washingtonmonthly--2020-05-07--Trump Supporters Can No Longer Claim to Be Pro-Life

Back in 2016 , R. Albert Mohler—president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—was one of the few white evangelical Christians who refused to support Donald Trump .
He wrote about that decision in an opinion piece for the Washington Post that was published two days after the release of the Access Hollywood tape .
I am among those who see evangelical support for Trump as a horrifying embarrassment — a price for possible political gain that is simply unthinkable and too high to pay…The release of the sexually explicit tape revealed Trump in a light that must be the worst nightmare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It revealed a sexual predator , not merely a playboy…Donald Trump is not just disqualified from being a Sunday school teacher .
Honest evangelicals would not want him as a next-door neighbor…Trump ’ s horrifying statements , heard in his own proud voice , revealed an objectification of women and a sexual predation that must make continued support for Trump impossible for any evangelical leader .
That earned Mohler some respect from those of us who were disgusted by the way so many court evangelicals were willing to toss aside their so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access and power .
While he didn ’ t cite it to support his position , Mohler could have quoted from a resolution passed by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 on the moral character of public officials—which was most likely written to address the Clinton-Lewinsky affair .
Here are the key excerpts : Therefore , be it RESOLVED , That we , the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention , meeting June 9-11 , 1998 , in Salt Lake City , Utah , affirm that moral character matters to God and should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s people , when choosing public leaders ; and… Be it finally RESOLVED , That we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office , and to elect those officials and candidates who , although imperfect , demonstrate consistent honesty , moral purity and the highest character .
Less than four years later , Mohler has changed his tune .
While he doesn ’ t have a different opinion of Trump ’ s moral character today , Mohler said he was impressed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign promises and as a result he will not make the same decision he did in 2016 , when he refused to support him .
“ I don ’ t have a different moral estimation of Donald Trump .
Even in office he continually leaves me very frustrated in how he presents himself , how he speaks , but he has been more consistent in pro-life decisions , executive orders … than any president of the United States in any party .
He ’ s been more consistent than any Republican certainly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the federal judiciary , which will far outlive any presidency , ” he said , noting that he will “ will make a different political calculation in 2020.
” All we can do is take Mohler at his word and believe that he now supports a sexual predator because of his pro-life actions and judicial appointments .
But let ’ s put Mohler ’ s change of heart in context .
Over 70,000 people have now died as a result of COVID-19 , with a recent report suggesting that the number will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did Trump fail to initially contain the spread of this pandemic , he has now—as Greg Sargent suggests—decided to go AWOL on the whole thing by shutting down the White House task force and focusing all of his energy on the economy .
The repercussions of those decisions were captured in the irony of having the song “ Live and Let Die ” blasted from speakers as the president toured a plant in Arizona on Tuesday .
They blasted “ Live and Let Die ” while Trump walked around a Honeywell plant today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hard to believe this clip is real .
pic.twitter.com/M1dMe8KaMK That is the man Mohler describes as being more pro-life than any president of the United States .
In this context , how can that statement be anything but truly mind-boggling ?
By having a change of heart in the midst of this pandemic , Mohler demonstrates that his anti-abortion position isn ’ t about protecting life , it ’ s about controlling women ’ s bodies , especially when it comes to their sexuality .
That is precisely what feminists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades now .

Back in 2016, R. Albert Mohler—president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—was one of the few white evangelical Christians who refused to support Donald Trump. He wrote about that decision in an opinion piece for the Washington Post that was published two days after the release of the Access Hollywood tape.
I am among those who see evangelical support for Trump as a horrifying embarrassment — a price for possible political gain that is simply unthinkable and too high to pay…The release of the sexually explicit tape revealed Trump in a light that must be the worst nightmare for the candidate’s campaign. It revealed a sexual predator, not merely a playboy…Donald Trump is not just disqualified from being a Sunday school teacher. Honest evangelicals would not want him as a next-door neighbor…Trump’s horrifying statements, heard in his own proud voice, revealed an objectification of women and a sexual predation that must make continued support for Trump impossible for any evangelical leader.
That earned Mohler some respect from those of us who were disgusted by the way so many court evangelicals were willing to toss aside their so-called “family values” in the name of access and power.
While he didn’t cite it to support his position, Mohler could have quoted from a resolution passed by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 on the moral character of public officials—which was most likely written to address the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Here are the key excerpts:
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 9-11, 1998, in Salt Lake City, Utah, affirm that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders; and… Be it finally RESOLVED, That we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.
Less than four years later, Mohler has changed his tune.
While he doesn’t have a different opinion of Trump’s moral character today, Mohler said he was impressed by the president’s commitment to his campaign promises and as a result he will not make the same decision he did in 2016, when he refused to support him. “I don’t have a different moral estimation of Donald Trump. Even in office he continually leaves me very frustrated in how he presents himself, how he speaks, but he has been more consistent in pro-life decisions, executive orders … than any president of the United States in any party. He’s been more consistent than any Republican certainly in the quality of appointments he has made to the federal judiciary, which will far outlive any presidency,” he said, noting that he will “will make a different political calculation in 2020.” All we can do is take Mohler at his word and believe that he now supports a sexual predator because of his pro-life actions and judicial appointments. But let’s put Mohler’s change of heart in context. Over 70,000 people have now died as a result of COVID-19, with a recent report suggesting that the number will double by early August. Not only did Trump fail to initially contain the spread of this pandemic, he has now—as Greg Sargent suggests—decided to go AWOL on the whole thing by shutting down the White House task force and focusing all of his energy on the economy. The repercussions of those decisions were captured in the irony of having the song “Live and Let Die” blasted from speakers as the president toured a plant in Arizona on Tuesday. They blasted “Live and Let Die” while Trump walked around a Honeywell plant today in Arizona without a mask. It’s hard to believe this clip is real. pic.twitter.com/M1dMe8KaMK — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 5, 2020 That is the man Mohler describes as being more pro-life than any president of the United States. In this context, how can that statement be anything but truly mind-boggling? By having a change of heart in the midst of this pandemic, Mohler demonstrates that his anti-abortion position isn’t about protecting life, it’s about controlling women’s bodies, especially when it comes to their sexuality. That is precisely what feminists have been saying about the anti-choice movement for decades now.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-07--Trump Is Willing to Sacrifice Lives in Service to His Ego

As if medical professionals dealing with COVID-19 weren ’ t already facing enough stress , Ben Collins wrote about what they face once they get home .
Here ’ s one example .
At the end of another long shift treating coronavirus patients , Dr. Hadi Halazun opened his Facebook page to find a man insisting to him that “ no one ’ s dying ” and that the coronavirus is “ fake news ” drummed up by the news media .
Hadi tried to engage and explain his firsthand experience with the virus .
In reply , another user @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real doctor , saying pictures from his profile showing him at concerts and music festivals proved it .
“ I told them : ‘ I am a real doctor .
There are 200 people in my hospital ’ s ICU , ' ” said Halazun , a cardiologist in New York .
“ And they said , ‘ Give me your credentials.
’ I engaged with them , and they kicked me off their wall.
” “ I left work and I felt so deflated .
I let it get to me.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face during their interactions on social media , and as he notes , most of them are simply choosing to avoid logging onto sites like Facebook .
But one of the examples Collins used was about a young patient who came into the emergency room with damage to his intestinal tract after having ingested bleach .
As we all know , it was the president who sparked interest in that dangerous nonsense .
The truth is that people have been spreading ignorant conspiracy theories on social media for years now .
What has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who reinforces them .
What we ’ ve seen develop over the last few years is a feedback loop where right-wing news outlets both feed conspiracy theories to the president and amplify his voice in spreading them .
That is exactly what is happening in this story being reported by Jonathan Swan and Sam Baker .
President Trump has complained to advisers about the way coronavirus deaths are being calculated , suggesting the real numbers are actually lower — and a number of his senior aides share this view , according to sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next : A senior administration official said he expects the president to begin publicly questioning the death toll as it closes in on his predictions for the final death count and damages him politically .
That is a conspiracy theory that has been traveling around right-wing media for over a month now .
As Swan and Baker point out , it goes hand-in-hand with one about hospitals ramping up the death toll because they get more money for treating COVID-19 patients .
Trump enabler Candace Owens recently tweeted a summary , suggesting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a fact-check , Swan and Baker note that “ Medicare is giving hospitals a 20 % bonus for their treatment of coronavirus patients as a way to help them make up for the money they ’ re losing because they ’ ve had to postpone a lot of non-coronavirus care.
” Without that funding , which Trump signed off on as part of the coronavirus relief package , many hospitals might not have survived the pandemic .
The part of Owen ’ s tweet about testing is also important to fact-check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure to produce tests , many people who were hospitalized for COVID-19 weren ’ t tested initially .
Until April 14 , the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted as COVID-19 deaths only those in which the coronavirus was confirmed via testing .
But they eventually adjusted their numbers to include those suspected of having COVID-19 .
The truth is that most experts believe that the number of deaths that have resulted from this pandemic has been seriously undercounted , based on the fact that the number of people dying recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average .
So now you have the facts about this particular conflation of conspiracy theories .
But they didn ’ t just pop up out of the blue for no reason .
Instead , they serve the purpose of both covering up for Trump ’ s massive failures in response to the coronavirus outbreak and his desire now to pretend the whole crisis is over .
In documenting the president ’ s desire to simply move on , Peter Baker identified the resurrection of an old lie .
[ Trump ] openly admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to let infected patients from a cruise ship disembark because it would increase the number of cases counted in the United States .
He essentially made the same calculation on Wednesday by saying that more testing only reveals more infections and therefore increases the numbers .
“ In a way , by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad , ” he said .
In other words , the one thing everyone knows is necessary in order to re-open the economy safely—testing—is the one thing Trump wants to avoid doing because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result , people will pay the price with their lives and health , while the president relies on conspiracy theories to pretend that is not happening .
The bottom line is that for Trump , feeding his ego is more important than people ’ s lives .
That is pretty much the definition of malignant narcissism .

As if medical professionals dealing with COVID-19 weren’t already facing enough stress, Ben Collins wrote about what they face once they get home. Here’s one example.
At the end of another long shift treating coronavirus patients, Dr. Hadi Halazun opened his Facebook page to find a man insisting to him that “no one’s dying” and that the coronavirus is “fake news” drummed up by the news media. Hadi tried to engage and explain his firsthand experience with the virus. In reply, another user insinuated that he wasn’t a real doctor, saying pictures from his profile showing him at concerts and music festivals proved it. “I told them: ‘I am a real doctor. There are 200 people in my hospital’s ICU,’” said Halazun, a cardiologist in New York. “And they said, ‘Give me your credentials.’ I engaged with them, and they kicked me off their wall.” “I left work and I felt so deflated. I let it get to me.”
Collins focused on what these medical professionals face during their interactions on social media, and as he notes, most of them are simply choosing to avoid logging onto sites like Facebook. But one of the examples Collins used was about a young patient who came into the emergency room with damage to his intestinal tract after having ingested bleach. As we all know, it was the president who sparked interest in that dangerous nonsense.
The truth is that people have been spreading ignorant conspiracy theories on social media for years now. What has helped them spread is having a president who reinforces them. What we’ve seen develop over the last few years is a feedback loop where right-wing news outlets both feed conspiracy theories to the president and amplify his voice in spreading them. That is exactly what is happening in this story being reported by Jonathan Swan and Sam Baker.
President Trump has complained to advisers about the way coronavirus deaths are being calculated, suggesting the real numbers are actually lower — and a number of his senior aides share this view, according to sources with direct knowledge. What’s next: A senior administration official said he expects the president to begin publicly questioning the death toll as it closes in on his predictions for the final death count and damages him politically.
That is a conspiracy theory that has been traveling around right-wing media for over a month now. As Swan and Baker point out, it goes hand-in-hand with one about hospitals ramping up the death toll because they get more money for treating COVID-19 patients. Trump enabler Candace Owens recently tweeted a summary, suggesting that these conspiracy theories have now been verified.
As a fact-check, Swan and Baker note that “Medicare is giving hospitals a 20% bonus for their treatment of coronavirus patients as a way to help them make up for the money they’re losing because they’ve had to postpone a lot of non-coronavirus care.” Without that funding, which Trump signed off on as part of the coronavirus relief package, many hospitals might not have survived the pandemic.
The part of Owen’s tweet about testing is also important to fact-check. Because of this administration’s failure to produce tests, many people who were hospitalized for COVID-19 weren’t tested initially. Until April 14, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted as COVID-19 deaths only those in which the coronavirus was confirmed via testing. But they eventually adjusted their numbers to include those suspected of having COVID-19.
The truth is that most experts believe that the number of deaths that have resulted from this pandemic has been seriously undercounted, based on the fact that the number of people dying recently is a lot higher than the historical average.
So now you have the facts about this particular conflation of conspiracy theories. But they didn’t just pop up out of the blue for no reason. Instead, they serve the purpose of both covering up for Trump’s massive failures in response to the coronavirus outbreak and his desire now to pretend the whole crisis is over.
In documenting the president’s desire to simply move on, Peter Baker identified the resurrection of an old lie.
[Trump] openly admitted in March that he did not want to let infected patients from a cruise ship disembark because it would increase the number of cases counted in the United States. He essentially made the same calculation on Wednesday by saying that more testing only reveals more infections and therefore increases the numbers. “In a way, by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad,” he said.
In other words, the one thing everyone knows is necessary in order to re-open the economy safely—testing—is the one thing Trump wants to avoid doing because it makes him look bad. As a result, people will pay the price with their lives and health, while the president relies on conspiracy theories to pretend that is not happening. The bottom line is that for Trump, feeding his ego is more important than people’s lives. That is pretty much the definition of malignant narcissism.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-07--The Cruel Paradox of Trying to Cover COVID-19

Nobody needs to tell you much the Covid-19 pandemic has changed life as we know it .
We ’ re all aware of the statistics : Over the last six weeks , tens of millions of Americans have filed for unemployment , as the spread of the virus continues to ravage virtually every sector of the global economy .
That has come with a cruel paradox for the news business .
The hunger for accurate and reliable news , information , and analysis has never been higher , but the steep economic downturn has caused advertising revenue and other sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of local newsrooms have been forced to lay off staff and some publications have had to pause operations .
Nonprofit news organizations , like the Washington Monthly , are especially at risk , with a decline in ad money and the possibility that grant funding may soon be in short supply .
The Institute for Nonprofit News is coordinating a short # GivingTuesdayNow campaign to help nonprofit news outlets like ours .
As a small magazine with an even smaller budget , we rely on the support of our readers .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a donation to help us deliver our unique brand of solutions-based journalism at a time when solutions are desperately needed .
Throughout the pandemic , we ’ ve been providing the kind of journalism you can ’ t get anywhere else .
We ’ ve written about how states can transition to vote at home for the November election and avoid running into pitfalls as they adapt to the new system .
We ’ ve laid out how to get rid of surprise medical billing , so you or a loved one don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after visiting the doctor ’ s office .
At the same time , we ’ ve been putting pressure on power , with stories on how Trump wasted the best tool he had to fight the coronavirus—the Strategic National Stockpile—and how Big Ag monopolies have resulted in farmers destroying food when grocery store shelves are empty .
If that ’ s something you appreciate , then please consider helping us by making a donation .
If you give $ 50 or more , you ’ ll receive a complimentary one-year subscription to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your contributions to the Monthly are vital , tax-deductible , and much appreciated .

Nobody needs to tell you much the Covid-19 pandemic has changed life as we know it. We’re all aware of the statistics: Over the last six weeks, tens of millions of Americans have filed for unemployment, as the spread of the virus continues to ravage virtually every sector of the global economy. That has come with a cruel paradox for the news business.
The hunger for accurate and reliable news, information, and analysis has never been higher, but the steep economic downturn has caused advertising revenue and other sources of financial support to plummet. Dozens of local newsrooms have been forced to lay off staff and some publications have had to pause operations.
Nonprofit news organizations, like the Washington Monthly, are especially at risk, with a decline in ad money and the possibility that grant funding may soon be in short supply.
The Institute for Nonprofit News is coordinating a short #GivingTuesdayNow campaign to help nonprofit news outlets like ours. As a small magazine with an even smaller budget, we rely on the support of our readers. So, if you are able, please make a donation to help us deliver our unique brand of solutions-based journalism at a time when solutions are desperately needed.
Throughout the pandemic, we’ve been providing the kind of journalism you can’t get anywhere else. We’ve written about how states can transition to vote at home for the November election and avoid running into pitfalls as they adapt to the new system. We’ve laid out how to get rid of surprise medical billing, so you or a loved one don’t get hit with exorbitant fees after visiting the doctor’s office.
At the same time, we’ve been putting pressure on power, with stories on how Trump wasted the best tool he had to fight the coronavirus—the Strategic National Stockpile—and how Big Ag monopolies have resulted in farmers destroying food when grocery store shelves are empty.
If that’s something you appreciate, then please consider helping us by making a donation. If you give $50 or more, you’ll receive a complimentary one-year subscription to the print edition of the Washington Monthly.
Your contributions to the Monthly are vital, tax-deductible, and much appreciated.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-07--Killing Obamacare During a Pandemic Is Not a Good Reelection Strategy

It seems like the star that guides Donald Trump is the destruction of anything Barack Obama accomplished as president .
We ’ re familiar with the big ticket items : the Paris climate agreement , the nuclear deal with Iran , and the Affordable Care Act .
It ’ s this last one that has bedeviled Trump .
The Republican-led Congress of 2017-18 tried and failed to enact a repeal and replacement of Obamacare .
This left the Trump administration with the unenviable job of running a health care program they had promised to eliminate .
When they lost control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they also lost any opportunity to try the legislative route a second time during Trump ’ s first term .
The case before the [ Supreme Court ] was brought by a group of Republican states , and as part of that case , the Trump administration is seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act , which passed in 2010 and became one of President Barack Obama ’ s most significant legislative victories… …The latest ACA suit was organized by Republican attorneys general in Texas and other states .
When the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a coalition of Democratic-led states entered .
The case began after the Republican-led Congress in 2017 , unable to secure the votes to abolish the law , reduced to zero the penalty for a person not buying health insurance .
Lawyers for the state of Texas argued that in doing so , Congress had removed the essential tax element that the Supreme Court had previously ruled made the program constitutional .
A district judge in Texas agreed and said the entire law must fall .
Eventually the Trump administration agreed with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General William Barr argued in a private White House strategy session that it was bad politics to continue this quest in the midst of a global pandemic .
It ’ s seems like unassailable advice .
The Court ’ s ruling is unlikely to come down before the election in November , and that can cut both ways .
On the plus side for Trump , he can remain consistent in his determination to destroy Obama ’ s signature achievement without worrying that anyone will actually have lost their health care coverage as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls .
On the other hand , every other part of this is a big negative for him .
He won ’ t succeed in eliminating the Affordable Care Act in his first term , so he can ’ t run on that achievement .
But everyone will know that he is still trying to accomplish it , and that his promises to preserve the most popular parts of the law ring hollow since he couldn ’ t come up with a successful plan even when the Republicans had the congressional power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic has thrown tens of millions of people into unemployment , so the demand for non-employer supplied health insurance is at an unprecedented high .
The demand for health care services is also through the roof , and hospitals have been devastated by their inability to perform profit-making elective surgeries .
they are in a terrible position to be treating millions of uninsured patients .
If anything , the pandemic has exposed weaknesses in our health care delivery that lend support to rethinking the employer-based system .
It ’ s time to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s basic argument comes down to this : He ’ s saying that his administration is doing “ really well ” at delivering people “ lousy health care.
” Never mind that he ’ s got that backwards , it ’ s still an admission that his performance is not good .
The second phase of his argument is the exact same as the one he made during the effort to pass a replacement bill .
He says he ’ ll maintain popular things like a ban on refusing plans for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans could never discover a way to make private insurers provide unprofitable plans that didn ’ t also require healthy people to buy very profitable plans .
If he can ’ t articulate a way around that problem , no one will have confidence that a total repeal of Obamacare won ’ t eliminate these protections .
In any case , Trump did not take William Barr ’ s advice , and the administration is still going to argue before the Supreme Court that the entire Affordable Care Act should be scrapped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before they vote , but they ’ ll know that it ’ s possible that the conservative Supreme Court will side with Trump , and they ’ ll want some confidence that the next administration has a plan in place if that ’ s the outcome .
This obviously boosts health care as a topic of interest to the electorate , and that ’ s exactly what Trump does not want .
Trump has been mask averse for weeks .
Within minutes of the CDC announcing its updated mask recommendations , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I ’ m going to be doing it.
” Trump has told advisers that he believes wearing one would “ send the wrong message , ” according to one administration and two campaign officials not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations .
The president said doing so would make it seem like he is preoccupied with health instead of focused on reopening the nation ’ s economy — which his aides believe is the key to his reelection chances .
Trump believes that his reelection depends on the electorate placing economic anxieties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If that ’ s his assessment , then he should be doing whatever he can to calm people ’ s health care anxieties .
Enrollment in Obamacare marketplace plans declined somewhat during Trump ’ s term , with the drop largely attributed to high employment levels where people were obtaining coverage through their new jobs .
That trend has obviously been reversed .
The job for Joe Biden is straightforward .
By his own admission , Trump is delivering “ lousy health care ” and he ’ s trying to eliminate subsidized health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time when millions have lost their employer-provided plans along with their jobs .
Anyone with a preexisting condition will have difficulty getting a new plan if the Affordable Care Act is scrapped by the Supreme Court .
Other protections , like being able to keep your child on your plan until they ’ re 26 , will also go away .
When you add this to Trump ’ s terrible performance on the COVID-19 pandemic , it ’ s a very strong case for replacing the president .
Trump should have listened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to be less stressed about health care , he shouldn ’ t be trying to take away people ’ s insurance .
That ought to be a no-brainer .

It seems like the star that guides Donald Trump is the destruction of anything Barack Obama accomplished as president. We’re familiar with the big ticket items: the Paris climate agreement, the nuclear deal with Iran, and the Affordable Care Act. It’s this last one that has bedeviled Trump.
The Republican-led Congress of 2017-18 tried and failed to enact a repeal and replacement of Obamacare. This left the Trump administration with the unenviable job of running a health care program they had promised to eliminate. When they lost control of the House in the 2018 midterms, they also lost any opportunity to try the legislative route a second time during Trump’s first term.
That left the judicial route.
The case before the [Supreme Court] was brought by a group of Republican states, and as part of that case, the Trump administration is seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, which passed in 2010 and became one of President Barack Obama’s most significant legislative victories… …The latest ACA suit was organized by Republican attorneys general in Texas and other states. When the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic-led states entered. The case began after the Republican-led Congress in 2017, unable to secure the votes to abolish the law, reduced to zero the penalty for a person not buying health insurance. Lawyers for the state of Texas argued that in doing so, Congress had removed the essential tax element that the Supreme Court had previously ruled made the program constitutional. A district judge in Texas agreed and said the entire law must fall. Eventually the Trump administration agreed with that assessment.
This past Monday, Attorney General William Barr argued in a private White House strategy session that it was bad politics to continue this quest in the midst of a global pandemic. It’s seems like unassailable advice.
The high court plans to hear arguments in the case later this year, and a decision may not come until 2021, well after the November election.
The Court’s ruling is unlikely to come down before the election in November, and that can cut both ways. On the plus side for Trump, he can remain consistent in his determination to destroy Obama’s signature achievement without worrying that anyone will actually have lost their health care coverage as a result when they go to the polls. On the other hand, every other part of this is a big negative for him.
He won’t succeed in eliminating the Affordable Care Act in his first term, so he can’t run on that achievement. But everyone will know that he is still trying to accomplish it, and that his promises to preserve the most popular parts of the law ring hollow since he couldn’t come up with a successful plan even when the Republicans had the congressional power to do it.
Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown tens of millions of people into unemployment, so the demand for non-employer supplied health insurance is at an unprecedented high. The demand for health care services is also through the roof, and hospitals have been devastated by their inability to perform profit-making elective surgeries. they are in a terrible position to be treating millions of uninsured patients.
If anything, the pandemic has exposed weaknesses in our health care delivery that lend support to rethinking the employer-based system. It’s time to be more ambitious rather than less.
Trump’s basic argument comes down to this:
“We want to terminate health care under Obamacare,” Trump told reporters Wednesday, the last day for his administration to change its position in a Supreme Court case challenging the law. “Obamacare, we run it really well. . . . But running it great, it’s still lousy health care.”
He’s saying that his administration is doing “really well” at delivering people “lousy health care.” Never mind that he’s got that backwards, it’s still an admission that his performance is not good. The second phase of his argument is the exact same as the one he made during the effort to pass a replacement bill. He says he’ll maintain popular things like a ban on refusing plans for people with pre-existing conditions, but he and the Republicans could never discover a way to make private insurers provide unprofitable plans that didn’t also require healthy people to buy very profitable plans. If he can’t articulate a way around that problem, no one will have confidence that a total repeal of Obamacare won’t eliminate these protections.
In any case, Trump did not take William Barr’s advice, and the administration is still going to argue before the Supreme Court that the entire Affordable Care Act should be scrapped. People will not know the outcome before they vote, but they’ll know that it’s possible that the conservative Supreme Court will side with Trump, and they’ll want some confidence that the next administration has a plan in place if that’s the outcome.
This obviously boosts health care as a topic of interest to the electorate, and that’s exactly what Trump does not want.
Trump has been mask averse for weeks. Within minutes of the CDC announcing its updated mask recommendations, he said, “I don’t think that I’m going to be doing it.” Trump has told advisers that he believes wearing one would “send the wrong message,” according to one administration and two campaign officials not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. The president said doing so would make it seem like he is preoccupied with health instead of focused on reopening the nation’s economy — which his aides believe is the key to his reelection chances.
Trump believes that his reelection depends on the electorate placing economic anxieties over anxieties about living or dying. If that’s his assessment, then he should be doing whatever he can to calm people’s health care anxieties.
Enrollment in Obamacare marketplace plans declined somewhat during Trump’s term, with the drop largely attributed to high employment levels where people were obtaining coverage through their new jobs. That trend has obviously been reversed.
The job for Joe Biden is straightforward. By his own admission, Trump is delivering “lousy health care” and he’s trying to eliminate subsidized health care coverage for millions of people at a time when millions have lost their employer-provided plans along with their jobs. Anyone with a preexisting condition will have difficulty getting a new plan if the Affordable Care Act is scrapped by the Supreme Court. Other protections, like being able to keep your child on your plan until they’re 26, will also go away.
When you add this to Trump’s terrible performance on the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s a very strong case for replacing the president.
Trump should have listened to William Barr. If he wants people to be less stressed about health care, he shouldn’t be trying to take away people’s insurance. That ought to be a no-brainer.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-08--Trump Does an Excellent Job of Advertising His Own Ignorance

Back in 2014 , when Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was caught on tape making incredibly racist remarks , reporters asked President Obama to comment .
His response turned into a meme .
It was another wise president , Abraham Lincoln , who once said that it is “ better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
” Those sentiments seem to have been captured in a new meme .
Comedians like Jimmy Kimmel are demonstrating how to implement that so-called “ liberal plot.
” Trevor Noah got in on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a name for herself by simply using Trump ’ s own words .
But it isn ’ t just comedians .
The Biden campaign seems to have discovered that all they need for an effective campaign ad is to combine the president ’ s own words with a little musical accompaniment .
Or how about extending Trump ’ s comparison of himself to Abraham Lincoln ?
To borrow Obama ’ s meme , this president does an excellent job of advertising his own ignorance .
There are times when all we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Back in 2014, when Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was caught on tape making incredibly racist remarks, reporters asked President Obama to comment. His response turned into a meme.
It was another wise president, Abraham Lincoln, who once said that it is “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
Those sentiments seem to have been captured in a new meme.
Comedians like Jimmy Kimmel are demonstrating how to implement that so-called “liberal plot.”
Trevor Noah got in on the action too.
Sarah Cooper has made a name for herself by simply using Trump’s own words.
But it isn’t just comedians. The Biden campaign seems to have discovered that all they need for an effective campaign ad is to combine the president’s own words with a little musical accompaniment.
Or how about extending Trump’s comparison of himself to Abraham Lincoln?
To borrow Obama’s meme, this president does an excellent job of advertising his own ignorance. There are times when all we have to do is let him talk.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-08--A Simple But Revolutionary Way to Ease the Burden of Coronavirus

Five years ago , Michael Yuen set in motion a simple but revolutionary reform that has transformed the lives of millions of low-income Californians while costing the state little in return .
Yuen , CEO of the San Francisco Superior Court , persuaded the court to become the first in the nation to stop suspending driver ’ s licenses when people could not afford to pay traffic citations .
T The practice is known to have a spiral effect that often hurts low-income and marginalized communities the most .
What ’ s more , when people lose their jobs because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are not better positioned to pay off their debts .
In fact , when San Francisco implemented this change , it didn ’ t collect less in citation revenue .
It ended up collecting more per citation .
If that ’ s not enough of a reason for states and localities to implement this policy change , there ’ s another : the Covid-19 pandemic .
On the surface , suspending driver ’ s licenses may seem unrelated to our current coronavirus nightmare , but getting rid of the practice would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the economic headwinds that have resulted in deep financial hardship for so many , especially minority communities that have been hit the hardest by the pandemic .
At the same time , the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found that Black and Hispanic workers are less able to work from home than their white counterparts .
Driver ’ s license suspensions have long disproportionately burdened communities of color ; extensive research shows that Black and Latino individuals are more likely to be pulled over by the police while driving .
Yuen ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a previous crisis within the African-American community—the 2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown , an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson , Missouri , which provoked months of protest and rage .
In an ensuing report , the Department of Justice exposed a system of institutional repression .
The Ferguson police force had acted more out of a desire to increase city revenue than protecting and advancing justice .
As a consequence , Ferguson ’ s cops wrote tons of traffic tickets and other citations , disproportionately targeting Black Americans .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afford to pay these tickets , setting off a downward spiral .
The citation cost would grow through late fees , their credit score would go down , and their driver ’ s license would eventually be suspended for nonpayment .
This is not unique to Ferguson .
Forty-two states currently suspend driver ’ s licenses for nonpayment of traffic tickets .
An estimated 11 million Americans have lost their licenses for this reason , according to a 2019 estimate by the Fines and Fees Justice Center .
Since nearly 90 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force no-win decisions : Either don ’ t work , or break the law and risk other repercussions .
Yuen saw uncomfortable parallels in the findings .
“ You may think this report has nothing to do with us , but it does , ” he told a meeting of his fellow court CEOs from across California .
A few months later a California coalition of legal service providers published “ Not Just a Ferguson Problem.
” The report found that four million Californians—overwhelmingly people of color— had had their driver ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a traffic court date .
“ These suspensions make it harder for people to get and keep jobs , further impeding their ability to pay their debt , ” the report stated .
“ Ultimately , they keep people in long cycles of poverty that are difficult , if not impossible to overcome.
” Opponents warned that without suspensions , people would never pay their citations , but Yuen was undeterred .
In 2015 , San Francisco Superior Court became the first in the country to stop the suspension of driver ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county-level courts soon followed suit , paving the way for Governor Jerry Brown to eliminate the penalty statewide in 2017 .
Since then , the San Francisco Superior Court , and my office , the City of San Francisco ’ s Financial Justice Project , that assesses and reforms fines and fees , keeps getting the same questions from across the country .
“ How else will we get people to pay their traffic tickets ?
What will happen to revenues ?
” So , we analyzed the data .
Contrary to expectations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collections .
In fact , collections per citation rose slightly in San Francisco .
San Francisco courts previously collected roughly $ 200 per citation on average .
In the years following the reform , the amount grew to more than $ 250 .
Similarly , across California , on-time collections went up 8.9 percent in the year following the end of driver ’ s licenses suspensions for failure to pay .
How did this happen ?
In San Francisco , the court started doing things differently .
They sent monthly reminders .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offering low-income people discounts based on their ability to pay .
Court leaders were convinced that the easier you make it for people to pay , the more likely it is they will .
Across California , the same thing happened .
When the courts stop suspending people ’ s driver ’ s licenses , the courts “ increase people ’ s abilities to get or keep jobs , and therefore be able to pay their debts , ” according to the California Judicial Council .
Of course , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
That gives us even more of an incentive to embrace the low-cost , battled-tested options that are out there .
Americans now face so many barriers to getting back to normalcy , a needlessly suspended license shouldn ’ t be one of them .
Fortunately , there is momentum for reform .
The Free To Drive Coalition , which aims to end debt-based driver ’ s license suspensions , is supporting reform bills pending in 15 states .
The campaign has support from across the political spectrums—from the ACLU to Koch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the same choice again , even if the reform had dented the court ’ s revenue .
But since it did not , we don ’ t need to be so noble .
What are state and local governments waiting for ?

Five years ago, Michael Yuen set in motion a simple but revolutionary reform that has transformed the lives of millions of low-income Californians while costing the state little in return. Yuen, CEO of the San Francisco Superior Court, persuaded the court to become the first in the nation to stop suspending driver’s licenses when people could not afford to pay traffic citations.
The practice is known to have a spiral effect that often hurts low-income and marginalized communities the most. What’s more, when people lose their jobs because they can’t get to them, they are not better positioned to pay off their debts. In fact, when San Francisco implemented this change, it didn’t collect less in citation revenue. It ended up collecting more per citation. If that’s not enough of a reason for states and localities to implement this policy change, there’s another: the Covid-19 pandemic.
On the surface, suspending driver’s licenses may seem unrelated to our current coronavirus nightmare, but getting rid of the practice would make a huge impact on the easing of the economic headwinds that have resulted in deep financial hardship for so many, especially minority communities that have been hit the hardest by the pandemic. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has also found that Black and Hispanic workers are less able to work from home than their white counterparts.
Driver’s license suspensions have long disproportionately burdened communities of color; extensive research shows that Black and Latino individuals are more likely to be pulled over by the police while driving.
Yuen’s inspiration for the change stemmed from a previous crisis within the African-American community—the 2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, which provoked months of protest and rage.
In an ensuing report, the Department of Justice exposed a system of institutional repression. The Ferguson police force had acted more out of a desire to increase city revenue than protecting and advancing justice. As a consequence, Ferguson’s cops wrote tons of traffic tickets and other citations, disproportionately targeting Black Americans.
The problem was that low-income people often could not afford to pay these tickets, setting off a downward spiral. The citation cost would grow through late fees, their credit score would go down, and their driver’s license would eventually be suspended for nonpayment.
This is not unique to Ferguson. Forty-two states currently suspend driver’s licenses for nonpayment of traffic tickets. An estimated 11 million Americans have lost their licenses for this reason, according to a 2019 estimate by the Fines and Fees Justice Center. Since nearly 90 percent of Americans drive to work, suspended licenses force no-win decisions: Either don’t work, or break the law and risk other repercussions.
Yuen saw uncomfortable parallels in the findings. “You may think this report has nothing to do with us, but it does,” he told a meeting of his fellow court CEOs from across California. A few months later a California coalition of legal service providers published “Not Just a Ferguson Problem.” The report found that four million Californians—overwhelmingly people of color— had had their driver’s license suspended for nonpayment or for missing a traffic court date. “These suspensions make it harder for people to get and keep jobs, further impeding their ability to pay their debt,” the report stated. “Ultimately, they keep people in long cycles of poverty that are difficult, if not impossible to overcome.”
Opponents warned that without suspensions, people would never pay their citations, but Yuen was undeterred. In 2015, San Francisco Superior Court became the first in the country to stop the suspension of driver’s licenses for failure to pay. Other county-level courts soon followed suit, paving the way for Governor Jerry Brown to eliminate the penalty statewide in 2017.
Since then, the San Francisco Superior Court, and my office, the City of San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project, that assesses and reforms fines and fees, keeps getting the same questions from across the country. “How else will we get people to pay their traffic tickets? What will happen to revenues?”
So, we analyzed the data. Contrary to expectations, there was no negative impact on collections. In fact, collections per citation rose slightly in San Francisco. San Francisco courts previously collected roughly $200 per citation on average. In the years following the reform, the amount grew to more than $250. Similarly, across California, on-time collections went up 8.9 percent in the year following the end of driver’s licenses suspensions for failure to pay.
How did this happen? In San Francisco, the court started doing things differently. They sent monthly reminders. They created accessible payment plans. They began offering low-income people discounts based on their ability to pay. Court leaders were convinced that the easier you make it for people to pay, the more likely it is they will.
Across California, the same thing happened. When the courts stop suspending people’s driver’s licenses, the courts “increase people’s abilities to get or keep jobs, and therefore be able to pay their debts,” according to the California Judicial Council.
Of course, it’s not easy to help people recover from a pandemic. That gives us even more of an incentive to embrace the low-cost, battled-tested options that are out there. Americans now face so many barriers to getting back to normalcy, a needlessly suspended license shouldn’t be one of them.
Fortunately, there is momentum for reform. The Free To Drive Coalition, which aims to end debt-based driver’s license suspensions, is supporting reform bills pending in 15 states. The campaign has support from across the political spectrums—from the ACLU to Koch Industries.
Yuen recently said he would make the same choice again, even if the reform had dented the court’s revenue. But since it did not, we don’t need to be so noble. What are state and local governments waiting for?


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-08--What Barr Doesn’t Want You to Remember About Michael Flynn

On October 7 , 2016 , the intelligence community issued a statement confirming that it was the Russian government that “ directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions , including from US political organizations.
” Then , on January 6 , 2017 , they released an assessment of both Russian activities and intentions in their efforts to interfere the 2016 election .
Here is their key finding : Upon completion of that assessment , two issues remained : ( 1 ) the question of whether the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government and ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adversary ’ s attempt to interfere in an election .
The first question was eventually assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller and , on the second , President Obama ordered sanctions on individuals and entities involved in the interference efforts , shut down two Russian compounds in the U.S. , and expelled more than 30 Russian intelligence operatives .
Meanwhile , Michael Flynn , along with Jared Kushner and Erik Prince , was working with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to set up a backchannel for Trump and his staff to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that would bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy .
Flynn ’ s interest was focused on his plan for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate militarily , particularly in Syria .
In light of all of that , it was on the day that Obama announced the actions he was taking against Russia for interfering in the 2016 election that Flynn called the Russian ambassador and—in his own words— ” requested that Russia not escalate the situation.
” On the day he resigned as Trump ’ s national security advisor , Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 35 guys who were thrown out .
.
.
.
It was basically , ‘ Look , I know this happened .
We ’ ll review everything.
’ ” So , on the day that Obama retaliated for Russia ’ s attack on our democracy , Flynn basically told them , “ Don ’ t sweat it , we ’ ll take care of all of this once Trump is in office.
” He then lied to the FBI about what was discussed on that call .
David Ignatius , the reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s call to Kislyak , identified the critical issue .
There was always a deeper problem , one that still isn ’ t resolved .
Why was the Trump administration so eager to blunt the punishment Obama gave to Russia for what we now know was gross interference in our presidential election ?
In his Dec. 29 expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats , Obama was trying to impose costs on an adversary .
The evidence shows that Flynn wanted to reassure this same adversary and to avoid confrontation .
None of what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ court filing submitted on Thursday to exonerate Michael Flynn .
That ’ s because Attorney General Barr wants to completely re-write the history of what happened .
The grin that breaks out when , at the end of this clip , Barr says that “ history is written by the winners ” is not only a tell but seriously disturbing .
Once again , Barr is demonstrating that he is nothing more than a political hack who is willing to corrupt the entire Department of Justice to exonerate Trump and his associates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice under President George W. Bush was a major scandal .
But it pales in comparison to what is happening right now .

On October 7, 2016, the intelligence community issued a statement confirming that it was the Russian government that “directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” Then, on January 6, 2017, they released an assessment of both Russian activities and intentions in their efforts to interfere the 2016 election. Here is their key finding:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
Upon completion of that assessment, two issues remained: (1) the question of whether the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government and (2) how to respond to an adversary’s attempt to interfere in an election. The first question was eventually assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller and, on the second, President Obama ordered sanctions on individuals and entities involved in the interference efforts, shut down two Russian compounds in the U.S., and expelled more than 30 Russian intelligence operatives.
Meanwhile, Michael Flynn, along with Jared Kushner and Erik Prince, was working with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to set up a backchannel for Trump and his staff to be able to communicate with the Russian government in a way that would bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy. Flynn’s interest was focused on his plan for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate militarily, particularly in Syria.
In light of all of that, it was on the day that Obama announced the actions he was taking against Russia for interfering in the 2016 election that Flynn called the Russian ambassador and—in his own words—”requested that Russia not escalate the situation.” On the day he resigned as Trump’s national security advisor, Flynn said that the call “was about the 35 guys who were thrown out. . . . It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’” So, on the day that Obama retaliated for Russia’s attack on our democracy, Flynn basically told them, “Don’t sweat it, we’ll take care of all of this once Trump is in office.” He then lied to the FBI about what was discussed on that call.
David Ignatius, the reporter who broke the story about Flynn’s call to Kislyak, identified the critical issue.
There was always a deeper problem, one that still isn’t resolved. Why was the Trump administration so eager to blunt the punishment Obama gave to Russia for what we now know was gross interference in our presidential election? In his Dec. 29 expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, Obama was trying to impose costs on an adversary. The evidence shows that Flynn wanted to reassure this same adversary and to avoid confrontation.
None of what I have just written was included in the DOJ court filing submitted on Thursday to exonerate Michael Flynn. That’s because Attorney General Barr wants to completely re-write the history of what happened. The grin that breaks out when, at the end of this clip, Barr says that “history is written by the winners” is not only a tell but seriously disturbing.
Once again, Barr is demonstrating that he is nothing more than a political hack who is willing to corrupt the entire Department of Justice to exonerate Trump and his associates. The politicization of the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush was a major scandal. But it pales in comparison to what is happening right now.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-08--The Judge Who Convicted Michael Flynn Will Now Have His Say

I wrote about this yesterday for my subscribers ( please subscribe ) , but it warrants a fuller treatment here .
The basic outline is ably described by the folks at Lawfare so I am going to use an extensive citation rather than reinvent the wheel .
It is exceptionally rare for the U.S. Department of Justice to move in court to dismiss a case in which a defendant has—ably assisted by first-class lawyers—entered into a plea agreement to spare himself prosecution on more serious felony charges .
It is rarer still for the government to do so without acknowledging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the defendant ’ s rights were somehow infringed .
And it is still rarer yet for the government to take such a move without a single career prosecutor being willing to sign onto the brief seeking dismissal .
Yet this is what the government did today , May 7 , in the case of Michael Flynn , the man who ever-so-briefly served as national security adviser for President Trump at the beginning of his administration .
Flynn pleaded guilty in a very generous deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in December 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for serious violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act—he was allowed to plead guilty to a single felony false statements charge under 18 U.S.C .
§ 1001 .
In reaching that plea deal , Flynn was represented by the well-resourced law firm of Covington & Burling .
The plea agreement was so generous to Flynn , in fact , that at the time , it appeared to be an indication that Mueller anticipated Flynn ’ s cooperation would be extremely valuable .
Yet the government today argued in court , “ based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the circumstances , that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.
” The Justice Department did not merely contend that Flynn should be allowed to withdraw his plea , as he has been seeking to do .
It argued that the entire case should be dismissed with prejudice—meaning that the case should be dismissed in a fashion that would preclude its being refiled .
“ Continued prosecution of the charged crime , ” the motion states , “ does not serve a substantial federal interest.
” The government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest document—perhaps the reason that it is signed only by Timothy Shea , the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia—and not a single one of the career prosecutors who worked on the case .
That may also be the reason why Brandon Van Grack , the prosecutor who has worked the case from the beginning , moved to withdraw from the case entirely just hours before the Justice Department filed its motion .
This is a transparent scam , but we ’ ve actually been here before .
Back in December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Flynn ’ s Very Bad Day in Court .
In that article , I took great satisfaction that the judge overseeing Flynn ’ s case had completely rejected silly right-wing talking points about Flynn being entrapped and delivered a frightening diatribe in Flynn ’ s direction : … [ U.S. District Judge Emmet ] Sullivan tore into Flynn and his lawyers .
He almost bizarrely put Flynn under oath before demanding that he admit his guilt and deny all the right-wing talking points which have recently been repeated by the president himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he knew he was wrong to lie to the FBI and that there had been no misconduct in how his interviews were conducted .
He acknowledged that any possible wrongdoing then-Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and counterintelligence official Peter Strzok may have committed in other areas had no bearing on his responsibility to be truthful to federal agents .
Judge Sullivan openly questioned whether Flynn could have been charged with treason for operating as an undeclared agent of a foreign power while serving as National Security Advisor , suggested that Flynn had dishonored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courtroom , and said “ arguably you sold your country out.
” He also asked Flynn ’ s lawyers how their filing was consistent with the client taking responsibility for his actions and advised them that they might want to delay sentencing since he was not inclined to let Flynn avoid incarceration .
The shaken defense team asked for a recess and then agreed to a ninety day delay in sentencing .
Judge Emmet Sullivan is still presiding over the case , and I somehow doubt he ’ s impressed with the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolfe of Reuters points out , Sullivan is probably going to want some explanation : The Department of Justice on Thursday told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington it wants to drop the case against Flynn , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , following a pressure campaign by the Republican president and his political allies .
While judges typically sign off on such motions , Sullivan could refuse and instead demand answers from the DOJ about who requested the sudden about-face , said Seth Waxman , a former federal prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If Judge Sullivan wanted to he could conduct an inquiry and start asking a lot of questions , ” said Waxman… …The judge is unlikely to sign off on the request as a pro forma matter , said Channing Phillips , the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia during the Obama administration , adding that with Sullivan “ nothing is pro forma.
” “ I can guarantee you , he is going to question the prosecutors , ” Phillips said in a phone interview .
“ He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis for this motion … You have a new attorney general .
You have a new U.S. attorney .
You have new prosecutors who take a different position .
But the facts haven ’ t changed.
” As Lawfare demonstrates , the flimsy brief filed with the court argues non-persuasively that Flynn ’ s should never have been questioned by the FBI in the first place .
This is ludicrous on its face .
They had just recently begun the process of closing down a counterintelligence case of Flynn after having not found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision when they say him buddying up with the Russian ambassador to undermine sanctions .
Nothing further needs to be said , but Flynn was also lying about the matter and causing others in the new administration to lie .
The Russians now had leverage over the incoming National Security Advisor .
The idea that he shouldn ’ t have been questioned carries no weight .
I ’ ve written more about Michael Flynn than any other character in Trump ’ s orbit , so I am very interested in the final disposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now certain that Trump will pardon him , although I was never in much doubt about that .
I still want to see what Judge Sullivan will say about this unprecedented maneuver by William Barr ’ s utterly corrupt and dishonest Department of Justice .

I wrote about this yesterday for my subscribers (please subscribe), but it warrants a fuller treatment here. The basic outline is ably described by the folks at Lawfare so I am going to use an extensive citation rather than reinvent the wheel.
It is exceptionally rare for the U.S. Department of Justice to move in court to dismiss a case in which a defendant has—ably assisted by first-class lawyers—entered into a plea agreement to spare himself prosecution on more serious felony charges. It is rarer still for the government to do so without acknowledging that it violated any law or that the defendant’s rights were somehow infringed. And it is still rarer yet for the government to take such a move without a single career prosecutor being willing to sign onto the brief seeking dismissal. Yet this is what the government did today, May 7, in the case of Michael Flynn, the man who ever-so-briefly served as national security adviser for President Trump at the beginning of his administration. Flynn pleaded guilty in a very generous deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in December 2017, a deal under which—instead of being prosecuted for serious violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act—he was allowed to plead guilty to a single felony false statements charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. In reaching that plea deal, Flynn was represented by the well-resourced law firm of Covington & Burling. The plea agreement was so generous to Flynn, in fact, that at the time, it appeared to be an indication that Mueller anticipated Flynn’s cooperation would be extremely valuable. Yet the government today argued in court, “based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.” The Justice Department did not merely contend that Flynn should be allowed to withdraw his plea, as he has been seeking to do. It argued that the entire case should be dismissed with prejudice—meaning that the case should be dismissed in a fashion that would preclude its being refiled. “Continued prosecution of the charged crime,” the motion states, “does not serve a substantial federal interest.” The government’s 20-page brief is not an honest document—perhaps the reason that it is signed only by Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia—and not a single one of the career prosecutors who worked on the case. That may also be the reason why Brandon Van Grack, the prosecutor who has worked the case from the beginning, moved to withdraw from the case entirely just hours before the Justice Department filed its motion.
This is a transparent scam, but we’ve actually been here before. Back in December 2018, I wrote a piece called Michael Flynn’s Very Bad Day in Court. In that article, I took great satisfaction that the judge overseeing Flynn’s case had completely rejected silly right-wing talking points about Flynn being entrapped and delivered a frightening diatribe in Flynn’s direction:
…[U.S. District Judge Emmet] Sullivan tore into Flynn and his lawyers. He almost bizarrely put Flynn under oath before demanding that he admit his guilt and deny all the right-wing talking points which have recently been repeated by the president himself. He forced Flynn to admit that he knew he was wrong to lie to the FBI and that there had been no misconduct in how his interviews were conducted. He acknowledged that any possible wrongdoing then-Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and counterintelligence official Peter Strzok may have committed in other areas had no bearing on his responsibility to be truthful to federal agents. Judge Sullivan openly questioned whether Flynn could have been charged with treason for operating as an undeclared agent of a foreign power while serving as National Security Advisor, suggested that Flynn had dishonored the flag that was displayed in the courtroom, and said “arguably you sold your country out.” He also asked Flynn’s lawyers how their filing was consistent with the client taking responsibility for his actions and advised them that they might want to delay sentencing since he was not inclined to let Flynn avoid incarceration.
The shaken defense team asked for a recess and then agreed to a ninety day delay in sentencing. Judge Emmet Sullivan is still presiding over the case, and I somehow doubt he’s impressed with the government’s current shenanigans. As Jan Wolfe of Reuters points out, Sullivan is probably going to want some explanation:
The Department of Justice on Thursday told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington it wants to drop the case against Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, following a pressure campaign by the Republican president and his political allies. While judges typically sign off on such motions, Sullivan could refuse and instead demand answers from the DOJ about who requested the sudden about-face, said Seth Waxman, a former federal prosecutor now at the law firm Dickinson Wright. “If Judge Sullivan wanted to he could conduct an inquiry and start asking a lot of questions,” said Waxman… …The judge is unlikely to sign off on the request as a pro forma matter, said Channing Phillips, the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia during the Obama administration, adding that with Sullivan “nothing is pro forma.” “I can guarantee you, he is going to question the prosecutors,” Phillips said in a phone interview. “He is going to want to understand exactly the basis for this motion … You have a new attorney general. You have a new U.S. attorney. You have new prosecutors who take a different position. But the facts haven’t changed.”
As Lawfare demonstrates, the flimsy brief filed with the court argues non-persuasively that Flynn’s should never have been questioned by the FBI in the first place. This is ludicrous on its face. They had just recently begun the process of closing down a counterintelligence case of Flynn after having not found derogatory information but decided to reverse that decision when they say him buddying up with the Russian ambassador to undermine sanctions. Nothing further needs to be said, but Flynn was also lying about the matter and causing others in the new administration to lie. The Russians now had leverage over the incoming National Security Advisor. The idea that he shouldn’t have been questioned carries no weight.
I’ve written more about Michael Flynn than any other character in Trump’s orbit, so I am very interested in the final disposition of his case. I’m now certain that Trump will pardon him, although I was never in much doubt about that. I still want to see what Judge Sullivan will say about this unprecedented maneuver by William Barr’s utterly corrupt and dishonest Department of Justice.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-09--Trump Has No Fixer To Make COVID-19 Go Away

Donald Trump said something Friday that should have ended his re-election prospects the moment it left his mouth : Of course , viruses don ’ t just “ go away ” regardless of the amount of propaganda or wishful thinking you throw at them .
His theory , however , is telling .
Trump ’ s strategy from the beginning of this crisis has been to minimize the threat and wish it away .
His refusal to initiate a comprehensive federal testing-and-contact-tracing program has as much to do with his refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the pandemic as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public policy .
Still , why would Trump say this ?
The usual conservative response to a public crisis is that it doesn ’ t really exist and the free market will magically fix it , anyway .
It ’ s not that the problem will disappear on its own , which is a small child ’ s response to challenges .
The simple answer is that , ever since he was a young man , Trump has never had to confront any problem that somebody else didn ’ t just make disappear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of attorneys , accountants and corrupted officials to make his problems go away—whether it was with women , creditors , contractors , or law enforcement .
Usually , he would have a main consligiere to take on the heaviest burdens , from the detestable Roy Cohn to Michael Cohen to Roger Stone to Rudy Giuliani and , most recently , his own personal Attorney General William Barr .
Now that he is president , Trump views the entire federal government as his personal fiefdom to clean up his messes and cover for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune to the protections to which Trump has become accustomed .
It does what it does , and Trump finds himself helpless and flummoxed .
There has never been a crisis so big in Trump ’ s life that he hasn ’ t been able to use people much more talented and intelligent than himself to make it go away quietly and efficiently .
So in Trump ’ s experience , that ’ s what problems do : They go away .
He has “ good genes ” ; he surrounds himself with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross any moral line for him and bad things just … disappear .
All he has to do in the meantime is manage the press with a con man ’ s combination of razzle dazzle and intimidation .
Actual work and accountability are for suckers and lesser people .
Casinos going bankrupt ?
Take the money and have the accountants stiff the investors .
Affairs with porn stars while your wife was pregnant ?
Have your fixer pay them off .
Real estate taxes a problem ?
Have some employees bribe the assessors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collusion with a hostile foreign power ?
Fire him by way of a patsy .
Tough re-election campaign ?
Have your lawyer threaten a foreign country if they don ’ t make up a scandal about your opponent .
And so on .
Remarkably , the first three years of Trump ’ s presidency were relatively smooth sailing outside of self-inflicted crimes and mishaps .
His actual approach to life was never fully tested in the Oval Office .
Now , with the first real challenge of his presidency , he is utterly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misdirection or intimidation he can use to make the press stories about all the deaths and economic destruction go away .
There is no accountant , lawyer , or public official who can use clever paperwork to make the virus disappear .
Solving this problem would require the sort of dedicated attention , tough choices , and hard work that Donald Trump has been able to spend his entire life successfully avoiding while thinking himself clever for doing so .
Trump merely asserts that coronavirus will just fix itself .
If you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense , because every other problem in his Trump ’ s life has .

Donald Trump said something Friday that should have ended his re-election prospects the moment it left his mouth:
“I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests. This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully.”
Of course, viruses don’t just “go away” regardless of the amount of propaganda or wishful thinking you throw at them. His theory, however, is telling. Trump’s strategy from the beginning of this crisis has been to minimize the threat and wish it away. His refusal to initiate a comprehensive federal testing-and-contact-tracing program has as much to do with his refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the pandemic as it does with the Republican laissez-faire approach to public policy.
Still, why would Trump say this? The usual conservative response to a public crisis is that it doesn’t really exist and the free market will magically fix it, anyway. It’s not that the problem will disappear on its own, which is a small child’s response to challenges.
The simple answer is that, ever since he was a young man, Trump has never had to confront any problem that somebody else didn’t just make disappear. Trump has always used an army of attorneys, accountants and corrupted officials to make his problems go away—whether it was with women, creditors, contractors, or law enforcement. Usually, he would have a main consligiere to take on the heaviest burdens, from the detestable Roy Cohn to Michael Cohen to Roger Stone to Rudy Giuliani and, most recently, his own personal Attorney General William Barr. Now that he is president, Trump views the entire federal government as his personal fiefdom to clean up his messes and cover for his open corruption.
But a virus is immune to the protections to which Trump has become accustomed. It does what it does, and Trump finds himself helpless and flummoxed.
There has never been a crisis so big in Trump’s life that he hasn’t been able to use people much more talented and intelligent than himself to make it go away quietly and efficiently. So in Trump’s experience, that’s what problems do: They go away. He has “good genes”; he surrounds himself with “the best people”—willing to cross any moral line for him and bad things just … disappear. All he has to do in the meantime is manage the press with a con man’s combination of razzle dazzle and intimidation. Actual work and accountability are for suckers and lesser people.
Casinos going bankrupt? Take the money and have the accountants stiff the investors. Affairs with porn stars while your wife was pregnant? Have your fixer pay them off. Real estate taxes a problem? Have some employees bribe the assessors. FBI Director threatening to expose your collusion with a hostile foreign power? Fire him by way of a patsy. Tough re-election campaign? Have your lawyer threaten a foreign country if they don’t make up a scandal about your opponent. And so on.
Remarkably, the first three years of Trump’s presidency were relatively smooth sailing outside of self-inflicted crimes and mishaps. His actual approach to life was never fully tested in the Oval Office. Now, with the first real challenge of his presidency, he is utterly adrift.
There is no amount of misdirection or intimidation he can use to make the press stories about all the deaths and economic destruction go away. There is no accountant, lawyer, or public official who can use clever paperwork to make the virus disappear. Solving this problem would require the sort of dedicated attention, tough choices, and hard work that Donald Trump has been able to spend his entire life successfully avoiding while thinking himself clever for doing so.
Trump merely asserts that coronavirus will just fix itself. If you think about it, that actually makes some sense, because every other problem in his Trump’s life has.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-10--Trump Was Never on a Glide Path to Re-Election Even Before the Virus

The Washington Post : reports that Donald is despondent these days .
But not over the death , illness and economic calamity as a responsible , empathetic leader would be .
Rather , he ’ s upset over his supposedly declining electoral fortunes : Some of Trump ’ s advisers described the president as glum and shell-shocked by his declining popularity .
In private conversations , he has struggled to process how his fortunes suddenly changed from believing he was on a glide path to reelection to realizing that he is losing to the likely Democratic nominee , former vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll , including his own campaign ’ s internal surveys , advisers said .
He also has been fretting about the possibility that a bad outbreak of the virus this fall could damage his standing in the November election , said the advisers , who along with other aides and allies requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations .
The president is also eager to resume political travel in June , including holding his signature rallies by the end of the summer in areas where there are few cases , advisers said .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about organizing a high-dollar , in-person fundraiser next month , as well as preliminary planning about staging rallies and what sort of screenings might be necessary , according to Republican National Committee officials and outsider advisers .
One option being considered is holding rallies outdoors , rather than in enclosed arenas , a senior administration official said .
These two short paragraphs illustrate the cloud of delusion under which Trump operates .
First , there are no areas where there are “ few cases.
” Not only is COVID-19 running rampant in rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take only a few asymptomatic contagious individuals to infect dozens or even hundreds of other rallygoers , it would literally be nearly impossible given the dearth of testing to know whether an area had few cases or not .
Second , given the fact that 72 people were infected likely after attending an anti-social-distancing gathering in Wisconsin , it seems highly unlikely that holding a rally outdoors will make much of a difference in terms of the safety of the attendees .
But even from the limited point of view of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not grounded more in wishful narcissism than fact .
Trump was not , in fact , on a glide path to re-election prior to the arrival of the virus .
Joe Biden has been leading Trump by the same wide margin since this time last year .
Sanders also dominated Trump over the same year-long period by a slightly smaller margin , and Warren held a consistent , slim lead as well .
Of course , Hillary Clinton led by significant margins throughout her general election only to lose in the electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were a number of unique factors in that election from Clinton ’ s negative favorability rating to the Russian hacking and release of her campaign emails via Wikileaks , to the final intervention by James Comey .
Nor are Democrats likely to make the same mistake in overlooking electoral realignment trends and mistaking where the real swing states lay as they did in 2016 , or to be complacent in the face of Trump .
Meanwhile , Democrats dominated Republicans in the 2018 midterms and in most special elections since then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unearned confidence for Trump to believe he had a clear path to victory .
In fact , fear of Biden is why Trump attempted the Ukrainian coercion scheme that led to his impeachment .
If Trump does lose in November , he will certainly claim election fraud and a number of other conspiracies–but insofar as he strays away from conspiracies he will likely blame the virus .
But there ’ s no reason to believe we would have won , regardless .
Only the same narcissism and wishful thinking that permeatee the rest @ @ @ @

The Washington Post reports that Donald Trump is despondent these days. But not over the death, illness and economic calamity as a responsible, empathetic leader would be. Rather, he’s upset over his supposedly declining electoral fortunes:
Some of Trump’s advisers described the president as glum and shell-shocked by his declining popularity. In private conversations, he has struggled to process how his fortunes suddenly changed from believing he was on a glide path to reelection to realizing that he is losing to the likely Democratic nominee, former vice president Joe Biden, in virtually every poll, including his own campaign’s internal surveys, advisers said. He also has been fretting about the possibility that a bad outbreak of the virus this fall could damage his standing in the November election, said the advisers, who along with other aides and allies requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The president is also eager to resume political travel in June, including holding his signature rallies by the end of the summer in areas where there are few cases, advisers said. Trump’s political team has begun discussions about organizing a high-dollar, in-person fundraiser next month, as well as preliminary planning about staging rallies and what sort of screenings might be necessary, according to Republican National Committee officials and outsider advisers. One option being considered is holding rallies outdoors, rather than in enclosed arenas, a senior administration official said.
These two short paragraphs illustrate the cloud of delusion under which Trump operates.
First, there are no areas where there are “few cases.” Not only is COVID-19 running rampant in rural areas, and not only would it take only a few asymptomatic contagious individuals to infect dozens or even hundreds of other rallygoers, it would literally be nearly impossible given the dearth of testing to know whether an area had few cases or not. Second, given the fact that 72 people were infected likely after attending an anti-social-distancing gathering in Wisconsin, it seems highly unlikely that holding a rally outdoors will make much of a difference in terms of the safety of the attendees.
But even from the limited point of view of Trump’s personal electoral self-interest, his perspective is grounded more in wishful narcissism than fact.
Trump was not, in fact, on a glide path to re-election prior to the arrival of the virus. Joe Biden has been leading Trump by the same wide margin since this time last year. If anything, Biden’s average margin has shrunk in recent polls as Trump briefly enjoyed a sympathetic bounce due to the crisis. Sanders also dominated Trump over the same year-long period by a slightly smaller margin, and Warren held a consistent, slim lead as well.
Of course, Hillary Clinton led by significant margins throughout the 2016 only to lose in the electoral college at the very end. But there were a number of unique factors in that election from Clinton’s negative favorability rating to the Russian hacking and release of her campaign emails via Wikileaks, to the final intervention by James Comey. Nor are Democrats likely to make the same mistake in overlooking electoral realignment trends and mistaking where the real swing states lay as they did in 2016, or to be complacent in the face of Trump.
Meanwhile, Democrats dominated Republicans in the 2018 midterms and in most special elections since then.
So there is little reason outside of unearned confidence for Trump to believe he had a clear path to victory. In fact, fear of Biden is why Trump attempted the Ukrainian coercion scheme that led to his impeachment.
If Trump does lose in November, he will certainly claim election fraud and a number of other conspiracies–but insofar as he strays away from conspiracies he will likely blame the virus. But there’s no reason to believe he would have won, regardless. Only the same narcissism and wishful thinking that permeates the rest of his worldview.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-10--Republicans Want to Sacrifice Your Social Security But Not Their Tax Cuts

You knew it was coming : To begin with , two key points : 1 ) due to pedal-to-the-metal fiscal stimulus policy , interest rates are incredibly low so debt is very cheap , and 2 ) a Great Depression from inadequate stimulus during a pandemic will have far larger long-term impacts on both the debt and the deficit than up-front stimulus to maintain GDP and consumer demand .
And that ’ s without even delving into conversations about the macroeconomics of deficits , Modern Monetary Theory and similar questions about just how much deficits matter in the grand scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyperinflation just around the corner any day now for decades , with laughable success rates .
If policymakers took the real threat of climate change as seriously as they take the phantom threat of deficit-fueled inflation , America would already be a green energy paradise–and with a jobs program ironically powerful enough to shrink our debt obligations .
But let ’ s be very clear : Republicans don ’ t actually care about the whit about the deficit and never have .
Every time Republicans hold power they cut taxes for the rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pay for themselves .
They never do , of course .
The Trump and Paul Ryan massive giveaway to the rich was no exception , pushing the deficit up by at least $ 100 billion to over $ 1 trillion .
Because of those tax cuts , government revenues actually declined during ostensibly boom times when they should otherwise have risen .
Similarly , the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a nearly $ 2 trillion reduction in revenues during the 2000s .
And , of course , the initial explosion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s administration of guns , butter and tax cuts for the rich .
It is , rather , Democrats who perversely and consistently bear the brunt of reducing deficits .
Barack Obama reduced the deficit by three quarters during his administration .
Bill Clinton left office running budget surpluses that were swept away by the Bush tax cuts .
Again , from a progressive and modern monetary perspective these deficit reductions are not even desirable .
But framed purely from traditionalist deficit hawk standpoints , Democrats balance budgets while Republicans spend like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broken politics in which only Republican presidents are allowed to spend money , winning popularity and granting largesse to their cronies then Democrats are forced to implement unpopular austerity and tighten the belt .
Now , during a pandemic , Republicans are laying in a plan to steal your social security to pay for your decimated wages and benefits , while keeping landlords , banks and big corporations fully capitalized .
There is no plan , however , to roll back any of the Trump , Bush or Reagan tax cuts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should we be concerned about the deficit during a once-in-a-century crisis of unprecedented unemployment and danger to public health .
It shouldn ’ t even be part of the conversation .
But if it must be , you ’ ll know a Republican is actually serious about doing something about the deficit when they start talking about rolling back their tax cuts for the 1 % .
Until then , every time they mention the deficit or the debt it ’ s merely a pretense to grab more cash out of your wallet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mansions .

You knew it was coming:
Senior Trump administration officials are growing increasingly wary of the massive federal spending to combat the economic downturn and are considering ways to limit the impact of future stimulus efforts on the national debt, according to six administration officials and four external advisers familiar with the matter. While no one in the administration is advocating immediate cuts, the unease among senior Trump advisers about federal spending comes as the White House halts talks with Congress on additional emergency measures to rescue a U.S. economy facing its worst crisis in generations. Some White House officials have gone as far as exploring policies such as automatic spending cuts as the economy improves, or prepaying Social Security benefits to workers before they become eligible, although these measures are unlikely to advance given the political stakes, said these officials and advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of internal deliberations.
To begin with, two key points: 1) due to pedal-to-the-metal fiscal stimulus policy, interest rates are incredibly low so debt is very cheap, and 2) a Great Depression from inadequate stimulus during a pandemic will have far larger long-term impacts on both the debt and the deficit than up-front stimulus to maintain GDP and consumer demand.
And that’s without even delving into conversations about the macroeconomics of deficits, Modern Monetary Theory and similar questions about just how much deficits matter in the grand scheme of things. Doomsayers have been predicting hyperinflation just around the corner any day now for decades, with laughable success rates. If policymakers took the real threat of climate change as seriously as they take the phantom threat of deficit-fueled inflation, America would already be a green energy paradise–and with a jobs program ironically powerful enough to shrink our debt obligations.
But let’s be very clear: Republicans don’t actually care about the whit about the deficit and never have. Every time Republicans hold power they cut taxes for the rich, while falsely claiming that the cuts will pay for themselves. They never do, of course. The Trump and Paul Ryan massive giveaway to the rich was no exception, pushing the deficit up by at least $100 billion to over $1 trillion. Because of those tax cuts, government revenues actually declined during ostensibly boom times when they should otherwise have risen. Similarly, the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a nearly $2 trillion reduction in revenues during the 2000s. And, of course, the initial explosion of debt and deficits occurred during Ronald Reagan’s administration of guns, butter and tax cuts for the rich.
It is, rather, Democrats who perversely and consistently bear the brunt of reducing deficits. Barack Obama reduced the deficit by three quarters during his administration. Bill Clinton left office running budget surpluses that were swept away by the Bush tax cuts. Again, from a progressive and modern monetary perspective these deficit reductions are not even desirable. But framed purely from traditionalist deficit hawk standpoints, Democrats balance budgets while Republicans spend like drunken sailors. The end result is a broken politics in which only Republican presidents are allowed to spend money, winning popularity and granting largesse to their cronies then Democrats are forced to implement unpopular austerity and tighten the belt.
Now, during a pandemic, Republicans are laying in a plan to steal your social security to pay for your decimated wages and benefits, while keeping landlords, banks and big corporations fully capitalized. There is no plan, however, to roll back any of the Trump, Bush or Reagan tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy.
Under no circumstance should we be concerned about the deficit during a once-in-a-century crisis of unprecedented unemployment and danger to public health. It shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.
But if it must be, you’ll know a Republican is actually serious about doing something about the deficit when they start talking about rolling back their tax cuts for the top one percent. Until then, every time they mention the deficit or the debt it’s merely a pretense to grab more cash out of your wallet to fund their third yachts and fourth mansions.