Meehan said in a statement. “While I do believe I would be exonerated of any wrongdoing, I also did not want to put my staff through the rigors of an Ethics Committee investigation and believed it was best for them to have a head start on new employment rather than being caught up in an inquiry. And since I have chosen to resign, the inquiry will not become a burden to taxpayers and committee staff.”

Meehan said that within 30 days he will repay taxpayers for the $39,000 settlement that was paid as a severance payment to his former staffer.

“I did not want to leave with any question of violating the trust of taxpayers,” he said, adding: “Though I wish my time in Congress would have finished in a more satisfying manner, I am proud of our accomplishments and thank the residents of my District for their confidence in me over the last eight years. I recognize that there are constituents who are disappointed in the manner in which I handled the situation that [led] to my decision not to seek re-election and wish I had done better by them.”

The statement said Meehan “has no future plans to discuss at this time.”

Meehan’s departure could prompt a special election in his suburban Philadelphia district. That decision will be made by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who is also considering whether to hold a special election in the Allentown-area district that Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) is expected to vacate later this year.

Buh-bye

LOL, I just posted about that in the Hypocrisy thread. 

I was thinking about compiling a list of all the Repugs that have been caught in their nefarious perfidy. What do you guys think? Is it worth the effort or not?

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I was thinking about compiling a list of all the Repugs that have been caught in their nefarious perfidy. What do you guys think? Is it worth the effort or not?

I'll save you the trouble. Just put down the words "All of them". Done.

[fraurosena]

Good grief.

I’ve got to give it to him, though. It’s a great spin, and serves the ‘us against them’ narrative rather well. In fact, it worsens the divide, by suggesting that the other side is a life threatening enemy. Plus, it has the potential for opening up discussions for open carry gun permits in Congress. Purely for self-defense purposes, of course.

[AmazonGrace]

Wait,  what? He's saying they're afraid of ....guns? Seriously? *facepalm*

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I guess Marco will be on the receiving end of tomorrow's tweet storm: "Marco Rubio just went way off message on the GOP tax cuts"

Spoiler

Democrats frequently claim Republicans' corporate tax cuts enriched big businesses while doing little for workers, but now that line of criticism is coming from a prominent Republican: Sen. Marco Rubio.

“There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers,” the Florida senator told the Economist in a recent interview. “In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”

The GOP tax law dramatically reduced taxes on American businesses, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. The White House said throughout the tax debate that the law's corporate cuts would increase wages for the average American worker by $4,000, a claim made by White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kevin Hassett, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Nonpartisan experts were skeptical about the claim, and independent analyses say the bulk of the law's tax cuts would go to the wealthy.

The remark was seized on by Senate Democrats, with the office of Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) broadcasting it on Monday.

“We couldn’t have said it any better ourselves,” wrote Schumer spokesman Matt House.

In a statement on Monday, Rubio spokeswoman Olivia Perez-Cubas said that the senator believes the corporate tax cut would make the U.S. more competitive for companies, but did not say it will lead to the kind of wage growth for workers touted by other Republicans.

"Rubio pushed for a better balance in the tax law between tax cuts for big businesses and families, as he’s done for years," Perez-Cubas in an email. "As he said when the tax law passed, cutting the corporate tax rate will make America a more competitive place to do business, but he tried to balance that with an even larger child tax credit for working Americans."

During the tax debate, Rubio also voiced skepticism about the possible benefits of the corporate tax cut, saying the tax package had to do more to protect lower-income families. He announced his opposition to the Senate package days before a vote, calling for an expansion of a tax credit for children that would have primarily helped poor and middle class families.

Rubio voted for the bill after a diminished version of his proposed tax credit was included in the law's final text.

In the interview with the Economist, Rubio pitched a set of government programs and policies aimed at helping workers. He argued for a more generous benefit system and paid-family-leave program, as he also touted the more robust child tax credit he pushed during the GOP tax debate. He also advocated expanding training programs for new workers and workers who've lost their jobs.

“Government has an essential role to play in buffering this transition,” he said. “If we basically say everyone is on their own and the market’s going to take care of it, we will rip the country apart, because millions of good hard-working people lack the means to adapt.”

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I guess Marco will be on the receiving end of tomorrow's tweet storm: "Marco Rubio just went way off message on the GOP tax cuts"

  Reveal hidden contents

Democrats frequently claim Republicans' corporate tax cuts enriched big businesses while doing little for workers, but now that line of criticism is coming from a prominent Republican: Sen. Marco Rubio.

“There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers,” the Florida senator told the Economist in a recent interview. “In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”

The GOP tax law dramatically reduced taxes on American businesses, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. The White House said throughout the tax debate that the law's corporate cuts would increase wages for the average American worker by $4,000, a claim made by White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kevin Hassett, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Nonpartisan experts were skeptical about the claim, and independent analyses say the bulk of the law's tax cuts would go to the wealthy.

The remark was seized on by Senate Democrats, with the office of Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) broadcasting it on Monday.

“We couldn’t have said it any better ourselves,” wrote Schumer spokesman Matt House.

In a statement on Monday, Rubio spokeswoman Olivia Perez-Cubas said that the senator believes the corporate tax cut would make the U.S. more competitive for companies, but did not say it will lead to the kind of wage growth for workers touted by other Republicans.

"Rubio pushed for a better balance in the tax law between tax cuts for big businesses and families, as he’s done for years," Perez-Cubas in an email. "As he said when the tax law passed, cutting the corporate tax rate will make America a more competitive place to do business, but he tried to balance that with an even larger child tax credit for working Americans."

During the tax debate, Rubio also voiced skepticism about the possible benefits of the corporate tax cut, saying the tax package had to do more to protect lower-income families. He announced his opposition to the Senate package days before a vote, calling for an expansion of a tax credit for children that would have primarily helped poor and middle class families.

Rubio voted for the bill after a diminished version of his proposed tax credit was included in the law's final text.

In the interview with the Economist, Rubio pitched a set of government programs and policies aimed at helping workers. He argued for a more generous benefit system and paid-family-leave program, as he also touted the more robust child tax credit he pushed during the GOP tax debate. He also advocated expanding training programs for new workers and workers who've lost their jobs.

“Government has an essential role to play in buffering this transition,” he said. “If we basically say everyone is on their own and the market’s going to take care of it, we will rip the country apart, because millions of good hard-working people lack the means to adapt.”

 

Marco needs to shut the fuck up. He voted for that monstrosity and now he wants to appeal to Democrats saying woops, it was really bad. Sorry buddy you can't have it both ways. 

[GreyhoundFan]

An op-ed by former congressman Jolly: "Many GOP politicians dislike Trump. They’re terrified to admit it."

Spoiler

We might as well impeach Trump.

That was the sentiment of a sitting Republican member of Congress confiding in conservative blogger and radio host Erick Erickson. The anonymous member said the president was an “idiot,” “evil,” “stupid.”

It was hardly the first time: During the later stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, GOP strategists anonymously expressed concern that Trump might win. In 2017, Sen. Susan Collins, seemingly unaware that she was on a hot microphone, acknowledged that she was “worried” about the administration. Still others have reportedly suggested that they think the president should be removed from office, though they, too, have almost always done so on background.

In speaking with my former Republican colleagues still serving in Congress, the one consistent refrain I hear is, “I’m just keeping my head down, trying not to get noticed.” Some have privately described to me that serving in Congress during the Trump administration is “miserable.” Moreover, a colleague who has decided to call it quits confessed he was doing so to try to salvage his political career by not being forever branded a “Trump Republican.”

Like Erickson’s anonymous interlocutor, these politicians are engaging in what can only be considered a personal catharsis of sorts, not an act of political courage. A meaningful political statement would have been on the record, direct to voters, and would have substantively contributed to the national debate in which we remain engaged regarding this president’s fitness for office. This wasn’t that.

Few Republican officials today are willing to openly criticize the president, even if they have deeply held reservations about Donald Trump’s ability to govern. They instead keep their lament private, their panic measured and their comments off the record. It’s a situation that needs to change. If you believe in serving your constituents, you are obliged to speak up and speak publicly.

It’s obvious why Republican congressmen and women remain silent. This is Trump’s Republican Party, and his approval numbers among Republican voters sit at close to 90 percent. Cross him and you risk not only the wrath of the president himself but also the electoral base that he has cultivated to wrestle control of the party.

“Bob Corker . . . couldn’t get elected dog catcher,” Trump wrote about the Tennessee senator. “Jeff Flake, weak on crime.” John McCain “let Arizona down.” Lisa Murkowski, likewise, “really let the Republicans, and our country, down.” Ben Sasse “looks more like a gym rat than a U.S. Senator.” With each of these statements, furiously typed into Twitter by the 45th occupant of the Oval Office and read by his 50 million-odd followers, the president targeted his fellow Republicans.

Knowingly or not, members of Congress choose one of two approaches to serving. Many strictly embrace their partisan identity, believing with honest conviction that they promised to uphold a party platform that voters back home both affirmed and expected their representative to enforce. A smaller minority of members of Congress embraces the notion that though elected in partisan races, they hold a greater responsibility — that upon taking the oath of office they hold a public trust and are called upon to advance the nation’s broader interests, even if that means at times going against their party. This latter approach was the very essence of James Madison’s embrace of a republican form of government. As he puts it in Federalist 10, a chosen representative may “best discern the true interest of their country” and may provide a voice “more consonant to the greater good.”

But both Madison and the congressman in the grocery store also understood a universal truth — you can’t take politics out of politics. There are consequences for speaking out. Former Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky famously cast the deciding vote for President Bill Clinton’s tax package only to be voted out of office one year later. McCain just last year gave a dramatic thumbs down on the Senate floor to sink the Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act and now is lampooned by many within his own party as being insufficiently partisan.

During my years in the House of Representatives, I witnessed members on the Democrats’ side of the aisle publicly vote on the House floor against Nancy Pelosi to be their leader, just as GOP members coordinated to stop the coronation of Kevin McCarthy following the resignation of Speaker John A. Boehner. These members largely lost the support of their party’s fundraising arms, suffered through immense criticism from their base and were often relegated to inconsequential committee work in the Congress.

I, for my own part, called on Trump to drop out of the presidential race from the House floor in December 2015. I was also a Republican advocate for marriage equality; I embraced the science behind climate change; I voted against the Planned Parenthood investigation; I advocated for reasonable gun control measures; I pushed radical campaign finance reform. The result? The party apparatus that spent millions on my behalf in my first run for Congress happily spent zero in my last. I lost my race, and now I’m a political commentator rather than an elected official.

But losing your office doesn’t mean you have to lose your voice. My wife and I call it the “sleep well at night test.” There’s something Margolies-Mezvinsky, McCain and these other outspoken members have that too many of today’s Republican leaders don’t: courage. These members each went on the record, stood on principle and accepted the political consequences of doing what they believed reflected the right direction for the country.

Today we have a president who continually undermines our most basic institutions, from attacking an independent judiciary and law enforcement agents, to belittling a free press that has been a bedrock of our nation since its founding, to normalizing an invective form of politics while injecting increasing volatility into both our economic and national security, to flirting with the onset of a constitutional crisis caused by his own actions. Likewise, on policy, under this president we face rising economic inequality, health-care costs that continue to spike, an immigration policy that is crippled, insufficient access to higher education, soaring deficits and no response to national tragedies like those of Parkland and Sandy Hook.

These are each challenges worth confronting. For voters, it’s a political debate to which we contribute every two years in November. But for the 535 men and women on Capitol Hill, there lies a greater responsibility — a responsibility envisioned when our founders drafted the Constitution and a responsibility knowingly accepted by the members of Congress, all of whom owe to us true faith and allegiance to the same.

Which is why the casual supermarket conversation between a congressman and a journalist on background isn’t funny. It’s scandalous.

The nation deserves to know the honest convictions of its elected representatives, whether they be defenders or critics of this president, particularly during a chapter of such political uncertainty that many Americans now fear the constitutional ramifications of an early termination to Trump’s presidency. The silence of these members of Congress is both a violation of the public trust and a reflection of their own lack of personal and political mettle.

What too many members of Congress fail to see is this: If you don’t go on the record, your opinion doesn’t count. Worse, neither will your legacy. Refusing to publicly acknowledge your convictions simply affirms your unwillingness to act on them. And that is an indictment of you, not the president.

History rightfully discards those unwilling to take a stand, those who, in the face of a divided nation, shrink from controversy and seek refuge in the shadows of their own indecision. Conversely, history memorializes those who speak with courage, those who, at defining national moments, put country over party.

So, speak up. Your legacy will be richer for it. But know this — there will be no record of your legacy if you continue to whisper on background.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 Because of course he is

[AmazonGrace]

Blessed are the peace makers because they have something to brag about.

[milkteeth]

What the f*** is wrong with Tim Kaine and the other Democrats involved with this legislation? Are the kickbacks from the military industrial complex really so lucrative that he's willing to ignore what could happen if Trump were granted these powers?