|
Dear Group, On Sunday, September 30, the Spokesman Review ran a Round Table page in the Business Section entitled “Health care in America” presenting McMorris Rodgers’ “My Goal is Quality and Affordability” and Lisa Brown’s “We Need Solutions, Not Slogans.” Each is worth the time to read. (To do so either click on each individually or, if you have access to the online Spokesman, read here with both on the same page as presented in the paper.) McMorris Rodgers leads off by revving up her base. For them the ACA is “Obamacare,” the Republican word-meister’s way of deprecating the ACA by linking it to a man they’ve been primed to despise. She writes O….care “isn’t working.” No small wonder there. She and her party have fought hammer and tong legislatively, through the courts, and through right wing media to block every essential provision of the Affordable Care Act since its inception in 2009. One of her proudest achievements was the repeal of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (as part of the infamous Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of December 2017), a repeal that assures that health insurance premiums under the ACA will rise. Now she laments that it “…isn’t working?” Mission accomplished. You broke it, you own it. She goes on, “Right now we are continuing to see the cost of health care and insurance soar.” That is re-statement of problem. The next paragraph begins with, “…I’ve supported and will continue to advance real solutions.” I’m waiting…waiting…what are these solutions? She moves on to a series of “what I’m for” statements to fill out the paragraph…no solutions there. So what does McMorris Rodgers propose? Here’s the stripped out list of “solutions” from the rest of her essay: 1) By making Medicare and Medicaid pay a higher percentage of what rural hospitals bill she’ll fix the fiscal crisis in rural health care. Really? Read Mike Bell’s analysis (candidate in State Legislative District 7) and my puzzlement over McMorris Rodgers fuzzy economic thinking. 2) By blaming the “high population of Medicare and Medicaid patients” for whom rural hospitals struggle to provide care. Does she wish to limit reduce their numbers? The problem is not Medicare and Medicaid patients, it is the un-reimbursed cost of caring for patients forced to seek care in rural Emergency Rooms, people priced out medical insurance, a problem you, McMorris Rodgers, have helped make worse. 3) By “…leading in advancing solutions that make health care more affordable and accessible” as co-chair of the Rural Health Coalition. What solutions? That is yet another restatement of the problem, not a solution. 4) By extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) [but only after holding the renewal of the program hostage]. CHIP was established in 1993 in a strong bi-partisan effort. There are no Democrats who oppose it. Republicans act as though it were an act of sacrifice on their part to extend the program. 5) By supporting residency programs. [That is a nice, rare, bi-partisan effort. It does not address the cost of health care OR health care insurance.] and, finally, McMorris Rodgers proposes to bring down drug costs By 6) Leading on legislation to bring transparency to Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). [leaving it to consumers to spend even more time researching the prices of each drug they’re prescribed in a rigged and hopelessly distorted market]. Oh, yes, and in the second to last paragraph McMorris Rodgers is going to foster innovation through the 21st Century Cures Act. 21st Century Cures’ main thrust is to strip away regulations around the testing and approval of drugs and medical devices. These regulations help ensure that drugs and medical devices are safe and effective before they get tested out on us, the “consumers.” She is promoting a Republican effort to make drug companies even more profitable and suggesting that will unleash “innovation.” These are NOT solutions. It does not require a Ph.D. in Economics to recognize McMorris Rodgers’ fuzzy thinking. There is nothing in her essay to suggest she even understands health care economics, much less that she can formulate a solution to a problem she has only made worse. Lisa Brown’s essay is a breath of fresh air. I encourage you to read it. I quote below just three examples her clear thinking: I will work to lower the cost of prescription drugs – the federal government can and should use its buying power to negotiate lower costs. We should not seek to lower prices by bringing more insurance companies into the market. Competition among private companies isn’t the answer – companies can change their coverage rules on a whim, resulting in more substandard insurance plans which don’t offer what families need for health care security. Additionally, I strongly support the principles of universal coverage and recognize there are a few different paths to getting there – something we should do. In fact, we already have costly universal coverage in this country: the emergency room. Hospitals can’t turn away people in need of care, and end up with overwhelming costs. There are more effective ways of treating more people, notably by expanding eligibility for Medicare, which is a universal system. In November let the voters of eastern Washington reject McMorris Rodgers’ mentally blinkered Republican thinking. Let us elect Lisa Brown, a leader with the mental bandwidth to both understand the problem and offer real solutions. Let each of us go forth, knock on doors, and proclaim the good news to dispirited, disengaged voters! Join in canvassing. Keep to the high ground, Jerry |
CMR’s Tax Backfill Attempt
|
Dear Group, As we approach the midterm elections McMorris Rodgers (and the Republican/Libertarians in general) are firing up the machinery for some serious backfilling. On September 28, while the entire nation (and quite a lot of the rest of the world) was glued to the spectacle of the Kavanaugh hearings, McMorris Rodgers and her ilk in the House of Representatives quietly passed a bill, H.R. 6760: Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018. The Republican Policy Committee’s summary of the bill states: “H.R. 6760 would make permanent the tax provisions for individuals and pass-through entities in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that otherwise be [sic] sunset after 2025…” There is no mention this would add to the budget deficit and there is no discussion of an offset. (See the P.S. below.) With H.R. 6760 the Republicans are trying to establish plausible deniability for a grievous error of their own making with H.R. 1, the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” in December 2017. They are trying hard to backfill a hole they dug for themselves. Let me explain. McMorris Rodgers and her Republican colleagues were really excited over their partisan success in ramming the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” through the U.S. Senate. To do so they used a legislative loophole to avoid needing to compromise with Democrats. Trump was delighted to sign it. McMorris Rodgers immediately began talking up her accomplishment at every opportunity with the words, “Money in your pocket.” The trouble is, the money that was supposed to appear in “your” pocket was only about 20% of more than a trillion dollars the Act is expected to add to the federal deficit in the next ten years. The other 80% went to to corporations and the already wealthy. Worse, the Republicans started talking to their base about how the deficit (which they just exploded) was going to require them to “tackle entitlements,” i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This has not played well to a angry electorate—and it shouldn’t. There was another glaring flaw in the Act. Belatedly, the Republican leadership (including McMorris Rodgers) has realized their disingenuous “Money in your Pocket” sales job convinced almost no one outside their loyal base. Worse, they realized they were nakedly vulnerable on another point. In their haste to get the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed (while completely shutting out Democrats from the deliberations) they had to use the “budget reconciliation” loophole to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. Using budget reconciliation required they balance the numbers. They chose to do so by making the corporate tax cuts permanent while letting the individual “money in your pocket” provisions (for the common folk) expire in seven years. Their corporate donors wouldn’t stand for the “uncertainty” of having it the other way around. “Uncertainty,” after all, is bad for business… Here’s the twist: It turns out it’s pretty hard to convince Americans you’re being fair when you hand a huge permanent benefit to corporations and a temporary pittance to the common folk, the “money in your pocket” people. I recall Republican talk at the time suggesting this expiring benefit was really no problem, since they had backed Democrats into a corner where later they could be forced to vote to rescue the common folk before their meager tax benefit expired. That pissed me off at the time and still does. They were saying, “We’ve got the power. You have to dance to our tune. We don’t need to even consider your viewpoint as we blow up the deficit to pay off our donors. We can count on you weak, lily-livered Democrats to vote with us to save your vulnerable constituents from the law we crammed down your throats.” Now they are having second thoughts, so while we were all distracted by the Kavanaugh spectacle the House Republicans cynically passed H.R. 6760: Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 on a party line vote (all WA Republican representatives voted for it, all Democrats against). In so doing the Republicans are counting on the ignorance and distraction of the electorate. The bill has zero chance of passing the Senate before the close of this “115th Congress” at year’s end. It is not a “budget reconciliation” bill, so it would require sixty votes to avoid a filibuster. On top of that, if made law, it would further explode the deficit. (Remember when the Republicans preached “fiscal responsibility”??) I guarantee McMorris Rodgers will be singing to her base about her vote on this bill. You can bet she will blame Democrats for not joining her in voting for a bogus solution to the problem of her own making. She will trot out this doomed bill as a debating point, “I voted to make the tax cuts permanent for the workers of eastern Washington.” I can hear it now. She’s counting on voters to forget it was she who made it a problem in the first place. Don’t let her get away with it. Keep to the high ground, Jerry P.S. The text of H.R. 6760 specifically states in its full text in Sec. 301 (the very last lines of the Bill) “The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard.” I read that as legalese stating the Republicans want to make sure that no one takes notice of the fact by passing this measure they are further exploding the deficit. How cynical is that? P.P.S. I find it a bit odd to note that at govtrack.us one is presented with a two summaries of this H.R. 6760, one from the Republican Policy Committee and one from the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan division of the Library of Congress. Are the Republican/Libertarians so partisan they have to publish their own spin on this bill? Is the non-partisan CRS Summary somehow not good enough? |
Ginsburg to Kavanaugh, How Far We’ve Strayed
|
Dear Group, Last week we watched as Republican Senators twisted themselves in knots. Their fervent desire is to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, and to do so as fast and with as little scrutiny as possible. The nation watched as Dr. Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Brett Kavanaugh, then a teenager, sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh, for his part, mirroring the antics of the man who nominated him, came out swinging and emotional…and carefully dodged questions as to why he would object to an FBI investigation. In his confirmation hearing he posed himself as a man of gleaming virtue. Is he now concerned a former classmate might put the lie to his self-characterization by recounting drunken, hormone-fueled exploits of Kavanaugh’s teenage years? All of that brings me to Judge Ginsburg. No, not Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is not related to the man whose Supreme Court nomination I wish for you to remember. The man to remember is Douglas Howard Ginsburg, currently still a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On October 23, 1987, Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Robert Bork was voted down by the full Senate 58-42. Democrats held a slim majority at that time, but in the final vote 6 Republican Senators crossed over and voted against confirmation and 2 Democrats voted for it. On October 29, 1987, six days after Bork was voted down, Reagan tried again, nominating Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg for the vacant Supreme Court seat. On November 7, just nine days after his nomination, Douglas Ginsburg withdrew from consideration. It was revealed by Nina Totenberg of NPR that Judge Ginsburg had used marijuana. He withdrew in response, rather than try to weather the storm. Consider that for a moment. Had he killed someone, had he assaulted a teenage girl, had he robbed a store in a youth? No, the assertion he had used marijuana while he was professor was sufficient for him to withdraw. At the time marijuana was illegal…and ubiquitous. His use had hurt no one, but it was clear to him that the fact of use itself was disqualifying for the Supreme Court. He remains a Circuit Court judge in good standing to this day. Hardly anyone remembers his nomination. Contrast that to Kavanaugh’s Trumpian combativeness at his hearing last Thursday, coupled with his complete unwillingness to say he would agree to an investigation of assault of which he is accused. Add other women who have come forward to contradict Kavanaugh’s personal recollection of an unblemished past. Consider Ginsburg’s fate. He is sits in judgement on the D.C. Circuit. The Senate confirmation process is a job interview, not a judicial proceeding. Kavanaugh in his partisan combativeness last Thursday has already demonstrated he is not Supreme Court material. How far we’ve strayed… When you vote in a few weeks remember that our own McMorris Rodgers is an integral part of the Republican/Libertarian bloc that wants to see Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. It would be a crowning achievement of Republican/Libertarian insurgency. She would like us to think she is detached from this unseemly brawl. “In my understanding…” are not credible words from a woman who is nominally “the fourth most powerful Republican in Congress.” Keep to the high ground, Jerry P.S. Let’s add a little more context. Lewis Powell (a story for another day) announced his retirement from the Supreme Court June 26, 1987. Reagan’s third nominee, none other than Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0. Take note: That was 7 months after Powell stepped down. In contrast, we are now only 3 months after that same Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his intent to retire. These same Republicans who are now so anxious to replace Justice Kennedy with Kavanaugh saw fit to simply ignore the nomination of Merrick Garland for nearly 10 months, the longest nomination “process” (failed or successful) in U.S. Supreme Court history. If the Republicans were interested in the preservation of democracy and the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court they would take their time and nominate a candidate as broadly acceptable as Anthony Kennedy. Instead, this is a naked, high-stakes power grab. Keep to the high ground, Jerry
|
CMR and George Soros
Dear Group,
There is a odd exchange in the debate at the Bing on September 19. You can watch it courtesy of KHQ, starting around 21:00 on the youtube post.
CMR: “The only dark money in this campaign right now is coming from…[turning to Lisa] some group in New York, I don’t know if you’re fa-familiar with who they are, uh…”
Lisa [helpfully]: “The Congressional Leadership Fund?”
CMR: No! Um. They are, it is, some group in New York…they…they’re an outside group…I’m not sure who they’re funded by…[CMR points her hand toward Lisa] maybe George Soros! [Laughter, then some clapping]
Watch it again. You can almost see the wheels turning in McMorris Rodgers’ head. “Here’s my chance to insert George Soros!”
Did you notice the trigger words, “George Soros,” when you first watched the debate? Did you wonder, “Why did she say that?”
If the name “George Soros” didn’t light up any image in your brain you live in a comfortable liberal news silo. Over the last twenty years in the fever swamps of Republican/Libertarian media Mr. Soros has been painted as the puppet master of liberals, the dark force that has deluded Democrats into thinking the way they do, the man fronting the money individually paying the busloads of protesters who came out for the Women’s March, for one small example. For people living in the right wing news silo the name “George Soros” lights up the image of a dark lord with a foreign accent manipulating gullible liberals. His name is shorthand for a vast liberal conspiracy bent on undermining American values.
This line of wing nut conspiracy theory is so well developed in the fever swamps of the right that Soros was invoked as hanging out with Dr. Blasey Ford in an eagerly shared photo on Twitter meant to assail Dr. Ford’s credibility. Never mind the woman in the photo looked nothing like Dr. Ford.
McMorris Rodgers coils in her news silo, coached by her handlers, and hurls her fireball, “…funded by…maybe George Soros!” she inserts, confident she has lit up the mind frame in her fully primed base. The name drifts by most people, who, if they hear it at all, wonder, “Who is this George Soros, anyway?” Could McMorris Rodgers explain in any detail the actual story of the man George Soros? You’d have to ask her. I suspect for her George Soros is nothing more than a coached soundbite.
George Soros is an 87 year old U.S. citizen, a Jewish immigrant from Hungary. He speaks with an accent. His Jewish immigrant background and accent, of course, make him an easy target for the xenophobic, anti-immigrant right. When Nazi Germany invaded Hungary in 1944, George was 13 years old. He survived the war masquerading as the Christian godson of an agricultural official, escaping the fate of nearly a half million of his Jewish countrymen killed in the Holocaust, The war left him with an indelible bias in favor of liberal democracy and a fierce critic of totalitarianism, fascism, and Marxism. Soros is wealthy, having succeeded as a hedge fund investor. He is the founder and major benefactor of the Open Society Foundations, groups with a presence in 37 countries that aim to support civil society. Of course, his internationalist, humanitarian globalist perspective has made Soros a target from the right.
Let’s define “liberal democracy,” since the Libertarian right’s propaganda wing is so good at twisting language. For George Soros (and for me) a liberal democracy is “characterized by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons.” None of this is possible without a free press. Donald Trump’s attacks on reporters and the Republican Party’s scorched earth assault to take over the Supreme Court should be setting off alarm bells…
Side note: It is ironic the Soros Foundation provided the funding for Viktor Orban, the nationalist, anti-immigrant prime minister of present day Hungary, to study at Oxford. Orban, one of few European leaders who is an open ally of Trump, has made Soros unwelcome in the country of his birth. “Orban accused Soros, who is an American citizen, of plotting to overwhelm Hungary with Muslim immigrants in order to undermine its Christian heritage. He attacked Soros during campaign rallies, and his government plastered the country with anti-Soros billboards.”
I recommend two articles on Soros: “George Soros is a favorite target of the right — here’s how that happened” from the Business Insider and a more recent, and much longer and more comprehensive article in the New York Times entitled, “George Soros Bet Big on Liberal Democracy. Now He Fears He Is Losing.” The wikipedia entry on Mr. Soros is also useful (especially if you hit a pay wall at the other two).
At 87, George Soros’ story is complex, but he is nothing if not a stalwart promoter of the sort of democracy we are fast losing. Does McMorris Rodgers have the bandwidth to understand something of the man, his background, his viewpoints, his philanthropy or is she only capable of absorbing the caricature of him assembled in the Libertarian news silo? You would have to ask her. I hope someone will.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
What Next?
Dear Group,
As I write this on Thursday morning many Americans are poised to tune in to the re-started Kavanaugh hearings. Brett Kavanaugh, a nearly sainted figure in the eyes of both the corporate and the religious right, appears to have a sodden, hormone-fueled prep school and college past, a story a growing line of women are anxious to tell. Saint Kavanaugh, for his part, categorically denies that he ever once had an impure thought, modeling his denial on those of his apparent mentor, Donald Trump.
The Donald, proclaiming the wondrous success of his presidency to the General Assembly of the United Nations on Wednesday, was greeted with laughter. He followed up by thumbing his nose at our allies, praising dictators, and setting “patriotism” and nationalism as the primary ideals of the new Amerika, all this from a president who dodged military service himself.
More on the home front in eastern Washington, Sue Lani Madsen, in a widely unread opinion piece in the Spokesman entitled “Longtime local accountant finds tax cuts will benefit middle class,” tries to convince us the middle class really is better off thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Neither she nor the accountant whose convoluted calculations she quotes seem to understand the concept of inflation, nor do they wonder why it takes a tax accountant to convince us the 99% really are better off.
Meanwhile, those benefiting from the other eighty percent of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are doing very well. Becky Kramer in Thursday’s Spokesman writes, “Thirteen of Avista’s top executives will receive a combined $18 million in immediate payouts if the Spokane-based utility is sold to Hydro One Ltd., of Toronto.” No need for convoluted calculations there…
McMorris Rodgers, having already brought Devin Nunes and Kellyanne Conway to Spokane to rile up her base and raise funds, is apparently doubling down and planning to host none other than Vice President Pence next week at a private fundraiser. The location and time of day, and even the day of the week, seem to be a moving target. The September 21 Spokesman and many other media outlets reported Pence would appear in Spokane Tuesday, October 2. On September 26th another outlet, the “Spokane Patch” reported Pence’s appearance instead might be Wednesday, October 3. I wonder if Pence is delayed in Washington D.C. so he can add a deciding vote to the Kavanaugh confirmation. Clearly, most Republican Senators have cast off any pretense of an open mind regarding Kavanaugh’s accusers. After stiff arming Merrick Garland and changing the rules to confirm Neil Grouch, they’re certainly not going to let a little thing like some whiney women keep them from establishing corporate dominance on the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday this week at breakfast a friend, a Republican of the thoughtful sort, said, “It feels like the country is unraveling.”
In the midst of all this news, all this swirl, all this angst, I knocked on doors this week and conversed with a number of registered voters and a few unregistered young people in the precincts around Shadle Library. When I asked the question, “Do you plan to vote in the November election?” I was a little stunned to hear from many, “No, I don’t think so.” Asked why, and listened to, the common thread was “Why bother, it won’t change anything…” I talked health care with twenty year old and helped him register to vote. I talked health care and income inequality and insecurity with a sixty something woman who was essentially in despair, saying she could no longer bear to watch the television. I told them of the desperation I feel that lead me to their door to plead with them to vote. In the end they assured me they would vote…and likely for Lisa Brown.
Get out this weekend for your favorite candidate and knock on doors. I keep meeting volunteer like myself who have never before in their wildest moments imagined they would be doing this, but we need more people out there. You don’t need to know a bunch of policy positions. You come pre-armed with your sincerity and your personal endorsement. The people we need to convince to cast a ballot are often most impressed just by the fact that someone is at their doorstep, listening, and offering some hope.
Sign up to canvass with Lisa Brown and her campaign this afternoon, Saturday or Sunday at https://secure.ngpvan.com/p/oWPMsHe9j0-qY8t2EeeJnQ2 or call the DCCC office at (509) 954-9132 or stop by at 1507 E. Sprague if you’re in Spokane. If not, there are field offices scattered throughout eastern Washington.
Go to MyVote.wa.gov check out your ballot for your local area, familiarize yourself with a local candidate and join their campaign. It is all good. Voting is essential, but just waiting until November 5th to figure out for whom you might vote (this year especially) is an abdication of civic responsibility.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
How Old is the Earth and Why is the Answer Important?
|
Dear Group, Only the first hour of the debate at the Bing in Spokane on Wednesday, September 19th, was televised. That hour is available to watch here. Another half hour of audience questions followed, questions and answers KHQ did not post. Parts of that half hour I’ve transcribed from recordings made by members of the audience. Thanks to Bob Gilles for the following question, which he posed in a very jolly, upbeat fashion I cannot express in print. Bob Gilles: “What is your take on evolution and science? Do you believe the earth is more like 6000 years old or four and a half billion years old?” CMR: “I get to go first, huh? [laughter] Well. OK. Ummm. The account that I believe is the one in the Bible that God created the world in seven days. [clapping] …made by His creation… [noise] I’m not here…I can’t say how old the earth is. I believe this is an exciting time for us to be living. I’m proud of the innovation and ingenuity of the American people. I’m proud to be an American. It’s the greatest country [loud clapping]…liberty and human rights and religious tolerance and self-determination. So this is a [murmuring] …and science. And I do believe that we need to…ah…know what the science is, respect the science…I’m battling right now to make sure we use science when it comes to making decisions around the Lower Snake River dams and the Snake River system…[trails off]” It is a free country. Everyone is entitled to their point of view. The point of view McMorris Rodgers publicly endorsed in her answer (a little reluctantly) is consistent with her education. She has never been exposed to the foundations of geology and biology, except, perhaps, to discount the evidence. Her undergraduate degree was taken at the Pensacola Christian College where, among the Articles of Faith, one finds: We believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, and that God created all life (Gen. 1). We reject the man-made theory of evolution occurring over millions of years and believe that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. No instructor at such an institution would dare offer an unbiased presentation of the physical evidence for a planet that is three and a half billion years old. (The evidence is not only fossils in layers of rock but also the physics of the decay of radioactive isotopes, the stuff of basic science.) If everything one is taught begins with the unshakable belief the earth is around 6000 years old (a number calculated based on the “begats” in the Book of Genesis) one must intentionally disregard the bases of nearly all modern science, especially modern geology, continental drift, and, importantly, the geological understanding of the history of climate. (If all ice ages and past documented changes in climate all occurred over 6000 years then everything has to have happened fast. In that mindset modern day concerns over the speed at which climate is changing can be glossed over as unremarkable. McMorris Rodgers analysis, “We’ve been through times when the earth warmed and then also we’ve been through times when the Earth…there’s been more ice on…in the world” is a case in point.) It is important to recognize adherence to the idea of a 6000 year old earth is not a majority view in America, probably not even among self-described Christians. Much of Christianity, including United Methodism, the tradition in which I was brought up, considers the biblical creation story to be allegorical: “We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.” It is worth noting there have been recent (and un-successful) efforts to change Methodist doctrine to an anti-science view. Christianity is not monolithic, and McMorris Rodgers’ views represent only some of those who call themselves Christian. That realization is at the core of her hesitation to directly answer the question Mr. Gilles posed. Look at McMorris Rodgers’ answer again. She performed all almost immediate hard pivot to the only “scientific” refuge she knows, her claim of a scientific basis for preserving the Snake River dams, the same pivot she employs every time climate change comes up as a question. In contrast, Lisa Brown used her time to address the broader issue of climate change: Dr. Brown: I believe in science [applause] I believe there’s a scientific consensus that human activity and carbon being released into the atmosphere is contributing to climate change and that it is a major, major challenge facing our planet and that instead of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords like the Trump administration we should progressively work with other countries to come up with an agreement that will help us transition to a clean energy economy. And I also agree with the Congresswoman that we need to not put our head in the sand about science, but utilize science and our best technological practices as we address the issues related to declining fish populations and other important uses of the Columbia and Snake River system and get stake holders together looking at that science and coming up with solutions in a collaborative process. McMorris Rodgers is entitled to her belief system, but at least in her case that belief system prevents her from comprehending scientific issues of the utmost importance. Lisa Brown was brought up in Roman Catholicism, a faith tradition that, like United Methodism, does not reject scientific consensus. Lisa has the intellectual tools to grapple with scientific issues. Keep to the high ground, Jerry |
Lisa Brown on Democracy
|
Dear Group, No doubt many of my subscribers read Lisa Brown’s column in the Sunday, September 2, Spokesman opinion page. Below, I present it again for two reasons: 1) For all that I try very hard to keep up with eastern Washington news I missed reading this column when it first appeared. After talking with dozens of voters at the doorsteps it is clear to me no piece of news, no one writing, no TV ad, no speech reaches everyone who should hear or see it. Young registered voters in particular likely do NOT read the paper. I reproduce Lisa’s writing here in the hope of increasing awareness. 2) Lisa’s topic, protecting democratic institutions, seems frighteningly more pertinent today, just three weeks later, than it did on September 2. Trump seems poised to stomp on Rod Rosenstein, bringing him one step closer to a direct assault on the Mueller investigation. In McMorris Rodgers we have an enthusiastic supporter of Trump’s policies, a supporter so excited to ram through the Republican/Libertarian agenda she is perfectly willing serve as an apologist for whatever Trump does. Finally, I know Lisa well enough, I have conversed with her enough times, that I am confident these are Lisa’s actual words. (Having listened to, conversed with, and read much material attributed to her opponent, I greatly doubt McMorris Rodgers writes any original material at all.) Here is Lisa’s column: I’ll Protect Our Democratic Institutions My values and views on politics were influenced by growing up the oldest of five siblings in a small town in Illinois where the South meets the Midwest. I was raised Roman Catholic, which was a minority religion in our region. There were no Catholic schools in Robinson, but nuns came in on Saturdays to teach catechism classes. When told I had to choose a saint’s name for confirmation, I read as many biographies of saints as I could before choosing Rose for “Santa Rosa,” who ministered to the poor in Peru. My Catholic upbringing remains a strong influence on my personal and political outlook to this day. Like many families, mine had diverse political views. My father is a conservative Republican. My maternal grandfather was a labor union Democrat. Fortunately, they were both Navy veterans and their mutual interests in fishing, baseball, and making a better life for me and my brothers and sisters transcended their political differences. My mother was a populist. I inherited from her and from my Catholic upbringing a focus on those left out and a skepticism regarding claims made by the powerful. I experienced the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war in a white working-class small town surrounded by corn and soybean fields, and dominated by the two largest employers in town: an oil refinery and a candy bar factory. A high school history teacher had a major influence on me. I wanted to understand why there were no black people in my hometown and why there were monuments to battles with Indians, but no indigenous people there anymore. He gave me books to read that put the civil rights movement in context and I came to be inspired by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and by Bobby Kennedy. Their deaths had a tremendous impact on me. During high school, I watched the congressional Watergate hearings leading up to the resignation of President Richard Nixon on television, throughout the summer of 1974. I watched them with fascination whenever I wasn’t serving fried chicken, burgers, and milkshakes at “Mr. Drumstick.” I couldn’t vote yet, but it impressed me that Congress had the power to hold the president accountable and that there were members of Nixon’s own political party who put the Constitution and laws of our country above their personal career interests and party loyalty. Others were quiet and complicit. Yet, the system worked because our leaders stood up for our values and principles, and chose our country over their party. I believe we face a situation today that could be even more serious than Watergate. But are there enough members of the majority party who will stand up to the president, as many of Nixon’s party did then? As a member of Congress, my commitment would be to the Constitution and laws of the United States over either political party. At times, that means demanding accountability from our leaders when they violate or undermine our country’s laws. I believe the Trump administration’s separation of families at the southern border was a travesty of justice for some families seeking asylum here and likely involved serious violations of our laws. I fault Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Republican leaders for not allowing congressional hearings to get to the bottom of what occurred and for not taking decisive action to secure justice for families still suffering. Congress’ constitutional power and duty to check the administration’s actions cannot be undertaken lightly, which is why I cannot yet answer the often-asked question of whether I would vote to impeach the president. We have all seen plenty of smoke, but we won’t know if there’s fire until we evaluate carefully and fully the evidence from the conclusion of the Mueller investigation. The investigation should be allowed to proceed without interference. I strongly disagree with Rep. McMorris Rodgers, who refuses to rule out impeaching Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and who says her confidence needs to be restored in our country’s Department of Justice and FBI. She also declines to offer an opinion on the possible pardon of Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign manager, convicted of various crimes and soon to stand trial on yet more. I do not believe he should be pardoned. Regardless of who knew what and when, or what its ultimate effects, we know that Russia interfered significantly in our 2016 national elections. Given this consensus, congressional inaction to prevent future interference in our elections is simply unconscionable. As a member of Congress, among my highest priorities would be reforms that strengthen the transparency of our campaign finance system and secure the integrity of our elections and democratic institutions. Our democratic system transcends partisanship and demands nothing less than our best efforts to protect and sustain it. I dread to consider what the rest of this week will bring, between the Kavanaugh hearings and Trump’s threat to fire Rosenstein. McMorris Rodgers will not speak out. She will adopt Trump’s excuse for firing the Deputy Attorney General: the allegation Rosenstein once uttered words to suggest disloyalty to Der Fuhrer. Never mind the New York Times article cites anonymous sources from within the administration, Rosenstein has denied the allegations, and, considering the context of the time (Comey’s firing and Trump’s using Rosenstein as an excuse), any reasonable person should have considered the 25th Amendment. If Rosenstein is fired all of McMorris Rodgers’ lip service about “letting Mueller do his job” and “due process” will sound very hollow. Will she have the spine to defend democratic checks and balances by engaging in Congressional action or will she continue as a loyal lieutenant of the Republican/Libertarian revolution? We have a hint from her private Spokane Club fundraiser with Devin Nunes on July 30, where Nunes argues that impeaching Rosenstein has to wait until after Kavanaugh is seated. (Read my analysis of that meeting here.) Keep to the high ground, Jerry |