Trump 29: Divider In Chief or Liar In Chief? WHY NOT BOTH?

[Audrey2]

48 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Pruitt?  Where is Pruitt?

I also don't see the bane of my existence- Ryan Zeinke, destroyer of our National Parks, Monuments, and public lands.

[AmazonGrace]

Ivanka is missing from the bingo too.

Happy Valentine's day!

 

[AmazonGrace]

If this was a political satire it would be a little too much on the nose

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Color me unsurprised: "Trump’s budget hits poor Americans the hardest"

Spoiler

President Trump proposed a budget Monday that hits the poorest Americans the hardest, slashing billions of dollars in food stamps, health insurance and federal housing subsidies while pushing legislation to institute broad work requirements for families receiving housing vouchers, expanding on moves by some states to require recipients of Medicaid and food stamps to work.

The Trump budget proposal would gut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, by $17.2 billion in 2019 — equivalent to 22 percent of the program’s total cost last year. It calls for cuts of more than $213.5 billion over the next decade, a reduction of nearly 30 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In addition, Trump is proposing a full-scale redesign of SNAP, which provides an average of $125 per month to 42.2 million Americans. For the last 40 years, the program has allowed beneficiaries to use SNAP benefits at grocery stores as if they were cash. Under the budget proposal, the Department of Agriculture would use a portion of those benefits to buy and deliver a package of U.S.-grown commodities to SNAP households that receive $90 or more in assistance each month, using the government’s buying power to obtain common foods at lower costs.

“This budget proposes taking away food assistance from millions of low-income Americans — and on the heels of a tax cut that favored the wealthy and corporations,” said Stacy Dean, president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It doesn’t reflect the right values.”

The proposal repeats several cost-cutting measures from last year, including new restrictions on eligibility and stricter requirements around the use of work-requirement waivers, which allow states with high unemployment rates to extend benefits to adults who are out of work for longer than three months.

Congress has final say over spending — but Monday's budget proposal is seen as an important sign of Trump's priorities.

The budget proposal would also alter programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development “to encourage work and self-sufficiency,” the document said.

Trump's proposed budget for the 2019 fiscal year includes a 14 percent cut to HUD, amounting to $6.8 billion below the agency’s current $48 billion spending, an even deeper cut than his previous year's proposal, which had been the most dramatic cut to HUD since President Ronald Reagan slashed the agency’s funding in the early 1980s.

The administration has proposed eliminating the entire fund for public housing capital repairs, a savings of nearly $2 billion a year. The targeted cut comes at a time when public housing faces a backlog of capital needs upward of $40 billion, said Diane Yentel, president and chief executive of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. In New York City, about 80 percent of public housing tenants suffered heating and hot water outages in recent months because the aging boiler systems are in desperate need of repair, Yentel said. 

“The administration wants state and local governments to take care of that, which is just a total abdication of its responsibility,” she said.

Trump also proposed cutting a federal housing subsidy program, known as Section 8 vouchers, by nearly $1 billion, which Yentel said would result in more than 250,000 low-income families losing their housing assistance. The cuts would come on top of the administration's proposal to raise the rent for low-income families receiving public housing help.

The proposed HUD budget, like last year, would eliminate funding for community development block grants, which play a key role in disaster recovery, as well as grants to states and local governments to increase homeownership for the lowest-income Americans, and funding for neighborhood redevelopment. The Trump administration said it has proposed shutting down programs that are “duplicative or have failed to demonstrate effectiveness” and that state and local governments are better equipped to shoulder the responsibility for community and economic development.

On health care for low-income Americans, Trump’s budget calls for cutting federal Medicaid funding by $250 billion over the next 10 years, as the administration envisions passing a law “modeled closely” on a Senate Republican proposal that failed last fall to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The White House plan, similar to that spearheaded by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), would dramatically cut federal health spending and send some of the savings to the states. Republicans say doing so would give governors the flexibility to bring down costs, but experts say the overall reduction in government spending would cost millions of Americans their health insurance.

The White House plan also calls for new per-person limits on the amount of health care each Medicaid enrollee can use, as well as tying federal spending on the program to the cost of inflation.

The budget envisions a sweeping change to Medicaid, turning a portion of the federal funding of the vast safety-net insurance program into a block grant. That grant, starting with $146 billion in 2010 and reaching $1.6 trillion over the coming decade, would free states from basic federal Medicaid rules that spell out which medical benefits the program must cover and which residents must be allowed to qualify.

All of the deep cuts to the social safety net that Trump proposed last year were rejected by Congress on a bipartisan basis, and the budget bill passed by Congress last week increased spending amounts in discretionary programs. But Yentel said she fears the drastic cuts in Trump's budget proposal lower the bar for what's considered acceptable.

“The president’s budget request is always considered dead on arrival in Congress, especially in an election year,” Yentel said. “My concern is that it leaves open a space for a compromise to be less severe but still a significant cut to programs.”

How's he looking to you now, you ignorant BTs?

[Cartmann99]

31 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

How's he looking to you now, you ignorant BTs?

@GreyhoundFan, don't be silly!  Trump will simply look in the records to see how people voted, and make sure any cuts won't affect his supporters. 

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Dana Milbank: "President Trump has finally released his comic book"

Spoiler

In a Republican presidential debate in the fall of 2015, moderator John Harwood of CNBC asked Donald Trump about some of his more outlandish claims, such as making another country pay for a border wall and enacting huge tax cuts that wouldn’t increase the deficit.

“Let’s be honest,” Harwood memorably said. “Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?”

Harwood got a lot of grief for that from Trump and his supporters, but — Great Caesar’s ghost! — would you look at this? President Trump’s comic book came out on Monday, in the form of his budget proposal. It is quite a marvel. In fact, we haven’t seen a comic like this in D.C. in ages.

Remember Trump’s boast that he would “get rid of the $19 trillion in debt . . . over a period of eight years”?

Odin’s beard! He just hammered that promise to pieces. His budget would add $7 trillion to the debt over a decade — $2 trillion in the next two years alone — and even those numbers are based on the peculiar assumption that the economy will never again go into recession.

Remember Trump’s promise that “I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid” and his boast about being “the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid”?

That promise has gone up, up and away. Trump proposes to cut $554 million from Medicare — health care for old folks — and some $250 billion to Medicaid, which provides health care to the poor.

Remember Trump’s constant “Mexico will pay for the wall” vows?

Cowabunga! His budget made quick work of that promise, requesting 18 billion American dollars for that wall.

And remember just two months ago when the administration said the tax cut would pay for itself and the Treasury Department said it would actually increase tax receipts by $300 billion over 10 years?

Shazam! Quick as a flash, the administration now says tax receipts will be $314 billion lower in 2018, $400 billion lower in 2019 and even $200 billion lower in 2027 when the plan was supposed to be paying for itself.

But the really comic part is the way Trump would offset the big tax cuts for the wealthy and the huge increase for the Pentagon. These range from the villainous — billions of dollars taken from food stamps, college tuition assistance for poor kids and clean-air and clean-water protection — to the absurd — selling off airports and roads and magically saving $139 billion by reducing “improper payments.” Few if any of these will ever happen, so the actual increase in debt will be even greater.

It is, all in all, a super-heroic achievement, proving that the government can cut taxes and spend freely on whatever it wants, nobody will ever have to pay for it, and nobody will suffer adverse consequences (except those unlucky fools who happen to be old, or poor, or consumers of, say, air and water).

This is a comic-book budget — but not a terribly good one. If the president is going to promise the stars and pay with peanuts, couldn’t he at least make it more interesting? If wild promises and unrealistic offsets are the stuff of a good budget, he could do much better:

All Americans of driving age shall be given a Tesla, and all Americans shall be entitled to elite status in a frequent-flier program of their choosing. The cost of this shall be offset by grounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for one month.

To improve access to affordable housing, HUD shall subsidize stays at Trump hotel properties at the rack rate. If funds remain unspent after Trump hotels reach capacity, the secretary shall subsidize rounds of golf. The cost of this program will be offset by the elimination of prosecutions at the Justice Department against all who, in the president’s view, are not guilty.

All U.S. citizens shall be given 60-inch ultra-HD TVs. All Americans shall also be granted free subscriptions to Hulu, Netflix and HBO. The cost of this program shall be offset by the sales of organs harvested from those in the lowest quintile of wage earners.

All American families shall be provided with an armed Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile, as well as a launchpad, for the purpose of displaying them on homemade floats in military parades across the country. The cost of this program will be offset by eliminating the president’s intelligence briefings.

In addition to their obvious merits, these proposals have another thing going for them: They have exactly as much chance of becoming law as the Trump budget.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Here’s what Year Two of Trump’s scam will look like"

Spoiler

President Trump’s first year in office confirmed what many of us long suspected: his “populist economic nationalism” was largely a scam. Trump mostly abandoned the “economic” side of Trumpism, hewing to plutocratic and regressive GOP orthodoxy on taxes and the safety net, while translating xenophobic ethno-nationalist appeals into policy and ramping up white-identity politics wherever humanly (or perhaps subhumanly?) possible.

Starting this week — with the introduction of a new infrastructure plan and the kickoff of the Senate debate on immigration — we will begin to see what Year Two of this sort of politics will look like. Here are the big developments:

Infrastructure. Trump will announce what the White House bills as a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan. But as The Post reports, it will actually only contain $200 billion in additional spending, with the rest to come from state and private sources. Spending on infrastructure is to be offset by cuts elsewhere. This could result in cuts to safety-net programs or even to other types of infrastructure spending, undermining the plan’s own goals.

In the original telling of Trumpism’s most devoted evangelist, Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s infrastructure plan would call for a massive expenditure that would help shatter the two-party alignment, alienating fiscal conservatives and winning over minorities. (Trump had similarly vowed to convert the GOP into a “workers’ party.”) The actual plan will look nothing like that. While it does promise some targeted spending, and White House advisers have vowed flexibility, it will likely end up being a cronyist privatization scheme with insufficient spending directed to the sort of struggling working-class areas targeted by Trump’s “Make America Great Again” appeals.

Immigration: Trump’s conservative allies will today introduce a Senate bill in keeping with Trump’s vision, one that legalizes the “dreamers” in exchange for much of the Stephen Miller/nativist wish list. It is possible that a more reasonable bipartisan Senate compromise could emerge that protects dreamers in exchange for border-security expenditures and more limited concessions on legal immigration, putting pressure on Trump and House Republicans to accept it.

But it’s easy to envision an endgame in which the dreamers are driven underground — or only get a short-term reprieve — because Trump rejects anything that does not include huge border wall expenditures, more money for deportations and deep cuts to legal immigration, in keeping with a picture of his base’s xenophobia and nativism that is probably largely exaggerated. Whatever the fate of the dreamers, that push will continue: Trump’s budget will call for increased spending to expand detention and deportation capabilities. And a new Post report details how, under Trump, immigration enforcement has been “unshackled” to juice up arrests and deportations of the lowest-level offenders, which will also continue.

Republican deficit boosting: The White House budget calls for deep cuts to some non-defense domestic spending, including deep cuts to the safety net. But in practice, Trump and the GOP are embracing policies that will still explode the deficit. Congressional Republicans just helped pass a budget deal that busts spending caps, and the Trump/GOP tax plan balloons the deficit by delivering a huge permanent corporate tax cut that will mostly benefit the wealthiest while giving the middle class a much more negligible set of temporary benefits.

While that budget deal does fund some progressive priorities (the price for Dem support to pass it), over time the GOP’s combined deficit-busting approach could mean more pressure to cut the safety net later. (The cuts to the safety net in Trump’s budget can be seen as a preview of this.) That and the tax plan’s regressiveness could end up exacerbating inequality.

More culture wars: Axios reports today that Trump’s real game plan for the 2018 elections is to juice up the GOP base by finding new and unexpected “cultural flashpoints,” similar to Trump’s attacks on kneeling football players. One source claims Trump “is going to be looking for opportunities to stir up the base.”

And right on cue, Trump expressed sympathy for former top staffer Rob Porter, who is accused of domestic abuse, and seemed to align himself against the entire #MeToo movement. Indeed, the New York Times reports that Republicans are worried that Trump will continue to stoke polarization and anger wherever possible, making the midterms more about him and further energizing Dem voter groups.

To sum up: Here’s what all of this amounts to. The vow of big spending on infrastructure — which was central to the economic side of Trump’s populist nationalism — is likely to prove a scam. Trump will keep embracing the GOP’s plutocratic and regressive fiscal priorities, threatening to worsen inequality over time. The implementation of Trump’s xenophobic and nativist blueprint will continue in all its cruelty wherever possible. And Trump will keep up the bread-and-circuses racial and gender-oriented provocation to drive GOP base voters to the polls, even at the risk — or perhaps with the deliberate end — of further enraging the nonwhite voters, women and college-educated whites who are already alienated by a year of the same.

In other words, the Real Trumpism, Year Two.

...

I hope he does make the midterms about him and it gets the Dems out in force to toss out every Repug.

[GreyhoundFan]

Another idiotic idea from this administration of idiots: "Trump administration wants to sell National and Dulles airports, other assets across U.S."

Spoiler

The Trump administration is pushing federal officials to sell off, privatize or otherwise dispose of a broad array of government assets, from Reagan National Airport and the George Washington Memorial Parkway along the Potomac River to properties held by federal agencies across the country.

The proposals are part of a long-awaited infrastructure initiative that President Trump has referred to repeatedly since the night of his election in 2016, when he struck a bipartisan tone in promising to “rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals.” In last month’s State of the Union address, he called for remaking the nation “with American heart, American hands and American grit.”

The $200 billion infrastructure proposal, crafted over the past year but overshadowed by other priorities such as tax cuts and immigration, is focused on speeding up permitting by reducing environmental regulations. It also is geared toward trying to prompt state and local governments and private industry to spend more on projects without major new federal investments. It would achieve that with a mix of loan and grant programs, including those focused on rural areas and risky but potentially “transformative” projects.

Despite appeals for bipartisan support, the caustic political environment and the proposal’s basic approach — promising much-needed improvements while simultaneously proposing broad cuts in infrastructure spending elsewhere in the federal budget — have raised doubts about the package’s prospects.

While a senior administration official called the president’s 53-page proposal “the start of a negotiation,” it has been something of a rough start. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the plan “is like a Hollywood facade.”

“The Trump plan has the skin of an infrastructure plan, but it lacks the guts,” Schumer said, adding that “the lack of direct investment would leave out large parts of America.”

A Democratic staff analysis of the budget proposal Trump released Monday cites more than $168 billion in proposed infrastructure funding cuts over 10 years. And that’s only a partial tally, according to the Democratic summary from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

But Trump administration officials say real and long-standing funding challenges are why new approaches are necessary, from incentive grants toclose gaps on the financing of local projects to tapping underused assets for sale to generate needed resources. The administration says its $200 billion in infrastructure spending over a decade will spur about $1.5 trillion in infrastructure activity overall.

“It’s a much more collaborative and creative way of” providing funds, said Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, particularly in an environment where “unfortunately, there’s not enough money to be able to pay for all the infrastructure needs of our country.”

Chao said the goal is flexibility, not mandates, and the administration is not “forcing” toll roads on states, for example, a frequent criticism. At the same time, “we should also not discriminate” against private firms hoping to partner on public infrastructure, something she said is common.

Administration officials say that it is wrong to characterize the more than $100 billion in future shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund, reflected in their budget proposal, as cuts. They say they are still trying to find a solution to that structural problem and have not rejected the idea of a gas tax increase.

The push to sell off federal assets offers a window into the philosophical core of the Trump administration and its approach on infrastructure.

How far it will go remains unclear. A separate, high-profile Trump effort to move the nation’s air traffic control system out of government hands was blocked in Congress last year, although the administration proposed it again Monday.

In addition to Washington’s National and Dulles International airports — which are leased from the federal government — the administration is seeking to unload a variety of assets across the country, according to a copy of the proposal.

The George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, both run by the National Park Service, are listed as “examples of assets for potential divestiture.”

The Washington Aqueduct, which supplies drinking water in the District and in Northern Virginia, is on the list.

Power transmission assets from the Tennessee Valley Authority; the Southwestern Power Administration, which sells power in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Western Area Power Administration; and the Bonneville Power Administration covering the Pacific northwest, were also cited for potential targets for a sale.

“The Federal Government owns and operates certain infrastructure that would be more appropriately owned by State, local, or private entities,” the Trump plan says. It calls for giving federal agencies “authority to divest of Federal assets where the agencies can demonstrate an increase in value from the sale would optimize the taxpayer value.”

A host of unnamed federal agencies would also, under the proposal, gain new powers to keep the proceeds when they sell property under their control. That would give them incentives to find properties to offload, since they would be able to reinvest in other assets that better fit their needs, according to the proposal.

Under current law, the proceeds from such “disposals,” in many cases, must be transferred to a land and water conservation fund, but that requirement would be eliminated, according to the proposal.

Some state officials said they were uncertain how their residents would benefit from such a proposal. Federal assets come with crucial federal dollars that could not easily be replaced, they said.

“All I can see now is a federal obligation that they’re trying to push off. Where would we get the money from without a revenue source?” asked Virginia Finance Secretary Aubrey Layne.

Layne, an accountant and former transportation secretary, said numerous unanswered questions make it impossible to gauge the administration’s proposal at this point.

“I don’t even know what’s being sold — I don’t mean just physical, I mean obligations,” Layne said. “What level of funding? Is the federal government just going to wash their hands of it?”

Some other officials in Virginia mocked the proposal.

State Sen. Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax), who said he has lived next to the George Washington Parkway his entire life, called the idea “outrageous.”

The president is “turning Northern Virginia into his plaything. Seriously, what’s next? We’re going to build waterfront condos along the Potomac?” Surovell asked. “Surprised they didn’t propose to sell the Wilson Bridge while they were at it.”

But Maryland Transportation Secretary Pete K. Rahn said the administration of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan is eager to take control of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway from the federal government.

“I think it’s a great idea,” Rahn said. Taking control of the road would lift “a huge liability” from federal shoulders, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in needed maintenance, he said. The state would then add toll and carpool lanes.

“I also believe we can make it safer for the traveling public. Last year, 14 people died in crashes on the parkway, and I think that has to do with its antiquated design,” Rahn said.

As for how much Maryland might pay, Rahn said “a one-dollar exchange makes a lot of sense,” although conversations are ongoing with the Trump administration.

“They should probably pay us for taking it over,” Rahn said.

Good grief. In my area, several interstate highways have become "private/public partnerships". They are characterized by tolls that are sliding scale, based on traffic volume. Recently, one of those roads, Interstate 66, has had tolls of over $45 for an 8 mile stretch of road. You are not misreading that. Yes, there are alternate routes, but they are very crowded and have oodles of traffic lights.

[Audrey2]

49 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Another idiotic idea from this administration of idiots: "Trump administration wants to sell National and Dulles airports, other assets across U.S."

  Reveal hidden contents

The Trump administration is pushing federal officials to sell off, privatize or otherwise dispose of a broad array of government assets, from Reagan National Airport and the George Washington Memorial Parkway along the Potomac River to properties held by federal agencies across the country.

The proposals are part of a long-awaited infrastructure initiative that President Trump has referred to repeatedly since the night of his election in 2016, when he struck a bipartisan tone in promising to “rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals.” In last month’s State of the Union address, he called for remaking the nation “with American heart, American hands and American grit.”

The $200 billion infrastructure proposal, crafted over the past year but overshadowed by other priorities such as tax cuts and immigration, is focused on speeding up permitting by reducing environmental regulations. It also is geared toward trying to prompt state and local governments and private industry to spend more on projects without major new federal investments. It would achieve that with a mix of loan and grant programs, including those focused on rural areas and risky but potentially “transformative” projects.

Despite appeals for bipartisan support, the caustic political environment and the proposal’s basic approach — promising much-needed improvements while simultaneously proposing broad cuts in infrastructure spending elsewhere in the federal budget — have raised doubts about the package’s prospects.

While a senior administration official called the president’s 53-page proposal “the start of a negotiation,” it has been something of a rough start. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the plan “is like a Hollywood facade.”

“The Trump plan has the skin of an infrastructure plan, but it lacks the guts,” Schumer said, adding that “the lack of direct investment would leave out large parts of America.”

A Democratic staff analysis of the budget proposal Trump released Monday cites more than $168 billion in proposed infrastructure funding cuts over 10 years. And that’s only a partial tally, according to the Democratic summary from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

But Trump administration officials say real and long-standing funding challenges are why new approaches are necessary, from incentive grants toclose gaps on the financing of local projects to tapping underused assets for sale to generate needed resources. The administration says its $200 billion in infrastructure spending over a decade will spur about $1.5 trillion in infrastructure activity overall.

“It’s a much more collaborative and creative way of” providing funds, said Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, particularly in an environment where “unfortunately, there’s not enough money to be able to pay for all the infrastructure needs of our country.”

Chao said the goal is flexibility, not mandates, and the administration is not “forcing” toll roads on states, for example, a frequent criticism. At the same time, “we should also not discriminate” against private firms hoping to partner on public infrastructure, something she said is common.

Administration officials say that it is wrong to characterize the more than $100 billion in future shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund, reflected in their budget proposal, as cuts. They say they are still trying to find a solution to that structural problem and have not rejected the idea of a gas tax increase.

The push to sell off federal assets offers a window into the philosophical core of the Trump administration and its approach on infrastructure.

How far it will go remains unclear. A separate, high-profile Trump effort to move the nation’s air traffic control system out of government hands was blocked in Congress last year, although the administration proposed it again Monday.

In addition to Washington’s National and Dulles International airports — which are leased from the federal government — the administration is seeking to unload a variety of assets across the country, according to a copy of the proposal.

The George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, both run by the National Park Service, are listed as “examples of assets for potential divestiture.”

The Washington Aqueduct, which supplies drinking water in the District and in Northern Virginia, is on the list.

Power transmission assets from the Tennessee Valley Authority; the Southwestern Power Administration, which sells power in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Western Area Power Administration; and the Bonneville Power Administration covering the Pacific northwest, were also cited for potential targets for a sale.

“The Federal Government owns and operates certain infrastructure that would be more appropriately owned by State, local, or private entities,” the Trump plan says. It calls for giving federal agencies “authority to divest of Federal assets where the agencies can demonstrate an increase in value from the sale would optimize the taxpayer value.”

A host of unnamed federal agencies would also, under the proposal, gain new powers to keep the proceeds when they sell property under their control. That would give them incentives to find properties to offload, since they would be able to reinvest in other assets that better fit their needs, according to the proposal.

Under current law, the proceeds from such “disposals,” in many cases, must be transferred to a land and water conservation fund, but that requirement would be eliminated, according to the proposal.

Some state officials said they were uncertain how their residents would benefit from such a proposal. Federal assets come with crucial federal dollars that could not easily be replaced, they said.

“All I can see now is a federal obligation that they’re trying to push off. Where would we get the money from without a revenue source?” asked Virginia Finance Secretary Aubrey Layne.

Layne, an accountant and former transportation secretary, said numerous unanswered questions make it impossible to gauge the administration’s proposal at this point.

“I don’t even know what’s being sold — I don’t mean just physical, I mean obligations,” Layne said. “What level of funding? Is the federal government just going to wash their hands of it?”

Some other officials in Virginia mocked the proposal.

State Sen. Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax), who said he has lived next to the George Washington Parkway his entire life, called the idea “outrageous.”

The president is “turning Northern Virginia into his plaything. Seriously, what’s next? We’re going to build waterfront condos along the Potomac?” Surovell asked. “Surprised they didn’t propose to sell the Wilson Bridge while they were at it.”

But Maryland Transportation Secretary Pete K. Rahn said the administration of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan is eager to take control of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway from the federal government.

“I think it’s a great idea,” Rahn said. Taking control of the road would lift “a huge liability” from federal shoulders, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in needed maintenance, he said. The state would then add toll and carpool lanes.

“I also believe we can make it safer for the traveling public. Last year, 14 people died in crashes on the parkway, and I think that has to do with its antiquated design,” Rahn said.

As for how much Maryland might pay, Rahn said “a one-dollar exchange makes a lot of sense,” although conversations are ongoing with the Trump administration.

“They should probably pay us for taking it over,” Rahn said.

Good grief. In my area, several interstate highways have become "private/public partnerships". They are characterized by tolls that are sliding scale, based on traffic volume. Recently, one of those roads, Interstate 66, has had tolls of over $45 for an 8 mile stretch of road. You are not misreading that. Yes, there are alternate routes, but they are very crowded and have oodles of traffic lights.

This is utter, total, and complete fresh, steaming coprolites! (I know coprolites are petrified dinosaur poop, but I am talking the fresh stuff, preferably from an Ultrasaurus. The poop from a bull isn't nearly as large as my feelings about selling off the National assets. Not even whale poop is big enough.)

Donny Dummkopf, let me try to explain this to you using small words. You can sell off our National assets once. Then, the cost to your voters will be much higher than the $1.50 your tax cuts gave them in their paychecks. Once they're sold, you have lost their value. 

I can see him starting this, then selling our National Parks, Monuments, and other National Lands, forests, etc. 

[Howl]

19 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

This is utter, total, and complete fresh, steaming coprolites!

The term coprolites is also used to refer to prehistoric human poop recovered from various archaeological contexts, like dry rock shelters. In one instance, this led to the Coporolite Recovery Analysis Project (CRAP!).

But, where were we?  Oh, yes. Still mired in GOP poop.  

Quote

I can see him starting this, then selling our National Parks, Monuments, and other National Lands, forests, etc. 

Yes, my fear as well.  I remember the old days visiting national parks as a kid, camping out and everyone was a government employee, including those who ran the campgrounds.   That got shelved, and the campgrounds and stores are now run as concessions.  Ditto national forest campgrounds.  Hate it. 

 

[LeftCoastLurker]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

 That got shelved, and the campgrounds and stores are now run as concessions.  Ditto national forest campgrounds.  Hate it. 

 

Yep...case in point is Yosemite. All those wonderful Native American names can no longer be used. The previous concessionaire claimed they "owned" them and wanted outrageous sums of money for them. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

Sentence structure, have omitted Trump?

[onekidanddone]

11 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I hope he does make the midterms about him and it gets the Dems out in force to toss out every Repug.

Of course it will be all about him as everything else is. The chickpeas I had last night at dinner were all about him. 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an excellent article that explains the cuts in Dumpy's proposed budget in an easy to understand graphical format. Because of the graphics, I can't quote it here, but it's worth a look.

[Destiny]

 
Sentence structure, have omitted Trump?

Is he aware of the definition of bipartisan?

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

2 minutes ago, Destiny said:

Is he aware of the definition of bipartisan?

Like this?

Spoiler

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From Eugene Robinson: "Trump tells a lot of little lies. This is the big one."

Spoiler

The Trump administration is an aberration, an outrage, a threat to the nation’s very soul. But most of all, it’s a great big fraud.

Voters who thought President Trump would at least try to fulfill his populist, America-first campaign promises were cynically and cruelly deceived. Trump placates these supporters with rhetoric, distracts them with cultural warfare and encourages them to seek refuge in cultural chauvinism. What he doesn’t do for them is deliver.

The most recent evidence of Trump’s dishonesty comes in the budget and infrastructure plans the administration released Monday. Both are half smoke-and-mirrors, half traditional Republican economic policy. Forgive the redundancy.

Remember how the president promised a $1 trillion program to rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges, airports and railroads? Well, he claims to be doing even more — $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending over the next decade. But the promise comes with little or no new federal money, which means it barely qualifies as an idle wish.

Trump says he wants to spend just $200 billion over 10 years on infrastructure, with cities and states providing the rest. But mayors and governors don’t have $1.3 trillion lying around; ask them, if you don’t believe me. And since the $200 billion is supposed to come from savings elsewhere in the budget, Trump effectively plans to give with one hand and take away with the other.

Anyone who expected projects on the scale of Hoover Dam or the interstate highway system should realize that Trump will never come through, because he has no idea how. If he were really the pharaonic builder he brags of being, don’t you think he’d have an actual plan rather than a vague, underfunded set of hopes? Many voters perhaps did not realize that the Trump Organization’s business model had little to do with construction and everything to do with branding. The president’s very good at that. But you can’t take an outdated port and brand it into being deep enough to accommodate the newest supertankers.

Trump campaigned as the purported champion of a working class that was being robbed blind by dastardly elites. He has governed, however, as robber in chief.

The tax bill that Republicans passed and Trump signed into law delivers the lion’s share of its benefits to corporations and the rich. The president hopes that middle-class taxpayers will be so transfixed by seeing a little more in their paychecks that they fail to notice how other costs, such as health care, are rising because of his policies.

Trump has changed GOP dogma in one regard: The party no longer even pretends to stand for fiscal responsibility. Republicans are apparently wild-eyed Keynesians now, cutting taxes and boosting spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Trump anticipates ballooning the national debt by $7 trillion over the next decade.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), a supposed champion of small government and balanced budgets, goes along like a little mouse.

Trump drew loud cheers at his campaign rallies when he complained about the high cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying all that money would be better spent at home. But the deal he signed last week will increase defense spending by $195 billion over the next two years, and his budget director suggested the military could get even more.

So is there more money for everybody? No, not for programs that provide important support to Trump’s base. The president pledged to maintain or strengthen the social safety net, but — sit down, you won’t believe this — he lied.

His budget cuts $554 billion in Medicare spending over 10 years, which is of concern to anyone over 65. It cuts up to $250 billion in Medicaid spending, which has implications for anybody who has a loved one in a nursing home. Trump wants to cut $214 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, a vital source of help for the working poor.

The idea of Donald Trump as some sort of Man of the People was laughable from the start — a boastful plutocrat who lives in a gold-plated aerie above Fifth Avenue, claiming lunch-bucket solidarity with factory workers and coal miners. He sold it, though, largely by cementing a racial and cultural kinship and shamelessly misrepresenting his intentions.

Trump tells little lies all the time. But this is the Big Lie that must be constantly exposed between now and the November election: Trump is worsening society’s bias in favor of the wealthy — and laughing at the chumps who put him in office.

 

[Destiny]

Like this?
Spoiler
 

That’s pretty much EXACTLY what I meant.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s parade will be held June 14. Here’s why."

Spoiler

Call me prescient, call me prophetic, call me whatever you want, but I’m here to tell you that the Donald J. Trump Military Parade will be held June 14, a date certain for two reasons. It is, since 1916, Flag Day, commemorating the adoption of Old Glory by the Continental Congress in 1777. It is also, since 1946, the birthday of Donald J. Trump himself. Strike up the band!

Cue the tanks. Cue the armored personnel carriers. Cue the drones. (No, not you, Pence.) Assemble the troops. Combat engineers and others so honored, blouse your boots. Bring your battalions to order arms. Eyes right. Eyes alt-right, actually. Quick step, march!

Due to the totally kismet confluence of Flag Day and Trump’s birthday, the president will be able to pretend to be honoring the flag, while in his own mind and over time, the day will be a celebration of himself. Trump Day will be much like the one that honors the grandfather of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. That day is known as The Day of the Sun. Trump, heir to a real estate empire, may want to call his The Day of the Son.

The parade will have the usual military units. Tanks are always a crowd favorite, and so, judging from what the North Koreans do, are intercontinental missiles, armed for Armageddon with nuclear warheads painted, in the president’s case, Trump Gold. In both Pyongyang and Red Square, such displays bring down the house.

Trump himself has endured a life without military service. He tried to get into the war in Vietnam, but his hopes were dashed by doctors of the deep state who detected a hugely threatening heel spur with which Trump suffered in total silence. He did, however, attend the hallowed New York Military Academy, which, like so many things associated with Trump, eventually went bankrupt. The yearbook was called “The Shrapnel.”

The Pentagon, which has been tasked to come up with the parade plans, has yet to announce a venue. Many presume it will be Washington, D.C., and its storied Pennsylvania Avenue — named, in yet another example of kismet or bashert or just plain destiny, for a state Trump carried in 2016. But don’t overlook where Trump has long lived. He’s from New York, the city of endless parades. (The Veggie Pride Parade is scheduled for April 8.) Many of these parades occur on Fifth Avenue, where, as it happens, Trump lived.

It does not take a great deal of imagination — nor frequent viewing of the History Channel — to envision a balcony being attached to the building so that Trump can review the Trump Parade from the Trump Tower on Trump Day. He’ll surely assume that the crowd will exceed that of Charles Lindbergh’s or FDR’s parades or, for that matter, the exuberant, unbelievable throng that assembled to hear his inaugural address — people, beautiful people, as far as the eye could see, almost to the Beltway.

Most American parades are not military in character, and so, strictly speaking, the one Trump has in mind is deeply un-American. But America has indeed seen splendid military processions. Big ones occurred in 1865, 1919 and 1945. They were staged to celebrate military victories — the end of those wars. The soldiers soon returned to civilian life.

But Trump’s parade will probably also celebrate a victory: his — the triumph over the Very Crooked Hillary. The parade will be yet another example of how thoroughly he has personalized the presidency, energetically making it as tacky as he is. He has little regard for the dignity of the office because he is without dignity himself and he does not appreciate that he is the mere custodian of the presidency, not its resplendent embodiment. He sees himself, as Louis XIV once purportedly did: as the state.

This, and not the Bastille Day parade Trump witnessed in Paris last July 14, is likely the true inspiration for Trump’s parade idea. He does not so much envision an army at quick step but himself reviewing it. It is this that so offends — the American military as a Trump prop, its heroes, its wounded and its dead drafted to serve the needs of a squalid ego, and its somber tradition of martial modesty turned to bling by the vainglorious president. The appropriate date for such garishness is Trump’s own birthday — the former Flag Day, the future Trump Day, and, to some of us, the new Halloween.

I didn't realize he was born on Flag Day.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

26 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I didn't realize he was born on Flag Day.

One of my daughter's friends was born on Flag Day. I'm going to keep thinking of it as Flag Day and S's birthday and try to forget that other thing. Wish me luck.

[PsyD2013]

The Orange Ass is unaware that pregnancies are nine months.  His stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

https://www.popsugar.com/moms/Donald-Trump-Says-Baby-Born-Ninth-Month-Wrong-44512821

[GrumpyGran]

18 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Another idiotic idea from this administration of idiots: "Trump administration wants to sell National and Dulles airports, other assets across U.S."

  Reveal hidden contents

The Trump administration is pushing federal officials to sell off, privatize or otherwise dispose of a broad array of government assets, from Reagan National Airport and the George Washington Memorial Parkway along the Potomac River to properties held by federal agencies across the country.

The proposals are part of a long-awaited infrastructure initiative that President Trump has referred to repeatedly since the night of his election in 2016, when he struck a bipartisan tone in promising to “rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals.” In last month’s State of the Union address, he called for remaking the nation “with American heart, American hands and American grit.”

The $200 billion infrastructure proposal, crafted over the past year but overshadowed by other priorities such as tax cuts and immigration, is focused on speeding up permitting by reducing environmental regulations. It also is geared toward trying to prompt state and local governments and private industry to spend more on projects without major new federal investments. It would achieve that with a mix of loan and grant programs, including those focused on rural areas and risky but potentially “transformative” projects.

Despite appeals for bipartisan support, the caustic political environment and the proposal’s basic approach — promising much-needed improvements while simultaneously proposing broad cuts in infrastructure spending elsewhere in the federal budget — have raised doubts about the package’s prospects.

While a senior administration official called the president’s 53-page proposal “the start of a negotiation,” it has been something of a rough start. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the plan “is like a Hollywood facade.”

“The Trump plan has the skin of an infrastructure plan, but it lacks the guts,” Schumer said, adding that “the lack of direct investment would leave out large parts of America.”

A Democratic staff analysis of the budget proposal Trump released Monday cites more than $168 billion in proposed infrastructure funding cuts over 10 years. And that’s only a partial tally, according to the Democratic summary from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

But Trump administration officials say real and long-standing funding challenges are why new approaches are necessary, from incentive grants toclose gaps on the financing of local projects to tapping underused assets for sale to generate needed resources. The administration says its $200 billion in infrastructure spending over a decade will spur about $1.5 trillion in infrastructure activity overall.

“It’s a much more collaborative and creative way of” providing funds, said Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, particularly in an environment where “unfortunately, there’s not enough money to be able to pay for all the infrastructure needs of our country.”

Chao said the goal is flexibility, not mandates, and the administration is not “forcing” toll roads on states, for example, a frequent criticism. At the same time, “we should also not discriminate” against private firms hoping to partner on public infrastructure, something she said is common.

Administration officials say that it is wrong to characterize the more than $100 billion in future shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund, reflected in their budget proposal, as cuts. They say they are still trying to find a solution to that structural problem and have not rejected the idea of a gas tax increase.

The push to sell off federal assets offers a window into the philosophical core of the Trump administration and its approach on infrastructure.

How far it will go remains unclear. A separate, high-profile Trump effort to move the nation’s air traffic control system out of government hands was blocked in Congress last year, although the administration proposed it again Monday.

In addition to Washington’s National and Dulles International airports — which are leased from the federal government — the administration is seeking to unload a variety of assets across the country, according to a copy of the proposal.

The George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, both run by the National Park Service, are listed as “examples of assets for potential divestiture.”

The Washington Aqueduct, which supplies drinking water in the District and in Northern Virginia, is on the list.

Power transmission assets from the Tennessee Valley Authority; the Southwestern Power Administration, which sells power in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas; the Western Area Power Administration; and the Bonneville Power Administration covering the Pacific northwest, were also cited for potential targets for a sale.

“The Federal Government owns and operates certain infrastructure that would be more appropriately owned by State, local, or private entities,” the Trump plan says. It calls for giving federal agencies “authority to divest of Federal assets where the agencies can demonstrate an increase in value from the sale would optimize the taxpayer value.”

A host of unnamed federal agencies would also, under the proposal, gain new powers to keep the proceeds when they sell property under their control. That would give them incentives to find properties to offload, since they would be able to reinvest in other assets that better fit their needs, according to the proposal.

Under current law, the proceeds from such “disposals,” in many cases, must be transferred to a land and water conservation fund, but that requirement would be eliminated, according to the proposal.

Some state officials said they were uncertain how their residents would benefit from such a proposal. Federal assets come with crucial federal dollars that could not easily be replaced, they said.

“All I can see now is a federal obligation that they’re trying to push off. Where would we get the money from without a revenue source?” asked Virginia Finance Secretary Aubrey Layne.

Layne, an accountant and former transportation secretary, said numerous unanswered questions make it impossible to gauge the administration’s proposal at this point.

“I don’t even know what’s being sold — I don’t mean just physical, I mean obligations,” Layne said. “What level of funding? Is the federal government just going to wash their hands of it?”

Some other officials in Virginia mocked the proposal.

State Sen. Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax), who said he has lived next to the George Washington Parkway his entire life, called the idea “outrageous.”

The president is “turning Northern Virginia into his plaything. Seriously, what’s next? We’re going to build waterfront condos along the Potomac?” Surovell asked. “Surprised they didn’t propose to sell the Wilson Bridge while they were at it.”

But Maryland Transportation Secretary Pete K. Rahn said the administration of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan is eager to take control of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway from the federal government.

“I think it’s a great idea,” Rahn said. Taking control of the road would lift “a huge liability” from federal shoulders, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in needed maintenance, he said. The state would then add toll and carpool lanes.

“I also believe we can make it safer for the traveling public. Last year, 14 people died in crashes on the parkway, and I think that has to do with its antiquated design,” Rahn said.

As for how much Maryland might pay, Rahn said “a one-dollar exchange makes a lot of sense,” although conversations are ongoing with the Trump administration.

“They should probably pay us for taking it over,” Rahn said.

Good grief. In my area, several interstate highways have become "private/public partnerships". They are characterized by tolls that are sliding scale, based on traffic volume. Recently, one of those roads, Interstate 66, has had tolls of over $45 for an 8 mile stretch of road. You are not misreading that. Yes, there are alternate routes, but they are very crowded and have oodles of traffic lights.

This is such a good plan. It will change our country! I wonder what the hotel chains will do with their properties. Because if states have to maintain their highways without help from the federal government, every road will be a toll road. And every state will have to raise gas taxes. So a trip from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh will cost $1200. You could fly instead but if the Koch brothers own the airport, it will cost you $2000 in entrance and use fees. And that's not even the ticket.

After we let one of Dump's rich friends take over the air traffic controllers you're not going to want to risk flying anymore. There will be lots of small print when you purchase the ticket, to include a statement that says you agree that your estate won't sue if you die in a crash.

And depending on who owns the bridges, well it might not be a good idea to try to cross that river.

So we'll all be spending a lot of time at home. Hang on to your books, you won't be able to afford cable TV anymore. But Faux News will be available to all homes for free! Great plan.

[JMarie]

2 hours ago, PsyD2013 said:

The Orange Ass is unaware that pregnancies are nine months.  His stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

https://www.popsugar.com/moms/Donald-Trump-Says-Baby-Born-Ninth-Month-Wrong-44512821

This doesn't amaze me, not really.  He probably has no idea how our lady parts works, or even what our lady parts are.  

[Cartmann99]

On 2/12/2018 at 7:59 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Good grief. In my area, several interstate highways have become "private/public partnerships". They are characterized by tolls that are sliding scale, based on traffic volume. Recently, one of those roads, Interstate 66, has had tolls of over $45 for an 8 mile stretch of road. You are not misreading that. Yes, there are alternate routes, but they are very crowded and have oodles of traffic lights

Hells bells! I'm never going to complain about driving across Oklahoma ever again! 

 

Wait a minute, I thought Trump was still denying his affair with Ms. Daniels? Why is Cohen claiming he paid her if nothing happened?

 I need a personal assistant whose sole responsibly is keeping up with all of the Trump scandals!

[Cartmann99]

10 hours ago, Destiny said:

Is he aware of the definition of bipartisan?

He probably thinks it has something to do with the sort of movies Mother won't let Pence watch.