washingtonmonthly--2020-01-07--Supreme Court Decisions Will Take Center Stage in the 2020 Election

Right now , the story of the moment is the escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran in the wake of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani .
Embedded within that one is a discussion about how it will affect the Democratic primary and the 2020 election .
But there are still nine months before Americans go to the polls , and a lot will happen before then that could change the contours of what will be front and center on the minds of voters .
Just as events in the Middle East sprang onto the scene last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibilities with any certainty .
There are , however , several major issues that will be thrust into the limelight by the Supreme Court .
What we can predict with certainty is that the judicial branch is poised to issue several rulings that are destined to have a major impact on the election .
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on June Medical Services v. Gee in June .
While not a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade , if the Louisiana law requiring any doctor performing an abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital within 30 miles of the clinic is upheld , it will mean the end of women ’ s reproductive freedom across the country .
To up the ante on this one , more than 200 Republican lawmakers filed an amicus brief suggesting that the court should use this case to overturn Roe .
In November , the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case that seeks to overturn the Obama-era program that deferred the deportation of Dreamers .
The lower court ruling that upheld the program was based on the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide reasonable arguments for ending it .
With that in mind , Ian Millhiser identified three possible outcomes for this case .
A lower court ruled that , when Republicans eliminated the mandate in Obamacare , they made the entire law unconstitutional .
That case is headed to the Supreme Court , but won ’ t be decided until after the election .
This week , a group of federal and state-level Democrats asked the court to expedite the case , allowing an outcome before the 2020 election .
Both House Democrats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s financial records and tax returns , while the president has fought those efforts in court .
In December , the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and is expected to rule on it in June .
There are several other cases of import that will be decided during the Supreme Court ’ s current term .
They include two challenges to the separation of church and state brought in the name of “ religious liberty , ” a case challenging the constitutionality of the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect LGBT Americans from workplace discrimination .
All of these decisions will have a profound effect—not only on millions of Americans , but on the conversation leading up to the 2020 election .
Most notably , rulings on abortion , DACA , and possibly Obamacare are sure to mobilize one side or the other , depending on the outcome .
If the court rules that Trump must release his financial records , we ’ ll be pouring over those in the months prior to the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so hard to keep them secret , who knows what we ’ ll find ?
Democrats , however , should prepare themselves for some major losses on several fronts .
With Chief Justice John Roberts as the one remaining possibility for a swing vote , all eyes will be on him .
But given his track record on these issues , the prospects don ’ t look good .

Right now, the story of the moment is the escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran in the wake of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Embedded within that one is a discussion about how it will affect the Democratic primary and the 2020 election.
But there are still nine months before Americans go to the polls, and a lot will happen before then that could change the contours of what will be front and center on the minds of voters. Just as events in the Middle East sprang onto the scene last week, it is impossible to predict all of the possibilities with any certainty.
There are, however, several major issues that will be thrust into the limelight by the Supreme Court. What we can predict with certainty is that the judicial branch is poised to issue several rulings that are destined to have a major impact on the election.
Women’s reproductive rights
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on June Medical Services v. Gee in June. While not a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, if the Louisiana law requiring any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a state-approved hospital within 30 miles of the clinic is upheld, it will mean the end of women’s reproductive freedom across the country. To up the ante on this one, more than 200 Republican lawmakers filed an amicus brief suggesting that the court should use this case to overturn Roe.
DACA
In November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case that seeks to overturn the Obama-era program that deferred the deportation of Dreamers. The lower court ruling that upheld the program was based on the fact that the Trump administration didn’t provide reasonable arguments for ending it. With that in mind, Ian Millhiser identified three possible outcomes for this case.
A narrow case that upholds DACA A narrow loss for DACA A permanent loss for DACA
Obamacare
A lower court ruled that, when Republicans eliminated the mandate in Obamacare, they made the entire law unconstitutional. That case is headed to the Supreme Court, but won’t be decided until after the election. This week, a group of federal and state-level Democrats asked the court to expedite the case, allowing an outcome before the 2020 election.
Trump’s finances
Both House Democrats and New York state prosecutors have subpoenaed Trump’s financial records and tax returns, while the president has fought those efforts in court. In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and is expected to rule on it in June.
There are several other cases of import that will be decided during the Supreme Court’s current term. They include two challenges to the separation of church and state brought in the name of “religious liberty,” a case challenging the constitutionality of the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and one that seeks to expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect LGBT Americans from workplace discrimination.
All of these decisions will have a profound effect—not only on millions of Americans, but on the conversation leading up to the 2020 election. Most notably, rulings on abortion, DACA, and possibly Obamacare are sure to mobilize one side or the other, depending on the outcome. If the court rules that Trump must release his financial records, we’ll be pouring over those in the months prior to the election. Given that the president has worked so hard to keep them secret, who knows what we’ll find?
Democrats, however, should prepare themselves for some major losses on several fronts. With Chief Justice John Roberts as the one remaining possibility for a swing vote, all eyes will be on him. But given his track record on these issues, the prospects don’t look good.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-07--Inside the Mind of an Iran War Hawk

Inside the Mind of an Iran War Hawk

It ’ s interesting to ponder how much power John Bolton holds in his hands .
It might not be too much to say that he is the only person in the world who may be able to determine whether or not Donald Trump is convicted in his Senate impeachment trial .
In other words , if for some reason Bolton no longer wants Trump to be president , it ’ s quite possible that Trump will no longer be president .
Now , put yourself in the shoes of a real Iran hawk whose lifelong mission has been to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you ’ ve helped put the administration on a course that will lead almost inevitably to that outcome , but you were fired before you could see the job through .
And , imagine that you know that the job can not be done correctly with the country this divided and led by a certifiable moron who has squandered every shred of credibility both at home and abroad .
Imagine , too , that the immediate alternative to this moron is Mike Pence , a man who was instrumental in convincing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an irreversible course .
Can you trust him to see through the program of regime change ?
Would he have more credibility than Trump with Americans and our allies and the global audience ?
Wouldn ’ t it be far better if he were to oversee the next steps ?
Trump , after all , is completely unreliable in most respects .
Bolton couldn ’ t convince him to do basic things , like fund the Ukrainians or maintain support for the Kurds .
He ’ s done so much damage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacing him can salvage our position there .
Finally , many reports suggest that Trump soured on Bolton specifically because he was tired of being pushed to take a harder line on Iran .
So , is it necessarily surprising that Bolton would suddenly volunteer to testify at Trump ’ s impeachment trial ?
When Bolton turned on Fox News on Monday night , he witnessed Sean Hannity demonstrating some inside knowledge about the president ’ s thinking : “ Sean Hannity opened his Fox show on Monday night , spouting off on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bluster .
But what was really interesting was the detail Hannity offered about the US ’ strategy toward the regime .
Hannity , for one , insisted that the US ‘ won ’ t be going with boots on the ground in Iran .
That ’ s not going to happen.
’ ” “ And then Hannity proceeded to list some targets the US might hit if Iran retaliates for the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.
” Said Hannity : “ They got three major oil refineries and we know where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we know where they are .
We know Iran ’ s terrorist network—maybe even the mullah ’ s themselves.
” Everything seems to be in place to fulfill Bolton ’ s dream of a final confrontation with the regime that came to power by kidnapping and holding Americans hostage for 444 days .
The only snag in the plan is that the country will never rally around a cause led by Trump .
It seems like the only thing to do now is put Pence in charge and things will be a @ @ @ @

It’s interesting to ponder how much power John Bolton holds in his hands. It might not be too much to say that he is the only person in the world who may be able to determine whether or not Donald Trump is convicted in his Senate impeachment trial. In other words, if for some reason Bolton no longer wants Trump to be president, it’s quite possible that Trump will no longer be president.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of a real Iran hawk whose lifelong mission has been to effect regime change in Tehran. Imagine that you’ve helped put the administration on a course that will lead almost inevitably to that outcome, but you were fired before you could see the job through. And, imagine that you know that the job cannot be done correctly with the country this divided and led by a certifiable moron who has squandered every shred of credibility both at home and abroad.
Imagine, too, that the immediate alternative to this moron is Mike Pence, a man who was instrumental in convincing Trump to authorize the assassination that put everything on an irreversible course. Can you trust him to see through the program of regime change? Would he have more credibility than Trump with Americans and our allies and the global audience? Wouldn’t it be far better if he were to oversee the next steps?
Trump, after all, is completely unreliable in most respects. Bolton couldn’t convince him to do basic things, like fund the Ukrainians or maintain support for the Kurds. He’s done so much damage to our alliances in the region that only replacing him can salvage our position there. Finally, many reports suggest that Trump soured on Bolton specifically because he was tired of being pushed to take a harder line on Iran.
So, is it necessarily surprising that Bolton would suddenly volunteer to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial?
When Bolton turned on Fox News on Monday night, he witnessed Sean Hannity demonstrating some inside knowledge about the president’s thinking:
“Sean Hannity opened his Fox show on Monday night, spouting off on Iran in a nearly 10-minute monologue full of bluster. But what was really interesting was the detail Hannity offered about the US’ strategy toward the regime. Hannity, for one, insisted that the US ‘won’t be going with boots on the ground in Iran. That’s not going to happen.’” “And then Hannity proceeded to list some targets the US might hit if Iran retaliates for the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.” Said Hannity: “They got three major oil refineries and we know where they are. They have nuclear facilities, we know where they are. We know Iran’s terrorist network—maybe even the mullah’s themselves.”
Everything seems to be in place to fulfill Bolton’s dream of a final confrontation with the regime that came to power by kidnapping and holding Americans hostage for 444 days. The only snag in the plan is that the country will never rally around a cause led by Trump.
It seems like the only thing to do now is put Pence in charge and things will be a “go.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-08--For Republicans, the Vilification of Enemies Is All That Matters

In the wake of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani , Donald Trump and his enablers have said a lot of ignorant things .
But during an appearance on Sean Hannity ’ s show , Nikki Haley installed herself at the top of the list .
It is both preposterous and offensive to suggest that Democrats are mourning the loss of Soleimani .
The issue that has been raised is that his assassination has made Americans less safe , especially those serving in the Middle East .
Given that one of the primary responsibilities of our federal government is to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and abroad , those are important concerns to voice .
Meghan McCain pulled something similar when she questioned the words that Elizabeth Warren used to describe Soleimani .
First of all , Soleimani is both a member of a group that has been classified as a terrorist organization and a senior foreign military official .
For McCain , he must be one or the other , because referring to him simply as a military official isn ’ t sufficiently demonizing .
Unless Warren uses the right words to describe him , she failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the time that Trump accused Democrats of supporting the MS-13 gang because they objected to his use of the word “ animals ” to describe undocumented immigrants .
It is also similar to those days when Republicans suggested that , unless Obama used the words “ radical Islam ” to describe ISIS , he wouldn ’ t be able to defeat them .
Finally , the same issue came up during a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on the topic of Benghazi .
Obama pulled a zinger and proved Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ terrorism ” to describe the attack in Benghazi .
But what if he hadn ’ t ?
Did the use of the word “ terrorism ” change the fact that four Americans died during the attack ?
Did it change how the administration responded ?
The answer to those questions is clearly , “ no.
” The truth is that , for too many Republicans , the only issue that matters is the vilification of enemies , which is demonstrated by the words we use to describe them .
If anyone fails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best , and potential traitors at worst .
What is eliminated from that kind of conversation is anything related to context or strategy .
It posits a black-and-white world where using the most incendiary words to describe an enemy indicates that you have taken the side of good against evil .
Under those circumstances , Trump doesn ’ t need to think through the ramifications of assassinating Suleimani .
All he needs is some chest-thumping about how he ’ s taken out a really bad guy and damn the consequences .
Somehow that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even as it puts American lives at risk .

In the wake of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Donald Trump and his enablers have said a lot of ignorant things. But during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s show, Nikki Haley installed herself at the top of the list.
It is both preposterous and offensive to suggest that Democrats are mourning the loss of Soleimani. The issue that has been raised is that his assassination has made Americans less safe, especially those serving in the Middle East. Given that one of the primary responsibilities of our federal government is to ensure the security of Americans both at home and abroad, those are important concerns to voice.
Meghan McCain pulled something similar when she questioned the words that Elizabeth Warren used to describe Soleimani.
First of all, Soleimani is both a member of a group that has been classified as a terrorist organization and a senior foreign military official. For McCain, he must be one or the other, because referring to him simply as a military official isn’t sufficiently demonizing. Unless Warren uses the right words to describe him, she failed the patriotism test.
This is reminiscent of the time that Trump accused Democrats of supporting the MS-13 gang because they objected to his use of the word “animals” to describe undocumented immigrants. It is also similar to those days when Republicans suggested that, unless Obama used the words “radical Islam” to describe ISIS, he wouldn’t be able to defeat them. Finally, the same issue came up during a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on the topic of Benghazi.
Obama pulled a zinger and proved Romney wrong: he had used the word “terrorism” to describe the attack in Benghazi. But what if he hadn’t? Did the use of the word “terrorism” change the fact that four Americans died during the attack? Did it change how the administration responded? The answer to those questions is clearly, “no.”
The truth is that, for too many Republicans, the only issue that matters is the vilification of enemies, which is demonstrated by the words we use to describe them. If anyone fails that test, they are unpatriotic at best, and potential traitors at worst.
What is eliminated from that kind of conversation is anything related to context or strategy. It posits a black-and-white world where using the most incendiary words to describe an enemy indicates that you have taken the side of good against evil. Under those circumstances, Trump doesn’t need to think through the ramifications of assassinating Suleimani. All he needs is some chest-thumping about how he’s taken out a really bad guy and damn the consequences. Somehow that kind of recklessness is never deemed unpatriotic, even as it puts American lives at risk.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-08--Do Democrats Need a Progressive to Excite the Base?

In December , former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich released a video arguing that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren represent the Democrats ’ best chance of beating Donald Trump in 2020 .
The Clinton alum ’ s reasoning was that only progressive candidates have the big ideas and grassroots energy necessary to drive high enough voter turnout to send Trump packing .
Michael Moore has made a similar argument .
The Democrats , he said , will win when they “ put somebody on that ballot that excites the base , ” which he doesn ’ t believe will support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On its face , the theory is appealing .
Sanders and Warren have impressive , small-donor driven fundraising totals ; they draw huge crowds at their events ; and they offer a strong contrast to Trump .
As a progressive who would love to see universal health care and higher taxes on the wealthy , I wish it were as easy as nominating the most progressive candidate .
But upon closer examination , this theory does not stand up to scrutiny .
Reich and Moore assume that enthusiasm for progressive policy ideas—or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory .
Yet history has shown that moderate Democrats generally fare better against Republicans than more progressive candidates .
Of course , no one can predict the future , but the smart money says that a moderate is more likely to beat Trump in 2020 .
Proponents who think a progressive excite the base more often mistake the visible enthusiasm of a candidates ’ supporters for widespread appeal .
It ’ s easy see photos of Sanders or Warren events , or their passionate social media followings , and assume they represent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 .
But crowd sizes and Facebook posts can be misleading .
The kind of voters who are more likely to be drawn to Sanders and Warren—younger and seeking revolutionary change—are the kind of people more likely to attend a rally or be prolific on social media .
Just because a candidate has large rallies , or a rabid social media following , doesn ’ t mean he or she has the largest base of support .
In a way , Bernie Sanders is a like semi-popular band whose loyal followers wrongly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared by others .
In fact , the numbers show that no matter how vocal progressives may be , the majority of Democratic voters as a whole are simply not that progressive .
According to the Pew Research Center , self-identified liberals make up 46 percent of the party while self-identified moderate or conservative Democrats represent 53 percent .
Democratic voters are largely united in shared priorities and big picture goals , but they are divided on the kind of policy proposals that distinguish candidates like Sanders and Warren from more moderate Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Gallup polling , 78 percent of Democrats or Democrat-leaning voters believe the federal government ’ s should ensure that all Americans have health insurance .
But further polling reveals that only 44 percent support a single government program .
In the current Democratic primary , both Sanders and Warren ( who support Medicare for All ) are trailing Joe Biden ( who doesn ’ t ) even though they each have twice as many individual donors .
If Reich and Moore ’ s theory was right , Sanders and Warren would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Denver professor and regular FiveThirtyEight contributor Seth Masket has explained , in an analysis based primarily on Congressional elections , “ moderate candidates simply tend to do better in general elections ” than more ideologically extreme candidates in either party .
A study of House races from 1980 to 2010 found that when a more progressive Democrat or conservative Republican narrowly defeated a moderate in a primary , that party ’ s probability of winning the general election decreases between 35 and 54 percent .
The 2018 midterms proved this to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats who flipped a seat blue was endorsed by the Sanders affiliated Our Revolution or Justice Democrats .
As Lanae Erickson of Third Way has explained , those candidates won by running on widely popular issues issues like “ reducing the cost of health care , raising wages and cleaning up corruption in Washington .
And the only two candidates who ran ads on single-payer health care in swing districts lost despite the Democratic wave.
” Most notably , for all the talk of how a Democratic nominee must drive voter turnout , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did so primarily by winning back votes rather than by turning out new voters .
According to the data firm Catalist , even though there were 14.4 million new voters in 2018 who supported Democrats by a 60 percent to percent margin , changing voter choice accounted for 4.5 percent of the 5.0 percent shift in Democrat ’ s favor from 2016 to 2018 .
In other words , Trump voters who supported Democrats in 2018 were 90 percent responsible for the blue wave while increased turnout was 10 percent responsible .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same path to success in 2020 ?
Of course , there is much less data for presidential elections than for House races , so it is risky to make assumptions about the former based on the latter .
As Masket notes , “ recent studies [ of presidential elections ] suggest that the role of ideology may be overstated there – partisans close ranks almost no matter who is the nominee.
” But he few data points we do have for recent presidential elections cut in favor of nominating a more moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a historic candidate in 2008 , but he wasn ’ t particularly progressive .
Nearly every Democrat in the 2020 race is running to the left of Obama .
Nor was Bill Clinton pushing the progressive boundaries when he beat incumbent George H.W .
Bush in 1992 .
Every election is different .
We can ’ t assume progressive candidates won ’ t succeed now because they haven ’ t before .
But if we are going to have the “ electability ” conversation , the truth must be told .
The bulk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midterm elections , makes the case that a moderate Democrat is best positioned to beat Trump .

In December, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich released a video arguing that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren represent the Democrats’ best chance of beating Donald Trump in 2020. The Clinton alum’s reasoning was that only progressive candidates have the big ideas and grassroots energy necessary to drive high enough voter turnout to send Trump packing. Michael Moore has made a similar argument. The Democrats, he said, will win when they “put somebody on that ballot that excites the base,” which he doesn’t believe will support “a centrist, moderate candidate.”
On its face, the theory is appealing. Sanders and Warren have impressive, small-donor driven fundraising totals; they draw huge crowds at their events; and they offer a strong contrast to Trump. As a progressive who would love to see universal health care and higher taxes on the wealthy, I wish it were as easy as nominating the most progressive candidate. But upon closer examination, this theory does not stand up to scrutiny.
Reich and Moore assume that enthusiasm for progressive policy ideas—or the candidates who promote them—will result in electoral victory. Yet history has shown that moderate Democrats generally fare better against Republicans than more progressive candidates. Of course, no one can predict the future, but the smart money says that a moderate is more likely to beat Trump in 2020.
Proponents who think a progressive excite the base more often mistake the visible enthusiasm of a candidates’ supporters for widespread appeal. It’s easy see photos of Sanders or Warren events, or their passionate social media followings, and assume they represent the party’s best chance of winning in 2020. But crowd sizes and Facebook posts can be misleading. The kind of voters who are more likely to be drawn to Sanders and Warren—younger and seeking revolutionary change—are the kind of people more likely to attend a rally or be prolific on social media. Just because a candidate has large rallies, or a rabid social media following, doesn’t mean he or she has the largest base of support. In a way, Bernie Sanders is a like semi-popular band whose loyal followers wrongly assume their own level of enthusiasm is shared by others.
In fact, the numbers show that no matter how vocal progressives may be, the majority of Democratic voters as a whole are simply not that progressive. According to the Pew Research Center, self-identified liberals make up 46 percent of the party while self-identified moderate or conservative Democrats represent 53 percent.
Democratic voters are largely united in shared priorities and big picture goals, but they are divided on the kind of policy proposals that distinguish candidates like Sanders and Warren from more moderate Democrats like Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar. According to Gallup polling, 78 percent of Democrats or Democrat-leaning voters believe the federal government’s should ensure that all Americans have health insurance. But further polling reveals that only 44 percent support a single government program.
In the current Democratic primary, both Sanders and Warren (who support Medicare for All) are trailing Joe Biden (who doesn’t) even though they each have twice as many individual donors. If Reich and Moore’s theory was right, Sanders and Warren would be crushing Biden today.
As University of Denver professor and regular FiveThirtyEight contributor Seth Masket has explained, in an analysis based primarily on Congressional elections, “moderate candidates simply tend to do better in general elections” than more ideologically extreme candidates in either party. A study of House races from 1980 to 2010 found that when a more progressive Democrat or conservative Republican narrowly defeated a moderate in a primary, that party’s probability of winning the general election decreases between 35 and 54 percent.
The 2018 midterms proved this to be true. Not one of the 41 Democrats who flipped a seat blue was endorsed by the Sanders affiliated Our Revolution or Justice Democrats. As Lanae Erickson of Third Way has explained, those candidates won by running on widely popular issues issues like “reducing the cost of health care, raising wages and cleaning up corruption in Washington. And the only two candidates who ran ads on single-payer health care in swing districts lost despite the Democratic wave.”
Most notably, for all the talk of how a Democratic nominee must drive voter turnout, the Democrats who flipped seats in 2018 did so primarily by winning back votes rather than by turning out new voters. According to the data firm Catalist, even though there were 14.4 million new voters in 2018 who supported Democrats by a 60 percent to percent margin, changing voter choice accounted for 4.5 percent of the 5.0 percent shift in Democrat’s favor from 2016 to 2018. In other words, Trump voters who supported Democrats in 2018 were 90 percent responsible for the blue wave while increased turnout was 10 percent responsible. Why shouldn’t Democrats try to follow the same path to success in 2020?
Of course, there is much less data for presidential elections than for House races, so it is risky to make assumptions about the former based on the latter. As Masket notes, “recent studies [of presidential elections] suggest that the role of ideology may be overstated there – partisans close ranks almost no matter who is the nominee.”
But the few data points we do have for recent presidential elections cut in favor of nominating a more moderate Democrat against Trump. Barack Obama was a historic candidate in 2008, but he wasn’t particularly progressive. Nearly every Democrat in the 2020 race is running to the left of Obama. Nor was Bill Clinton pushing the progressive boundaries when he beat incumbent George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Every election is different. We can’t assume progressive candidates won’t succeed now because they haven’t before. But if we are going to have the “electability” conversation, the truth must be told. The bulk of historical evidence, including the 2018 midterm elections, makes the case that a moderate Democrat is best positioned to beat Trump.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-08--Trump and His Enablers Celebrate a Pyrrhic Victory

After Iran launched missile attacks against military installations in Iraq on Tuesday night , Trump and his enablers decided to take a victory lap , claiming “ we won.
” For example , here is Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner : I was reminded of a quote from the famous Chinese military strategist , Sun Tzu : If you know the enemy and know yourself , you need not fear the result of a hundred battles .
If you know yourself but not the enemy , for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will succumb in every battle .
This president , who refers to himself as a “ stable genius , ” has demonstrated that he has zero self-awareness .
But with even an ounce of curiosity , one might wonder why Iran would choose to strike where their opponents were expecting an attack and were able to prepare for it .
The problem is that when your only tool is bullying through threats and violence , all that matters is the body count .
Under that scenario , the U.S. wins by taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strikes from Iran produced no casualties .
But if we step back from the body count , we can examine what else Iran achieved from this exchange .
Perhaps the most important is that it will probably lead to U.S. forces leaving Iraq .
Along those lines , take a look at this tweet from a senior advisor to Iran ’ s president : In addition , Iran has abandoned the limits on its nuclear program and the assassination of Soleimani has empowered Iranian hardliners by unifying opposing political factions in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation would take those outcomes into account .
It is also important to keep in mind that , based on Iran ’ s history , the country ’ s retaliation might not be over .
Yashar Ali points to some examples from the past to demonstrate that “ the Iranian gov sees revenge as almost a generational thing…their timeline can be in months/years .
Revenge always doesn ’ t come via a show of force they take PUBLIC credit for … So while POTUS is taking the off ramp , the Iranians will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want and when they want to do it.
” Since the end of World War II , most countries around the globe have concluded that conventional war with the United States would be disastrous .
It was the asymmetrical tactics employed in Vietnam and Iraq that kept this country mired in those seemingly forever wars .
Iran has worked to perfect the use of those asymmetrical tactics .
Even someone with a rudimentary understanding of the Middle East would be aware of Iran ’ s methods and history .
But knowing your enemy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump and his enablers .
While Iran lost an important military figure , they have also benefited from his assassination and are probably not done when it comes to seeking revenge against the U.S. Keep that in mind as Trump and his enablers celebrate a pyrrhic victory .

After Iran launched missile attacks against military installations in Iraq on Tuesday night, Trump and his enablers decided to take a victory lap, claiming “we won.” For example, here is Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner:
The early indications are that Iran blinked. The regime dramatically launched ballistic missiles toward U.S. troops and made a big show of it to the world, but it also chose targets where it knew Americans were expecting an attack and would be able to take preparations to reduce or avoid casualties.
I was reminded of a quote from the famous Chinese military strategist, Sun Tzu:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
This president, who refers to himself as a “stable genius,” has demonstrated that he has zero self-awareness. But with even an ounce of curiosity, one might wonder why Iran would choose to strike where their opponents were expecting an attack and were able to prepare for it.
The problem is that when your only tool is bullying through threats and violence, all that matters is the body count. Under that scenario, the U.S. wins by taking out a major military figure, while the strikes from Iran produced no casualties.
But if we step back from the body count, we can examine what else Iran achieved from this exchange. Perhaps the most important is that it will probably lead to U.S. forces leaving Iraq. Along those lines, take a look at this tweet from a senior advisor to Iran’s president:
In addition, Iran has abandoned the limits on its nuclear program and the assassination of Soleimani has empowered Iranian hardliners by unifying opposing political factions in the country. An honest assessment of the situation would take those outcomes into account.
It is also important to keep in mind that, based on Iran’s history, the country’s retaliation might not be over. Yashar Ali points to some examples from the past to demonstrate that “the Iranian gov sees revenge as almost a generational thing…their timeline can be in months/years. Revenge always doesn’t come via a show of force they take PUBLIC credit for … So while POTUS is taking the off ramp, the Iranians will sit and wait and do what they want and when they want to do it.”
Since the end of World War II, most countries around the globe have concluded that conventional war with the United States would be disastrous. It was the asymmetrical tactics employed in Vietnam and Iraq that kept this country mired in those seemingly forever wars. Iran has worked to perfect the use of those asymmetrical tactics.
Even someone with a rudimentary understanding of the Middle East would be aware of Iran’s methods and history. But knowing your enemy seems to be above the pay grade of Trump and his enablers. While Iran lost an important military figure, they have also benefited from his assassination and are probably not done when it comes to seeking revenge against the U.S.
Keep that in mind as Trump and his enablers celebrate a pyrrhic victory.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-08--Conservatism Is White Identity Politics

Conservatism Is White Identity Politics

It ’ s amusing to watch Jonah Goldberg use the No True Scotsman fallacy to defend true conservatism .
In a recent piece he argued that conservatives were succumbing to it .
Be that as it may , it ’ s still somewhat refreshing to see Goldberg pleading with Republicans to have some respect for the concept of honesty .
I struggle when I read these thought pieces by conservative commentators that are intended for strictly conservative audiences .
It requires me to enter into their bubble of alternative facts , and I find it frustrating to have to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I can follow along .
It ’ s an article of faith on the right that the Democrats are hopelessly wedded to identity politics and that conservatives don ’ t care what color anybody is because they ’ re all about principles .
This is Goldberg ’ s starting point , but what concerns him is that too many conservatives are beginning to act in a tribal manner with respect to Donald Trump .
He ’ s careful to say that he expects officeholders to be partisan and dishonest , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a higher standard .
The most obvious problem here is that the Republican Party has long been a party that identifies with America ’ s majority race and majority religion .
This is the reason that the Republican base spends their evenings flipping between Fox News and reruns of The Andy Griffith Show .
They want a return to a world where other races and religions are invisible .
So , Trump ’ s white nationalism is less an innovation than the same old thing with a few examination points thrown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on display with Trump is not really all about him .
It ’ s more about the joy that comes with gaining the freedom to be openly tribal as a white person .
Trumpism is identity politics for whites , and the undisguised racism is what makes it so appealing and pleasurable to folks who are tired of walking on eggshells .
Democrats certainly seek to represent people on the basis of their identity , but Latinos did not automatically support Julian Castro ’ s candidacy .
Blacks did not flock to Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran campaigns based on policies , only some of which were of special interest to Latinos or blacks .
In most examples , those policies are the consensus view of most Democrats , including the white presidential candidates .
It ’ s only the GOP that is based almost entirely on identify at the moment , and that ’ s because Trumpism has no consistent ideology aside from pro-whiteness .
Goldberg complains that his conservative colleagues sound like idiots when they say , “ Shut up … Trump is a hero for wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he ’ s a hero for being willing to get us into another one.
” He ’ s right , they do sound incoherent .
But ideology is not what binds people to Trump , or conservatives to each other .
Goldberg thinks things have changed under Trump ’ s leadership , but they ’ ve really just become clearer and more explicit .
The GOP is a party for white people—and who want an America for white people .
This isn ’ t new at all , but this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been offered the unvarnished version .
They don ’ t care if the Republicans remain the party of Wall Street and globalization and ownership just so long as it continues to pursue white nationalism in its messaging and its immigration policies .
A couple of days after Trump was elected , I called this the Southification of the North .
But another way of putting it is that the South took over the GOP and then took its message countrywide .
In the Deep South , there is a party for whites and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been that way since the Civil War .
Before 2016 , that ’ s not how the people in the other parts of the country looked at the two parties .
There are a lot of people in the Republican Party who still don ’ t want to look at politics in this way .
I ’ m glad that Goldberg is one of them .
But he ’ s basically saying that No True Conservative would eschew all their values and their respect for the truth in pursuit of racist ideals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a fallacy and has been a fallacy with respect to the Conservative Movement from the very beginning .

It’s amusing to watch Jonah Goldberg use the No True Scotsman fallacy to defend true conservatism. In a recent piece he argued that conservatives were succumbing to it. Be that as it may, it’s still somewhat refreshing to see Goldberg pleading with Republicans to have some respect for the concept of honesty.
I struggle when I read these thought pieces by conservative commentators that are intended for strictly conservative audiences. It requires me to enter into their bubble of alternative facts, and I find it frustrating to have to accept the things they take for granted just so I can follow along.
It’s an article of faith on the right that the Democrats are hopelessly wedded to identity politics and that conservatives don’t care what color anybody is because they’re all about principles. This is Goldberg’s starting point, but what concerns him is that too many conservatives are beginning to act in a tribal manner with respect to Donald Trump. He’s careful to say that he expects officeholders to be partisan and dishonest, but he’d like to hold everyone else to a higher standard.
The most obvious problem here is that the Republican Party has long been a party that identifies with America’s majority race and majority religion. This is the reason that the Republican base spends their evenings flipping between Fox News and reruns of The Andy Griffith Show. They want a return to a world where other races and religions are invisible. So, Trump’s white nationalism is less an innovation than the same old thing with a few exclamation points thrown in for flair. Likewise, the tribalism on display with Trump is not really all about him. It’s more about the joy that comes with gaining the freedom to be openly tribal as a white person. Trumpism is identity politics for whites, and the undisguised racism is what makes it so appealing and pleasurable to folks who are tired of walking on eggshells.
Democrats certainly seek to represent people on the basis of their identity, but Latinos did not automatically support Julian Castro’s candidacy. Blacks did not flock to Kamala Harris or Cory Booker. Those politicians ran campaigns based on policies, only some of which were of special interest to Latinos or blacks. In most examples, those policies are the consensus view of most Democrats, including the white presidential candidates. It’s only the GOP that is based almost entirely on identify at the moment, and that’s because Trumpism has no consistent ideology aside from pro-whiteness.
Goldberg complains that his conservative colleagues sound like idiots when they say, “Shut up … Trump is a hero for wanting to get out of endless wars, and he’s a hero for being willing to get us into another one.” He’s right, they do sound incoherent. But ideology is not what binds people to Trump, or conservatives to each other.
Goldberg thinks things have changed under Trump’s leadership, but they’ve really just become clearer and more explicit. The GOP is a party for white people—and who want an America for white people. This isn’t new at all, but this is the first time these “deplorables” have been offered the unvarnished version. They don’t care if the Republicans remain the party of Wall Street and globalization and ownership just so long as it continues to pursue white nationalism in its messaging and its immigration policies.
A couple of days after Trump was elected, I called this the Southification of the North. But another way of putting it is that the South took over the GOP and then took its message countrywide. In the Deep South, there is a party for whites and a party for blacks. It’s been that way since the Civil War. Before 2016, that’s not how the people in the other parts of the country looked at the two parties. There are a lot of people in the Republican Party who still don’t want to look at politics in this way. I’m glad that Goldberg is one of them.
But he’s basically saying that No True Conservative would eschew all their values and their respect for the truth in pursuit of racist ideals. The problem is: That’s a fallacy and has been a fallacy with respect to the Conservative Movement from the very beginning.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-09--Democrats Fight Back Against Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression

The redistricting process in Texas after the 2000 census produced a captivating drama .
Eleven state senators fled to New Mexico in order to deny Republicans a quorum .
The Democrats escaped from Austin , a 641-mile trip , after learning that Republican leaders were planning to force them into a vote on redrawing Congressional districts in the Republicans ’ favor… A similar redistricting impasse occurred in May in the Texas House , when at least 50 Democratic members escaped to Ardmore , Okla. , 30 miles north of the Texas border , for four days , scuttling the majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Texas Rangers gave chase , and federal domestic security officials were enlisted to track down a private plane that took some of the lawmakers to Oklahoma… The Democrats in exile appear convinced that redistricting is being orchestrated by Republican leaders in Washington , particularly the House majority leader , Representative Tom DeLay , a Texan , as part of a plan to increase their power base so Republicans will retain a firm hold on power far into the future .
The efforts of the so-called “ Texas Eleven ” were ultimately unsuccessful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional districts .
The convolution , especially around urban areas and the southern part of the state , are pretty obvious .
That gerrymander resulted in Republicans gaining four seats in the House of Representatives , so it was a wildly successful effort by former Representative Tom Delay and his cohorts .
When we talk about the success of Republicans in gaining legislative majorities at both the state and national level , it is impossible to overstate the role that gerrymandering has played in that process .
In an effort to fight back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census , Eric Holder and Barack Obama have teamed up to create the organization All On the Line .
Here is how Obama described their goals .
With maps that deliver on the promise of equal representation , our political leaders will be forced to actually prioritize the will and well-being of the American people on the most pressing issues of our time .
Think about how different that would look than what we ’ ve seen recently : * Political ideologues who ’ ve spent eight years obsessed with repealing the Affordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , life-saving protections for pre-existing conditions .
* Washington politicians who ’ ve refused to acknowledge even the basic science of climate change—let alone the ever-growing majority of Americans demanding action to address this urgent crisis—and handed over policymaking to big oil and big polluters .
* Elected officials in the pocket of the gun lobby who ’ ve blocked common-sense gun laws in the midst of a uniquely American epidemic .
We ’ re talking about measures supported by 70 percent , 80 percent , 90 percent of voters that would prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even get a vote .
* We ’ ve even seen Republican lawmakers in heavily-gerrymandered states like Wisconsin , Michigan , and North Carolina write legislation to strip power from Democratic governors immediately after voters turned out in big numbers to elect them .
Because redistricting happens at the state level , this is a grassroots effort specifically targeted at 10 “ swing ” states : Arizona , Colorado , Florida , Georgia , Michigan , North Carolina , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Texas , and Wisconsin .
Of course , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their power is voter suppression .
On Wednesday , the DCCC and the DSCC announced that they are investing millions of dollars to fight those efforts in battleground states .
For example : The DCCC and DSCC are suing to overturn laws in North Carolina , Georgia , Texas , and Florida that have erected barriers to voting for targeted Democratic constituencies including voters of color .
* In North Carolina , the committees successfully challenged Republicans ’ decision to eliminate early voting on the final Saturday of the early voting period .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican controlled North Carolina legislature reversed course and reinstated the early voting day they previously eliminated .
* In Georgia , the committees are challenging the high rate of rejected ballots—a likely result of a lengthy , confusing ballot that scores low on readability .
We have also targeted Georgia ’ s signature match process that currently allows election officials to throw out ballots for no lawful reason .
* In Texas , the committees are challenging the state ’ s effective ban on mobile polling locations by requiring them to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay open for the same number of days as the main early voting location in the county .
* The committees , along with the DNC are also supporting continued litigation regarding Florida ’ s signature matching requirement for vote by mail and provisional voters .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats did their part a few months ago by passing the “ For the People Act , ” which included electoral reforms that would resolve these structural issues .
But of course , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to take up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was merely a Democratic power grab .
As has been pointed out occasionally during the Democratic primary , these kinds of structural reforms are necessary for any of the plans proposed by candidates to be considered .
Unless and until they can be passed legislatively , it is up to efforts like these to get the job done .

The redistricting process in Texas after the 2000 census produced a captivating drama. Eleven state senators fled to New Mexico in order to deny Republicans a quorum.
The Democrats escaped from Austin, a 641-mile trip, after learning that Republican leaders were planning to force them into a vote on redrawing Congressional districts in the Republicans’ favor… A similar redistricting impasse occurred in May in the Texas House, when at least 50 Democratic members escaped to Ardmore, Okla., 30 miles north of the Texas border, for four days, scuttling the majority’s plans. That time, the Texas Rangers gave chase, and federal domestic security officials were enlisted to track down a private plane that took some of the lawmakers to Oklahoma… The Democrats in exile appear convinced that redistricting is being orchestrated by Republican leaders in Washington, particularly the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, a Texan, as part of a plan to increase their power base so Republicans will retain a firm hold on power far into the future.
The efforts of the so-called “Texas Eleven” were ultimately unsuccessful and Republicans passed their gerrymandered map of congressional districts. The convolution, especially around urban areas and the southern part of the state, are pretty obvious.
That gerrymander resulted in Republicans gaining four seats in the House of Representatives, so it was a wildly successful effort by former Representative Tom Delay and his cohorts. When we talk about the success of Republicans in gaining legislative majorities at both the state and national level, it is impossible to overstate the role that gerrymandering has played in that process.
In an effort to fight back against that happening again following the 2010 census, Eric Holder and Barack Obama have teamed up to create the organization All On the Line. Here is how Obama described their goals.
With maps that deliver on the promise of equal representation, our political leaders will be forced to actually prioritize the will and well-being of the American people on the most pressing issues of our time. Think about how different that would look than what we’ve seen recently: * Political ideologues who’ve spent eight years obsessed with repealing the Affordable Care Act and undermining its overwhelmingly popular, life-saving protections for pre-existing conditions. * Washington politicians who’ve refused to acknowledge even the basic science of climate change—let alone the ever-growing majority of Americans demanding action to address this urgent crisis—and handed over policymaking to big oil and big polluters. * Elected officials in the pocket of the gun lobby who’ve blocked common-sense gun laws in the midst of a uniquely American epidemic. We’re talking about measures supported by 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent of voters that would prevent tragedies, and they often can’t even get a vote. * We’ve even seen Republican lawmakers in heavily-gerrymandered states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina write legislation to strip power from Democratic governors immediately after voters turned out in big numbers to elect them.
Because redistricting happens at the state level, this is a grassroots effort specifically targeted at 10 “swing” states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Of course, the other method Republicans have used to maintain their power is voter suppression. On Wednesday, the DCCC and the DSCC announced that they are investing millions of dollars to fight those efforts in battleground states. For example:
The DCCC and DSCC are suing to overturn laws in North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Florida that have erected barriers to voting for targeted Democratic constituencies including voters of color. * In North Carolina, the committees successfully challenged Republicans’ decision to eliminate early voting on the final Saturday of the early voting period. Within days of filing the suit, the Republican controlled North Carolina legislature reversed course and reinstated the early voting day they previously eliminated. * In Georgia, the committees are challenging the high rate of rejected ballots—a likely result of a lengthy, confusing ballot that scores low on readability. We have also targeted Georgia’s signature match process that currently allows election officials to throw out ballots for no lawful reason. * In Texas, the committees are challenging the state’s effective ban on mobile polling locations by requiring them to remain open for eight hours each day and stay open for the same number of days as the main early voting location in the county. * The committees, along with the DNC are also supporting continued litigation regarding Florida’s signature matching requirement for vote by mail and provisional voters.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats did their part a few months ago by passing the “For the People Act,” which included electoral reforms that would resolve these structural issues. But of course, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to take up the bill in the Senate, suggesting that it was merely a Democratic power grab.
As has been pointed out occasionally during the Democratic primary, these kinds of structural reforms are necessary for any of the plans proposed by candidates to be considered. Unless and until they can be passed legislatively, it is up to efforts like these to get the job done.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-09--The U.S. Cannot Finance Medicare for All

Medicare for All remains the most contentious and consequential issue for 2020 Democrats .
It ’ s easy to see why .
A large majority of Democrats—and a slimmer majority of Independents—have said they approve of it .
But even larger majorities of Democrats and Independents also want to keep their private coverage or enroll in a public program .
Then there ’ s the cost : A recent poll of 3,000 Democrats in Michigan found that only 18 percent of single-payer supporters would be willing to pay as much as 10 percent more taxes for Medicare for All .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or most of the costs with new types of taxes of individual wealth and corporations , but no one knows how those taxes will work until they ’ re tried .
Bernie Sanders hasn ’ t shared any specific plans to pay for his proposal .
Instead , he ’ s promised that the super wealthy will bear most of the burden and the benefits for middle-class Americans will outweigh some modest , if unavoidable , tax increases .
We can test Senator Sanders ’ s proposition by determining how much revenues Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on wealthy people , corporations , and middle-class families .
The results show that tax hikes on corporations and rich Americans would cover less than one-quarter of MFA ’ s expected costs .
Moreover , even large tax increases on everyone ( i.e .
50 percent of their income ) simply won ’ t be enough to fund what Sanders has promised .
According to the Urban Institute , the Sanders plan would cost $ 40 trillion over 10 years ( 2022-2031 ) .
A more conservative estimate by the Mercatus Center at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at $ 32 trillion .
The challenge , then , is how to cover costs averaging $ 3.2 trillion to $ 4.0 trillion per-year .
But here ’ s the hitch : It doesn ’ t matter whether we define the wealthy as the top 0.1 percent , the top 1 percent , or even the top 5 percent of Americans .
Hiking their income taxes by 50 percent would cover , at most , a small fraction of MFA ’ s costs .
Those calculations start with the most recent Internal Revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for increases in income since then .
On this basis , the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers will pay $ 310 billion in income taxes in 2020 .
Increasing their income tax burden 50 percent would raise an additional $ 155 billion , which is less than four or five percent of MFA ’ s average annual cost .
( For an account of how these and other estimates were derived , see this underlying study . )
If you expand the definition of the wealthy to include the top 1 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes would raise $ 312 billion in 2020 .
Ease up more to cover the top 5 percent of taxpayers—everyone earning $ 250,000 or more a year—and the 50 percent tax increase would raise $ 489 billion in 2020 .
Those revenues cover 12 or 15 percent of MFA ’ s annual cost .
Sanders also calls for new taxes on corporations .
The Congressional Budget Office ( CBO ) estimates that corporations will pay $ 245 billion in federal income taxes in 2020 , so if Congress doubled the revenues fromcorporate taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 245 billion .
Add that to the new funds from a 50 percent tax hike for the top five percent of Americans , and this approach could bring in , at most , $ 734 billion in 2020—sufficient to cover at most 23 percent of MFA ’ s average annual cost .
The difficulty lies in the sheer scale of the challenge .
Under current law , Medicare will cover 62.1 million people in 2020 .
MFA would add the 196.3 million Americans now privately insured and another 31.4 million people without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to find a way to pay for adding 228 million people to the Medicare rolls .
Dramatic increases in everyone ’ s taxesaren ’ t enough .
Based on CBO revenue projections , adjusted for the 2022 to 2031 timeframe used by the Urban Institute and the Mercatus Center , the Treasury will collect an average of $ 1,668 billion per-year in payroll taxes , $ 2,597 billion per-year in personal income taxes , and $ 395 billion per-year in corporate taxes over that period .
So , if Congress raised everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 percent and doubled the federal corporate tax , it would raise $ 2,378 billion over the next decade .
That would only cover about 60 percent or 74 percent of MFA ’ s costs .
This funding challenge is even worse , because these revenue estimates are unrealistically high .
They do not take account of how much higher payroll taxes could dampen employment and wages .
They do not consider how much higher income and payroll taxes could reduce the incentive to work among part-time workers .
The estimates also ignore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could shift more of their operations to lower-tax countries when faced with a doubling of U.S. corporate taxes , The idea of Medicare for All has powerful appeal .
It promises to both achieve universal coverage and provide truly equal healthcare to everyone .
But its reality carries an equally powerful cost : Paying for it would crush most taxpayers and businesses , and overwhelm the U.S. tax system .
Sad to say , it ’ s a policy equivalent of the Venus Flytrap , drawing people in and then eating them alive @ @

Medicare for All remains the most contentious and consequential issue for 2020 Democrats. It’s easy to see why. A large majority of Democrats—and a slimmer majority of Independents—have said they approve of it. But even larger majorities of Democrats and Independents also want to keep their private coverage or enroll in a public program. Then there’s the cost: A recent poll of 3,000 Democrats in Michigan found that only 18 percent of single-payer supporters would be willing to pay as much as 10 percent more taxes for Medicare for All.
Elizabeth Warren says she can cover all or most of the costs with new types of taxes of individual wealth and corporations, but no one knows how those taxes will work until they’re tried. Bernie Sanders hasn’t shared any specific plans to pay for his proposal. Instead, he’s promised that the super wealthy will bear most of the burden and the benefits for middle-class Americans will outweigh some modest, if unavoidable, tax increases.
We can test Senator Sanders’s proposition by determining how much revenues Congress could raise by dramatically raising current taxes on wealthy people, corporations, and middle-class families. The results show that tax hikes on corporations and rich Americans would cover less than one-quarter of MFA’s expected costs. Moreover, even large tax increases on everyone (i.e. 50 percent hikes on income and payroll taxes) simply won’t be enough to fund what Sanders has promised.
According to the Urban Institute, the Sanders plan would cost $40 trillion over 10 years (2022-2031). A more conservative estimate by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University sets the 10-year cost at $32 trillion. The challenge, then, is how to cover costs averaging $3.2 trillion to $4.0 trillion per-year. But here’s the hitch: It doesn’t matter whether we define the wealthy as the top 0.1 percent, the top 1 percent, or even the top 5 percent of Americans. Hiking their income taxes by 50 percent would cover, at most, a small fraction of MFA’s costs.
Those calculations start with the most recent Internal Revenue Service data (2016), adjusted for increases in income since then. On this basis, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers will pay $310 billion in income taxes in 2020. Increasing their income tax burden 50 percent would raise an additional $155 billion, which is less than four or five percent of MFA’s average annual cost. (For an account of how these and other estimates were derived, see this underlying study.)
If you expand the definition of the wealthy to include the top 1 percent, a 50 percent hike in their income taxes would raise $312 billion in 2020. Ease up more to cover the top 5 percent of taxpayers—everyone earning $250,000 or more a year—and the 50 percent tax increase would raise $489 billion in 2020. Those revenues cover 12 or 15 percent of MFA’s annual cost.
Sanders also calls for new taxes on corporations. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that corporations will pay $245 billion in federal income taxes in 2020, so if Congress doubled the revenues from corporate taxes, it would raise at most another $245 billion. Add that to the new funds from a 50 percent tax hike for the top five percent of Americans, and this approach could bring in, at most, $734 billion in 2020—sufficient to cover at most 23 percent of MFA’s average annual cost.
The difficulty lies in the sheer scale of the challenge. Under current law, Medicare will cover 62.1 million people in 2020. MFA would add the 196.3 million Americans now privately insured and another 31.4 million people without public or private group coverage. Sanders has to find a way to pay for adding 228 million people to the Medicare rolls.
Dramatic increases in everyone’s taxes aren’t enough. Based on CBO revenue projections, adjusted for the 2022 to 2031 timeframe used by the Urban Institute and the Mercatus Center, the Treasury will collect an average of $1,668 billion per-year in payroll taxes, $2,597 billion per-year in personal income taxes, and $395 billion per-year in corporate taxes over that period.
So, if Congress raised everybody’s income and payroll taxes by 50 percent and doubled the federal corporate tax, it would raise $2,378 billion per-year over the next decade. That would only cover about 60 percent or 74 percent of MFA’s costs.
This funding challenge is even worse, because these revenue estimates are unrealistically high. They do not take account of how much higher payroll taxes could dampen employment and wages. They do not consider how much higher income and payroll taxes could reduce the incentive to work among part-time workers. The estimates also ignore the prospect that many large American companies could shift more of their operations to lower-tax countries when faced with a doubling of U.S. corporate taxes,
The idea of Medicare for All has powerful appeal. It promises to both achieve universal coverage and provide truly equal healthcare to everyone. But its reality carries an equally powerful cost: Paying for it would crush most taxpayers and businesses, and overwhelm the U.S. tax system. Sad to say, it’s a policy equivalent of the Venus Flytrap, drawing people in and then eating them alive financially.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-09--During Iran Speech, Trump Demonstrated That He Is Not Well

Following Trump ’ s speech about Iran on Wednesday , reactions were pretty typical .
One of the president ’ s chief enablers , Lindsey Graham , compared it to a famous speech by another Republican president .
On the other side of the divide , liberals were outraged that Trump blamed former President Obama for the missiles launched by Iran .
As has become common in the Trump era , the fact-checkers had their work cut out for them .
The Washington Post identified at least seven misleading statements from the president during a nine minute speech .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president said .
But anyone who actually watched the speech would have noticed the proverbial elephant in the room that isn ’ t being talked about .
Anyone who has watched Trump speak over the last couple of years has noticed these things .
The Daily Show even put together a compilation of Trump ’ s habit of mispronouncing words .
But Wednesday ’ s speech was on a whole new level .
Initially , the president seemed out of breath—as if he had arrived at the microphone after completing a morning jog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving the appearance of having no investment in the words he was reading from the teleprompter .
There was a heaviness to his delivery , as if he was struggling to talk through cottonmouth .
He particularly struggled with the letter “ s ” and was unable to pronounce words like “ tolerated ” and “ accomplishments.
” Finally , tracking something that has become common in Trump ’ s speeches , Timothy Burke documented that he snorted 58 times during those nine minutes .
In case anyone is tempted to suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is helpful to go back to interviews he ’ s done in the past and notice that , while his positions might be similar , his speech patterns have seriously digressed .
For example , here he is talking to Oprah in 1988 .
While it would be inappropriate to speculate about a diagnosis for these symptoms , it is equally problematic to simply ignore them .
There is something physically wrong with this president and , especially given the circumstances of an escalation of tensions with a foreign adversary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know about the physical health of the commander-in-chief .
Early on in Trump ’ s presidency , I made the case that it is important for us to talk about the obvious signs pointing to his mental health issues .
At the time , I referred to a quote from Lee Siegel .
We don ’ t need to be told by a doctor that the guy who is coughing and sneezing at the other end of the train car is probably sick , though we don ’ t know if it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pneumonia , or an allergy .
All we know is that the safe thing to do is to stay away from him .
When someone is compulsively lying , continuously contradicting himself , imploring the approval of people even as he is attacking them , exalting people one day and abusing and vilifying them the next , then the question of his mental state is moot .
The safe thing to do is not just to stay away from him , but to keep him away from situations where he can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been primarily conservative NeverTrumpers who have been willing to talk openly about this president ’ s mental state .
We ’ re now in a place where Siegel ’ s analogy about someone who is physically sick is staring us right in the face .
Though we don ’ t know the diagnosis , we have a president who is 73 years old , was recently rushed to the hospital , and gave conflicting reasons for the visit .
Given what we witnessed on Wednesday , it is time for journalists to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and begin to name the elephant in the room that is obvious to anyone who is actually paying attention .
This president is not well .

Following Trump’s speech about Iran on Wednesday, reactions were pretty typical. One of the president’s chief enablers, Lindsey Graham, compared it to a famous speech by another Republican president.
On the other side of the divide, liberals were outraged that Trump blamed former President Obama for the missiles launched by Iran.
As has become common in the Trump era, the fact-checkers had their work cut out for them. The Washington Post identified at least seven misleading statements from the president during a nine minute speech.
All of that was based on what the president said. But anyone who actually watched the speech would have noticed the proverbial elephant in the room that isn’t being talked about.
Anyone who has watched Trump speak over the last couple of years has noticed these things. The Daily Show even put together a compilation of Trump’s habit of mispronouncing words.
But Wednesday’s speech was on a whole new level. Initially, the president seemed out of breath—as if he had arrived at the microphone after completing a morning jog. His affect was completely flat, giving the appearance of having no investment in the words he was reading from the teleprompter. There was a heaviness to his delivery, as if he was struggling to talk through cottonmouth. He particularly struggled with the letter “s” and was unable to pronounce words like “tolerated” and “accomplishments.” Finally, tracking something that has become common in Trump’s speeches, Timothy Burke documented that he snorted 58 times during those nine minutes.
In case anyone is tempted to suggest that this is simply the way Trump talks, it is helpful to go back to interviews he’s done in the past and notice that, while his positions might be similar, his speech patterns have seriously digressed. For example, here he is talking to Oprah in 1988.
While it would be inappropriate to speculate about a diagnosis for these symptoms, it is equally problematic to simply ignore them. There is something physically wrong with this president and, especially given the circumstances of an escalation of tensions with a foreign adversary, the American public has a right to know about the physical health of the commander-in-chief.
Early on in Trump’s presidency, I made the case that it is important for us to talk about the obvious signs pointing to his mental health issues. At the time, I referred to a quote from Lee Siegel.
We don’t need to be told by a doctor that the guy who is coughing and sneezing at the other end of the train car is probably sick, though we don’t know if it is a cold, the flu, bronchitis, pneumonia, or an allergy. All we know is that the safe thing to do is to stay away from him. When someone is compulsively lying, continuously contradicting himself, imploring the approval of people even as he is attacking them, exalting people one day and abusing and vilifying them the next, then the question of his mental state is moot. The safe thing to do is not just to stay away from him, but to keep him away from situations where he can do harm.
Since then, it has been primarily conservative NeverTrumpers who have been willing to talk openly about this president’s mental state. We’re now in a place where Siegel’s analogy about someone who is physically sick is staring us right in the face. Though we don’t know the diagnosis, we have a president who is 73 years old, was recently rushed to the hospital, and gave conflicting reasons for the visit.
Given what we witnessed on Wednesday, it is time for journalists to go beyond covering the words of this president and begin to name the elephant in the room that is obvious to anyone who is actually paying attention. This president is not well.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-09--How Far Will the GOP Go to Avert Defeat in 2020?

Steve Innskeep ’ s column in the New York Times on Thursday is resonant of the piece I wrote on Wednesday on the conservative movement being identity politics for white people , but it comes with an additional warning .
Innskeep recently wrote a book on John C. Frémont , the Republican Party ’ s 1856 candidate for president .
In his article , he warns that the country is in much the same place today as it was then .
Progressives—and Republicans then were the more progressive party—confidently expected that population changes would help them win without having to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proslavery Democrats—vowed to wreck the system if they could not reinforce it against the change they dreaded .
Fear prevailed over demographics in 1856 .
A Democrat won the election : James Buchanan , a Northerner strongly tied to Southern interests… …Republicans persisted through another election , trying again in 1860 to win the presidency with Northern votes alone .
This time their demographic gamble succeeded as their nominee , Abraham Lincoln , prevailed against divided opposition .
Southerners followed through on their threat to destroy the system , firing the first shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Looking at the similarities , Innskeep says : The mistake conservatives are making is thinking that they can thwart the natural movement of history by putting their finger in a dam .
The mistake progressives may be making is in thinking that they can win this battle simply by waiting the conservatives out and getting the demographic electoral victory everyone knows is coming .
For now , the conservatives are “ wrecking the system ” in myriad ways , including changing congressional rules , extreme gerrymandering , aggressive disenfranchisement efforts , disempowering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stacking the courts , and seeking foreign assistance .
They ’ ve even attacked democracy within their own party by preventing challengers to Trump from appearing on ballots in their primaries or even eliminating primaries and caucuses entirely .
Kansas , Alaska , South Carolina , Arizona , and Nevada have all canceled their Republican primaries/caucuses in order to throw their support fully behind President Donald Trump , citing the arguably unnecessary costs a primary election would entail when nearly 90 percent of the party approves of his presidency .
“ With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s record of results , the decision was made to save South Carolina taxpayers over $ 1.2 million and forgo an unnecessary primary , ” said South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick in a statement announcing his party ’ s decision .
In Trump , the conservatives have their “ Northerner strongly tied to Southern interests , ” and they ’ re not interested in having anyone from within threaten his renomination .
But there is still something missing in this comparison between the elections of 1856 and 2020 , right ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t trying to abolish slavery .
They ’ re not trying to add new states to the Union that will give them some decisive political advantage .
So , what exactly are the conservatives so panicked about that they ’ ll blow everything up rather than accept the risk of defeat ?
In reality , it ’ s the same thing most white Southerners were freaking out about in the 1850s .
The average white Southerner didn ’ t own any slaves and wasn ’ t exactly advantaged by having to compete with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what blacks would do to whites if they came to power , and they didn ’ t want to lose their privileged racial position under the law .
It ’ s not slavery that is driving conservatives now , but fear of demographic change and the loss of power and privilege .
In the 19th century , they did not accept electoral defeat and chose civil war instead .
In the 21st century , their first line of defense is to rig the elections by any means available .
But if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grave difficulties accepting the outcome .
We ’ ve already seen that they will defend the president against charges of seeking foreign interference .
How much further will they go to prevent “ losing for all time ” ?

Steve Innskeep’s column in the New York Times on Thursday is resonant of the piece I wrote on Wednesday on the conservative movement being identity politics for white people, but it comes with an additional warning. Innskeep recently wrote a book on John C. Frémont, the Republican Party’s 1856 candidate for president. In his article, he warns that the country is in much the same place today as it was then.
Progressives—and Republicans then were the more progressive party—confidently expected that population changes would help them win without having to compromise with conservatives. Conservatives—who then were proslavery Democrats—vowed to wreck the system if they could not reinforce it against the change they dreaded. Fear prevailed over demographics in 1856. A Democrat won the election: James Buchanan, a Northerner strongly tied to Southern interests… …Republicans persisted through another election, trying again in 1860 to win the presidency with Northern votes alone. This time their demographic gamble succeeded as their nominee, Abraham Lincoln, prevailed against divided opposition. Southerners followed through on their threat to destroy the system, firing the first shot of the Civil War in 1861.
Looking at the similarities, Innskeep says:
What are lessons for 2020? Expect a terrifying year. What drives Americans to extremes is not losing an election but the fear of losing for all time.
The mistake conservatives are making is thinking that they can thwart the natural movement of history by putting their finger in a dam. The mistake progressives may be making is in thinking that they can win this battle simply by waiting the conservatives out and getting the demographic electoral victory everyone knows is coming.
For now, the conservatives are “wrecking the system” in myriad ways, including changing congressional rules, extreme gerrymandering, aggressive disenfranchisement efforts, disempowering the Federal Election Commission and campaign finance laws, stacking the courts, and seeking foreign assistance. They’ve even attacked democracy within their own party by preventing challengers to Trump from appearing on ballots in their primaries or even eliminating primaries and caucuses entirely.
Kansas, Alaska, South Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada have all canceled their Republican primaries/caucuses in order to throw their support fully behind President Donald Trump, citing the arguably unnecessary costs a primary election would entail when nearly 90 percent of the party approves of his presidency. “With no legitimate primary challenger and President Trump’s record of results, the decision was made to save South Carolina taxpayers over $1.2 million and forgo an unnecessary primary,” said South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick in a statement announcing his party’s decision.
In Trump, the conservatives have their “Northerner strongly tied to Southern interests,” and they’re not interested in having anyone from within threaten his renomination.
But there is still something missing in this comparison between the elections of 1856 and 2020, right? After all, the progressives aren’t trying to abolish slavery. They’re not trying to add new states to the Union that will give them some decisive political advantage. So, what exactly are the conservatives so panicked about that they’ll blow everything up rather than accept the risk of defeat?
In reality, it’s the same thing most white Southerners were freaking out about in the 1850s. The average white Southerner didn’t own any slaves and wasn’t exactly advantaged by having to compete with free labor. But they were afraid of what blacks would do to whites if they came to power, and they didn’t want to lose their privileged racial position under the law.
It’s not slavery that is driving conservatives now, but fear of demographic change and the loss of power and privilege. In the 19th century, they did not accept electoral defeat and chose civil war instead. In the 21st century, their first line of defense is to rig the elections by any means available. But if that fails in 2020, they will have grave difficulties accepting the outcome.
We’ve already seen that they will defend the president against charges of seeking foreign interference. How much further will they go to prevent “losing for all time”?


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-10--NYC Bar Association Asks Congress to Investigate the Attorney General

Mr. Barr ’ s recent actions and statements position the Attorney General and , by extension , the United States Department of Justice ( DOJ ) as political partisans willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others .
These statements are the latest examples of a broader pattern of conduct that is inconsistent with the role of the Attorney General in our legal and constitutional system and with the norms and standards that govern the fair administration of justice .
We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to investigate this troubling pattern of conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions as Attorney General and to consider any legislative and oversight responses and remedies that may be necessary .
The authors listed several public statements by Barr that demonstrated a disregard for the fundamental principle of impartiality that is required by the chief law enforcement officer in the country .
1 .
Barr ’ s speech at the University of Notre Dame In his speech , which is now published on the DOJ website , Mr. Barr stated that “ the Founding generation… believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.
” According to the Attorney General , “ they are like God ’ s instruction manual for the best running of man and society.
” Expressing his view that “ Judeo-Christian values… have made this country great ” —while simultaneously rejecting the moral basis of secularism and , by implication , other religions ( and atheism ) as “ an inversion of Christian morality , ” Mr. Barr vowed to place the Department of Justice “ at the forefront ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secularization.
” Mr. Barr charged that opponents of the Trump presidency ’ s policies have been “ engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.
” By contrast , Mr. Barr proclaimed , conservatives “ tend to have more scruple over their political tactics ” and are more genuinely committed to the rule of law .
The Attorney General referred to something he called a “ progressive holy war , ” characterized , he says , by the use of “ any means necessary to gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s speech to the Fraternal Order of Police Mr. Barr warned at a DOJ awards ceremony that “ the American people have to… start showing , more than they do , the respect and support that law enforcement deserves , ” and “ if communities don ’ t give that support and respect , they might find themselves without the police protection they need.
” … Mr. Barr did not specify which “ communities ” were at risk of seeing decreased police protection because they lack respect for law enforcement , but his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not unreasonably , as being directed toward members of communities of color protesting excessive use of force by police .
4 .
Barr ’ s television interview about the release of the report from the DOJ Inspector General Mr. Barr publicly rejected the Inspector General ’ s findings , asserting instead that a separate ongoing investigation into the FBI ’ s actions that he personally had directed would likely reach a different conclusion .
Although that second investigation ( which is being supervised by a different DOJ official ) is not yet complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinions about the likely outcome of that investigation .
The letter also notes that more than 1,000 federal prosecutors objected to Barr ’ s mischaracterizations about what was included in the Mueller report .
They go on to demonstrate that these public statements are in direct conflict with Barr ’ s own words about the standards that should apply to an attorney general .

Mr. Barr’s recent actions and statements position the Attorney General and, by extension, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as political partisans willing to use the levers of government to empower certain groups over others. These statements are the latest examples of a broader pattern of conduct that is inconsistent with the role of the Attorney General in our legal and constitutional system and with the norms and standards that govern the fair administration of justice. We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to investigate this troubling pattern of conduct, in order to assess Mr. Barr’s actions as Attorney General and to consider any legislative and oversight responses and remedies that may be necessary.
The authors listed several public statements by Barr that demonstrated a disregard for the fundamental principle of impartiality that is required by the chief law enforcement officer in the country.
1. Barr’s speech at the University of Notre Dame
In his speech, which is now published on the DOJ website, Mr. Barr stated that “the Founding generation… believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man” and that “Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.” According to the Attorney General, “they are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and society.” Expressing his view that “Judeo-Christian values… have made this country great”—while simultaneously rejecting the moral basis of secularism and, by implication, other religions (and atheism) as “an inversion of Christian morality,” Mr. Barr vowed to place the Department of Justice “at the forefront” of efforts to resist “forces of secularization.”
2. Barr’s speech at the Federalist Society
Mr. Barr charged that opponents of the Trump presidency’s policies have been “engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.” By contrast, Mr. Barr proclaimed, conservatives “tend to have more scruple over their political tactics” and are more genuinely committed to the rule of law. The Attorney General referred to something he called a “progressive holy war,” characterized, he says, by the use of “any means necessary to gain momentary advantage.”
3. Barr’s speech to the Fraternal Order of Police
Mr. Barr warned at a DOJ awards ceremony that “the American people have to… start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves,” and “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”… Mr. Barr did not specify which “communities” were at risk of seeing decreased police protection because they lack respect for law enforcement, but his comment was understood by some observers, not unreasonably, as being directed toward members of communities of color protesting excessive use of force by police.
4. Barr’s television interview about the release of the report from the DOJ Inspector General
Mr. Barr publicly rejected the Inspector General’s findings, asserting instead that a separate ongoing investigation into the FBI’s actions that he personally had directed would likely reach a different conclusion. Although that second investigation (which is being supervised by a different DOJ official) is not yet complete, Mr. Barr nevertheless openly discussed his opinions about the likely outcome of that investigation.
The letter also notes that more than 1,000 federal prosecutors objected to Barr’s mischaracterizations about what was included in the Mueller report. They go on to demonstrate that these public statements are in direct conflict with Barr’s own words about the standards that should apply to an attorney general.