McMorris Rodgers–Radical Libertarian

Her “USA Act”–another radical, dangerous proposition to remake government

At the bottom of McMorris Rodgers’ June 23, 2023, “Weekly Newsletter” email targeted to her devoted followers she writes:

As Congress rolls up its sleeves and gets to work on the budget, I’m glad to report that we are making great progress to include my Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act. This is legislation I’ve led on for years to get spending under control by eliminating wasteful ‘zombie’ programs that are running on autopilot without being reauthorized by Congress. 

“Zombie” programs! Oh my! We must eliminate them! But wait, who are these “Zombies”, anyway? It turns out that these un-reauthorized programs include (or have recently included) programs like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, the Federal Trade Commission, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the National Weather Service, and the Federal Election Commission. A “Zombie Program” is another clever Republican turn of phrase—useful for propaganda to rouse ire but not so impressive on a closer look. 

McMorris Rodgers’ presentations lauding her deceptively named “USA Act” (many dating back to 2016 when she was hatching this bill) conveniently avoid offering examples. That’s another well worn Republican tactic we should recognize: advocate generally for cutting spending (saving our “hard-earned tax dollars” is popular), but avoid recommending specific cuts—because cutting back on, say, Social Security benefits is really unpopular. McMorris Rodgers cleverly obfuscates in another more subtle way: she rails against unnamed “unauthorized” programs, when, in fact, all these programs were authorized by legislation—but they are now beyond their legislatively specified term for re-authorizing them. Congress, in its current manifest dysfunction, hasn’t gotten around to the re-authorizing task that an earlier Congress set for itself. Meanwhile, of course, Congress, in its annual budget process, sees fit to appropriate funds to be spent on these programs—because most are important and defunding them would be politically unpopular. 

One might imagine that McMorris Rodgers, having established that some programs are beyond their term of authorization, would use her legislative power to bring, say, the Federal Election Commission up for re-authorization—but actual floor debate and re-authorization is definitely not her intent. Her “USA Act” would hold hostage these programs by mandating a sequence of automatic spending cuts and, after three years, expiration of any program on whose re-authorization Congress had failed to enact. How clever! Let’s put cancelation of un-reauthorized federal programs on autopilot. That way McMorris Rodgers and her Republican/Libertarian colleagues can crow about cuts in spending while avoiding blame for the cancellation of any specific program. The funding for the National Weather Service was just cut by 15%?? Well, that’s just the way the law works—those evil Dems must have caused it!

McMorris Rodgers’ “USA Act” (H.R. 1518 in the current Congress) (see actual text) is a Trojan horse in the service of Steve Bannon’s intent to “dismantle the administrative state” and Grover Norquist’s mandate to shrink government to a point where it might be “drowned in a bathtub”—all to be achieved by legislative autopilot. With the background presented above, read McMorris Rodgers’ web page on the USA Act—and note the support statements by a list of Libertarian dark money think tanks, including Heritage Action and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity. Way back in 2016, pre-Trump, McMorris Rodgers even managed to co-opt Jake Tapper of CNN to blather in a hyperbolic segment about “Zombie Programs”. (The lesson: well-constructed and focus-group-tested Republican propaganda can be used to sell soap—and raise voter ire.)

McMorris Rodgers projects the image of a smiling, gracious soccer mom as she uses deception to push for legislation that would dismantle government. The USA Act, along with other legislation she fervently supports, like REINS, are clear examples of the what radical Republican/Libertarians would enact if they ever regain full control of the federal government. Vote her out in 2024.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. The terms authorization, re-authorization, and appropriations—and their applications to the federal budget process—are explained in a well-balanced article in Politico from 2016 “Meet your unauthorized federal government”. I recommend it. Note the absence of the catchy word “Zombie”—and that word’s associated mental imagery. The message of the article is the sober one that Congress isn’t doing the job of reauthorization that it set for itself. The solution is to do that job—which, thanks to the dysfunction the Republican controlled House has recently demonstrated in full—is not happening. The solution is not to use the problem as an excuse to hold essential programs hostage to legislatively required expiration. 

P.P.S. If you really want to get down into the weeds, the Congressional Budget Office is tasked with keeping track of un-reauthorized programs. You can read the CBO’s complicated eight page summary for fiscal year 2023 here. The Politico article recommended in the P.S. is a much better explainer, but the CBO paper offers the depth of detail.

The Best 4th of July Essay I’ve Yet Read

And a Runner Up

Jay Kuo is another Substack author whom I respect. His essay today, pasted below, I thought was spot on for our current times. Kuo’s short bio: “Admitted before the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit. A.B. In Political Science (Stanford) J.D. (UC Berkeley). Board member, Human Rights Campaign. CEO of The Social Edge. Composer of Allegiance on Broadway.”

Here’s the link to his Substack:

https://substack.com/@jaykuo

I urge you to subscribe.

A very close runner up for me is Robert Reich’s True patriotism is the opposite of Trump’s White Christian NationalismReich’s Substack post for the Fourth of JulyIt is spot on—as are all his columns and lectures (on Youtube)Reich is a brilliant and prolific economist and educator, and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. (He is also famously, self-deprecatingly, and endearingly short of stature (due to a rare genetic disease), living proof that brilliance can come in small packages…

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Here’s Jay Kuo, but don’t forget to click and read Reich as well.

Independence

by Jay Kuo

Jul 4

From the film 1776 (Jack L. Warner)

Today, a personal essay.

When I was little, my Ba would bring out fireworks for the Fourth of July. He acquired them in places like Maryland, where our family would go summer camping on the state beaches, and brought them across state lines to our little suburban enclave in upstate New York. As soon as it was dark enough out, many of our neighbors would gather, the area kids eager to see what Mr. Kuo had in store that year. Sparklers for sure. Sometimes big noisemakers. And always more than a few showstopper rockets with brilliant flourishes of color. He would hand them out to us to dole out to the other children without a thought to liability.

The 1970s were a crazy time.

It didn’t occur to me until much later that there was some irony here. We were the only Chinese American household in the area. With four kids and a house on the corner of two main streets, our family was the center of activity for Tioga Terrace. And on July 4, Ba would bring the magic, developed centuries ago by people who looked like us, gunpowder mixed carefully with binding and coloring agents, bringing wonder and delight.

I understood we were celebrating the independence of America from the British Crown, and I most clearly remember the bicentennial celebration that took place in 1976. Our schools had focused heavily on American history that year, yet most of my understanding of what had transpired 200 years before still came from watching our Founding Fathers sing about it in the movie 1776.

Musical theatre has always been in my DNA.

In that merry portrayal, the heroes of the revolution were towering figures: debonair, erudite, romantic, able to find gallows humor at the darkest of hours. I remember best the musical number around whether slavery should be condemned in the words of the Declaration. It was a terrifying and bewildering song. What did molasses and rum and Bibles have to do with Roots? And I remember vividly poor Thomas Jefferson, the author of that brilliant document, being called out for still practicing slavery on his property.

“I have already resolved to release my slaves,” said a quietly thoughtful Jefferson.

I sincerely believed that earnest and brave man, who thrilled his colleagues with the playing of his violin, his adoring wife Martha swooning to the tune. He was a noble man, to be admired.

We didn’t learn the real truth about Jefferson, or about any of the Founding Fathers, in class. And it wasn’t taught to me in college either, even though I was a political science major. The first person to challenge my view of our any of the Founders was a Black colleague I met during my RA training, who had brought up that we don’t ever teach real history. She cited the story of Jefferson and Sally Hemings, one of the many slaves he owned—a girl he had raped when she was just 14 years old.

I didn’t want to believe it. The Declaration of Independence, and its famous author, were sacred in my mind. The principles they espoused were of the highest order. And in my mind, July 4th was my favoriteholiday, next to Christmas. For one day, Ba was cooler than all the other dads, and at least for that day we were the most popular kids in the neighborhood, even though we were not fully American—at least, that’s how it had always felt.

Once the veil was pierced, however, the truth began to burn holes through my mind. I began to question a great deal of the mythology that had been spoonfed to me, really to all of us. Christopher Columbus, that was a shocker. Manifest Destiny. The Chinese Exclusion Act. The Tulsa Massacre. The internment of Japanese Americans. With each revelation, it was hard not to become deeply and irretrievably cynical about our history and the way our country has always acted toward the most vulnerable in America.

There’s a strange thing that happens when you come out the other end of all that. I began to wonder how they did it. How did people like Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and even my own hero George Takei still have anything left of faith and belief in this country, after all it had done to them, their families, their communities?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident.”

That all people are equal. That we all possess “unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those words were revolutionary in their time. And they indeed spawned a revolution. Despite my great disillusionment, they still inspire and hold true for me today. That’s the power of the enduring promise of America. Not that we will always, or even most of the time, get things right, or that we won’t stumble our way into dark and nearly hopeless chapters of genocide, slavery, internment, and yes, growing Christofascism today.

Loving the promise of America isn’t the same as loving what it has done and still does to break that promise, over and over. But I’ve come to appreciate the high value of maintaining our gaze upon that North Star, the one that still shines for liberation, fairness and equality. That the promise has now endured nearly 250 years speaks to our collective and deep desire for hope, even in the face of broad and dehumanizing injustice and inequity.

The America that our white, propertied, slave-holding male Founders envisioned isn’t what we’ve got today. But that’s because we’ve improved upon that vision. For me, the America of tomorrow is a truly multi-racial, multi-denominational, pluralistic democracy, a place of opportunity and prosperity, with no one left behind. That is the vision that sustains me. It’s the one where my Chinese father could hand out fireworks on July 4 to excited, white kids and seem the most American of all the dads.

We inherited both a sacred promise and a big mess from those who came before, and we’re still working on both. That fact that it is so very hard, and we have so very far still to go, is strong evidence of the incredible value of that promise. This is evidenced in great part by how fiercely others will fight with all they have to keep us from it.

But nothing worth fighting for was ever won without a fight. And in the end, the enemies of our unalienable rights will fail. That is the faith I keep.

Happy Independence Day. Our fight continues.

— Jay

Trip to Colville!

Homelessness isn’t confined to big cities–it’s just more visible there

People living unsheltered in a state of hopelessness is not just an urban phenomenon in our current economy—nor are concerted efforts to make a dent in the problem confined to big cities. Colville, the town of roughly 5000 a very pleasant hour and a half drive north of Spokane that serves as the county seat of Stevens County, is also affected (among, I suspect, many other towns we hear even less about). In Colville there are tensions between those trying to address homelessness humanely and local government, much like the tensions we find in Spokane.

I have twice visited the Hope Street Projects in Colville with tours organized by Suzi Hokonson. I highly recommend taking advantage of one of the tours described below—to see, on a smaller scale than Spokane, what dedicated individuals working with the disadvantaged can accomplish for the welfare of our fellow humans. (Note the pejorative baggage that more than fifty years of concerted Republican think tank propaganda have attached to the word “welfare”. It is time to take back that word, along with “woke”, “patriot”, and “freedom”.)

Here’s the invitation to the Colville tours: 

We have set up 3 tours of the Colville Hope Street Projects.

They will be Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday – July 12th, 13th, and 14th, at 9:15 AM.

We will meet at the Yep Kanum city park on the corner of Hawthorne Ave. and Elm St. in Colville.

Lunch and visits with local activists at the park 11:30-12:15.

Please help spread the word and notice the change to 9:15 and also that we are meeting at the Yep Kanum city park. 

To sign up contact Suzi Hokonson 508-808-1255 suzihokonson@yahoo.com

To whet your appetite for a pleasant, educational, and inspiring outing I’ve pasted below an article written by Shane Gronholz, who recently visited. The article was originally published by RANGEMedia.co to which I highly recommend subscribing.

Keep to the high ground, 

Jerry

Hope for rural homeless

by Shane Gronholz

June 23, 2023

As Current Affairs Specialist for Spokane Public Library, I follow Spokane’s homelessness issues closely. So, when I was invited to tour a housing and job-training project, Hope Street, in Colville by plugged-in community member Suzi Hokonson, I was all ears.

On a golden May morning, I made the beautiful hour-and-half drive north to Colville to check it out for myself. The Hope Street Project, in this town of 5,000, offers a refreshing antidote to what can seem like the  insurmountable challenge of homelessness. Hope Street combines job training with housing access, teaching valuable job skills that in turn can be used to build the housing needed in the community.

Founded by Barry and Shelley Bacon, The Hope Street Project is a non-profit that intertwines the process of recovery and empowerment with the creation of homes for the housing insecure. The non-profit side seeks to renovate or build new housing that unhoused people can call home, either as a rental tenant or through a rent-to-own program. The individuals doing the renovation are the same community: people experiencing homelessness, people in substance abuse recovery, and people recently released from incarceration. They are employed by Hope Street’s for-profit arm, Hope Street Restoration, where they’re given on-the-job training and the prospect of stable employment.

In this symbiotic relationship, local community members have the opportunity to work on restoration projects while rebuilding their own lives. By learning new skills and earning an income, these individuals are not just building houses — they’re building a foundation for their own futures. The for-profit arm also sells some renovated houses on the open market, meaning the employees aren’t just building their own houses, they’re building the community as well. This spirit of giving creates a virtuous cycle. On Fridays and weekends program participants often bring their skills to volunteer building affordable housing which will be available to the currently homeless. 

On the day of my visit, I was part of a group that included Council Member Karen Stratton and her assistant, Kelly Thomas, visited Barry’s clinic and then went to see a small home that had been renovated by Hope Street. The resident smiled and gave us a neighborly wave. This home was one of several that Hope Street has built or restored for local homeless families and individuals. It’s worth noting that the home was quite lovely, aesthetically speaking. A place a person might choose to live.

Barry then suggested we take a look at what is currently available for the kinds of folks Hope Street is seeking to help: the local “shelter.” 

Expecting a building, I was puzzled to find that the shelter was nothing more than a gravel lot, upon which people could park an RV or set up a tent. Seeing this was a stark reminder of the inadequacy of our existing systems. At the dozen or so camp sites occupied at the time, men, women, and children found themselves relying on thin canvas walls for protection against the elements, and their only sense of permanence came from a parking spot. It was a sobering testament to the harsh realities of homelessness, and underscored the importance of initiatives like Hope Street.

After visiting the restored house and “shelter,” we dropped by a mansion the Bacons are restoring, the profits from the sale of which will go back into Hope Street. This historic 1906 home is their biggest project yet: a 3,800 -square-foot, five-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bath house in need of tender, loving care. 

When finished, it will sell in the $500,000 range, Shelley Bacon estimates.

We also visited a half-acre lot, which will be the construction site for Conestoga-style “tiny homes” that will sell for just $1,200. An additional seven acres has been acquired and set aside for the placement of these homes, but there are some outstanding issues about zoning and permitting that need to be worked out.

Our tour ended with lunch at the park under a gazebo. Two reporters from the local paper showed up, and at one point, one of them called for our attention. She wanted to tell us what the Bacons had done for her. She was a young mother recovering from substance abuse with a long criminal history. Her life was in a downward spiral until she found Hope Street.

After that, another man, whom we had already met when we visited the mansion, told us how he too was an ex-convict and recovering alcoholic. He’s since been employed by Hope Street and his story echoed the one before.

Both said they would be dead if they hadn’t found Hope Street.

On the way back home to Spokane, it was hard to think about the hope I saw growing in Colville and the contrast with the challenges we face here with a growing homeless population and deepening housing crisis. While I don’t claim to have the answers, it’s evident that a collective effort, public support, and a willingness to explore a variety of solutions will be crucial. As we celebrate the successes of initiatives like Hope Street, we must also confront the stark realities in our own backyard and commit to seeking meaningful progress.

The purpose of the trip was to visit Hope Street and see the work they are doing, but what made the strongest impression on me was the Bacons themselves. Whatever one thinks about the value of the work they are doing, one thing is undeniable: The Bacons are happy. The joy they radiate when you are in their presence is impossible not to notice. When Shelley pulled up to meet us, she greeted Barry with a hug and a kiss and it was like there was nowhere she would rather be.

Aristotle spoke of virtue and the concept of eudaimonia. Very roughly, the idea is that living a virtuous life is the path to happiness. I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, no one’s life has illustrated this better to me than the Bacons.

The example set by the Bacons and their work with Hope Street is inspiring on an individual level. At the same time, I sincerely wonder what lessons can be gleaned for Spokane and our region as a whole. I genuinely don’t know. Is it possible that in making the necessary sacrifices to address our own homelessness crisis, we might not only create a more equitable society, but also find a deeper sense of fulfillment and happiness in the process?

Spokane Regional Authority for Homelessness, Housing, Health and Safety

A Remarkable Meeting

Last Wednesday, June 28th, the Spokane Regional Collaborative (SRC) held a meeting at the Convention Center from 8AM to 10AM to present its recommendation for the formation of a Spokane Regional Authority for Homelessness, Housing, Health and Safety. Three former City of Spokane officials retired from the Condon administration (the one that preceded Nadine Woodward’s), Gavin Cooley, Rick Romero, and Theresa Sanders, presented their findings and recommendations to a packed audience of around 200, including many elected officials from Spokane County and municipal governments within the county. 

Homelessness is a growing nationwide problem rooted in imbalances in our national and local economy, an issue made painfully obvious to all by the dislocations that surrounded the Covid 19 pandemic. Gavin Cooley characterized the issue of homelessness somewhat optimistically as a symptom of Spokane’s economic success, i.e. Spokane is seen as a desirable place to live, attracting people with money who have driven up home and rent prices that make living space unaffordable for the least advantaged among us. 

The issue of homelessness in our region is highlighted by the controversy that surrounded the existence and manner of closure of the homeless encampment on Department of Transportation land near I-90 and the Freya exit, the encampment that came to be known as Camp Hope. The last residents left Camp Hope on June 9 after an 18 month run overseen by Jewels Helping Hands under the remarkable leadership of Julie Garcia. 

The lead-up to Wednesday’s meeting and presentation by the SRC trio ranged over more than a year and included visits to several other regional programs that are enjoying varying degrees of success. The Houston metro area’s program is cited as the model to emulate. Cooley, Romero, and Sanders, self-described policy and data wonks, assembled a detailed recommendation for the formation of a Spokane Regional Authority as a nonprofit corporation. (Think of the Spokane Transit Authority as a similar regional collaborative effort.) The Spokane Regional Authority for Homelessness, Housing, Health and Safety would bring under one roof the necessary tools and expertise to apply for monetary grants from federal, state, and local programs and coordinate efforts among the many providers in the region. It was an impressive presentation about which there is much more to be said—and which I hope to cover better in later posts. Judging by the number of sponsors, there is the potential for a lot of productive buy-in. 

Shortly after the meeting started there was an incident that could have changed the tone of the whole presentation—but did not, thanks to the timely intervention by compassionate people with lived experience. The story was written up by my friend Dan Simonson. I’ve pasted it below from his Substack ShelterSpokane.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Compassion vs. Choke Holds: A great story from yesterday’s Homeless Authority meeting

Jewels Helping Hands (JHH) and Julie Garcia to the Rescue

by Dan Simonson 

Jun 29

As the meeting began yesterday, at one point a lady came into the session. She was very vocal, very belligerent. She was yelling about how could we do this, she was homeless, she was denied medication, and many other things. We all held our breath. She was obviously in a mental health crisis – how were we going to react?

Thankfully, Theresa Sanders, who was standing at the podium at the time, came off the podium and asked her gently and sweetly to please take a seat – which she “kinda” did. She withdrew, muttering, off through a side door for a few minutes, but then we could hear her starting up again. It was such an awkward moment – what to do? Murmuring went around as she proceeded to amp up her volume.

Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye and behind me (I was sitting toward the front), I saw a few folks in black JHH shirts moving from their seats to the door and this terribly upset lady. Then I faintly heard Julie’s voice, soft yet straightforward. The yelling moved back down to muttering, and then peace.

Julie, Ken, Maurice – the whole JHH crew – saved this vitally important meeting from a potentially awful scene that would have ruined it. Imagine police or security officers, called in to remove this lady. She was not about to leave without a battle, and the screams would have unnerved us all. Yet Julie and her crew, without yelling, without chokeholds, with simple human persuasion and love, got her under control and calmed her down. They did it with firm yet loving kindness. She deserved to be heard, just not there and then. They saved all of us, not just the poor little lady.

I had to pass on this story. There are saints wandering around this town, and I just saw some in action. Lifted my heart for the whole day. Thank you so much, Julie and the JHH crew!

Dan

Addendum: I (Jerry again) was told later by others in attendance that a Spokane policeman was in the back of the hall. At the beginning of the scene, he stepped forward in anticipation, and then, seeing that the JHH team was activated, quietly and wisely stepped back. Maurice Smith later added that he (Maurice) also stood down from the intervention, wisely understanding that a tall man might be perceived as threatening by the distressed woman. I understand the JHH team convinced the woman to accompany them back to the the JHH drop-in center on Springfield Ave where she calmed down and spent part of the day.

More REIN(S)

The National Republican Agenda to Trash Regulation

Last Monday I wrote of U.S. Rep. McMorris Rodgers’ (R-CD5, eastern Washington) crowing over the recent passage of the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act) by the U.S. House. Voting Yea on REINS appears to be an article of faith for Republicans, since REINS received a Yea vote from every single Republican U.S. Representative. Take note. This is clear example of where Republicans would take us if they ever again hold the presidency and working majorities in the House and the Senate. We have only to examine what happened in 2017, the first year of the Trump presidency and (thankfully) a rare time of a Republican two-year-long trifecta. Back then a slightly different REINS Act also passed the U.S. House, again with every Republican voting in favor— including McMorris Rodgers. With their trifecta Republicans were so excited to get REINS passed that they rammed it through in just one day, January 5th, 2017, only two days after the bill was first introduced at the beginning of the 115th Congress. Fortunately, Senate Republicans, perhaps because they were so focused on repealing the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), never found an opening to bring REINS to the Senate floor. 

The recent (June 14, 2023) passage of the newest REINS Act barely registered in non-right wing media, either because reporters and editors were otherwise distracted or because they despaired of adequately explaining to the general public the threat that REINS represents. However, in 2017 at least one writer, Carl Pope, took note of REINS. An astute reader of The High Ground provided a copy of Pope’s article from the Jan 10, 2017, Huffington Post. I’ve copied it below. Pay attention. REINS would be a sure thing if Republicans ever again take control of the federal government. McMorris Rodgers enthusiastic vote for REINS in 2017 and again this year are ample reason to replace her in 2024.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

The Most Dangerous Bill You’ve Never Heard Of Just Passed The House

By Carl Pope

JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS

Last, week, under the cover of a media bliss-out except among Koch funded right-wing channels, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would effectively repeal future standard setting under every important environmental, public health, consumer protection, labor standards, occupational safety and civil rights law on the books.

The bill, called the REINS Act, requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency — say a new toxic chemical standard required by the recently enacted Chemical Safety Act, or a new consumer protection rule about some innovative but untested kind of food additive — must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.

To give a sense of the scale of this road-block, in 2015 there were 43 such major federal regulations passed to protect the public; among them were food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances.

If the REINS Act had been in effect, it’s unlikely that the Tea Party-dominated Republican caucus in the House would have approved of any of these rules. Future standard setting under the entire body of legislation enacted over the past 40 years to protect the public, from the Clean Air Act to the Dodd Frank financial sector reforms, would be frozen. Over time, as new health, safety, consumer and labor protection issues arise, all of these laws will effectively have been repealed, with no public debate and no accountability. It will also be impossible to restore them as long as the REINS Act is in effect, because by requiring Congress to approve every regulation, it makes it impossible to pass technically complex and scientifically valid rules on any topic of controversy.

As one example, the REINS Act would totally neuter the new Chemical Safety Act, just passed by the Republican Congress last year. The Act requires EPA to review and set standards for 10 widely abused chemicals in the next six months alone. The Act passed only because in exchange, states gave up much of their power to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals; without that incentive, the Tea Party will certainly act to prevent EPA from restricting the use of these chemicals. But the states only agreed to give up in exchange for the promise that EPA would act. But the REINS act neuters this promise.

Even if the House Republican caucus was willing in theory to consider such rules, there is simply no way Congress could add 10-40 new pieces of legislation to its work load in the chemical safety area alone. In fact, the House also just passed legislation to allow it to REPEAL all of President Obama’s regulatory acts in the last eight months of his term in office with ONE vote. Why? Because House members said there was not time for individual votes on each rule — exactly the requirement they just established for new rules.

Worse, Congress totally lacks the technical competence to review these kinds of complex rules. Do we really want members of Congress deciding whether a chemical can safely be used in food packaging? Or the proper procedures for approving new drugs as safe and effective? Or setting the allowable safety standard for heavy metals in drinking water?

The vote was 237-187. All Republicans voted for it; only two Democrats, Colin Peterson of Minnesota and Henry Cuellar of Texas, joined them. A Google search five days after the bill passed the House revealed no mention in major media except one Reuters story with limited pick-up and a Washington Post op-ed by one of its major supporters. Even on-line virtually all of the commentary was from the backers of the REINS Act; the only significant alerts of the danger came from the Blue Green Alliance and DeSmogBlog.

Progressives may be counting on the fact that the Senate has previously refused to pass the bill, and that it’s broad over-reaching will doom it. But these are not ordinary times and past behavior is far from reliable in predicting today’s politics.

It’s time — past time — for a massive mobilization to make clear to Congress and the new President that a wholesale repeal of 40 years of progress in environmental protection, civil rights, labor standards, health and safety and consumer protection is a third rail, and that pretending that the REINS act increases accountability is a fig-leaf that public scrutiny must shred.

Ask your favorite public interest organization what it is doing today to stop the REINS Act in the Senate.

REINS and CMR

Critical Legislation You’ve Barely Heard Of

Never heard of the “REINS Act” (H.R.277)? If you haven’t you wouldn’t be alone—but it is time to pay attention. “Our” U.S. Representative, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-CD4, eastern Washington) and every one of her Republican colleagues in the House voted Yea to pass REINS on June 14th. (Fortunately, this bill will languish in the Senate, at least until the next Congress is seated in 2025—a good reason to pay attention and be sure that Republicans never again attain a federal “trifecta”.)

That every Republican voted for REINS and every Democrat voted against it (save one) ought to flag REINS as indicative of what would happen if Republicans ever again have control of all three branches of the federal government. (The last time they achieved marginal control of all three branches was in 2017. Then they very nearly repealed the Affordable Care Act. Had they succeeded, millions of Americans would have lost their health insurance.)

Enacting REINS would be far more subtle than repealing the ACA. For as long as any of my readers has been alive, the pattern of federal government function has been this: Congress passes (often after long argument) enabling legislation, for example, legislation establishing the Environmental Protection Agency (1970). The legislation specifically endows an agency with circumscribed powers to develop regulations consistent with the mission the agency. In the case of the EPA, for example, these regulations include setting nationwide standards for clean water and clean air. Regulations are developed in a lengthy process that includes extensive hearings that include testimony from stakeholders that would be affected by the new rule. Note: In the current scenario, Congress already possesses the power to override a regulation an agency constructs—but such an override requires actual congressional action

REINS would turn that process on its head. With REINS, a painstakingly developed executive agency regulation would wither and die in the absenceof Congressional action. This is passive aggression at its best. Agencies could still develop regulations by the same meticulous process described above, but one might wonder why they would go to the trouble. REINS would empower Congress to block any and all new regulations (of a certain minimal magnitude) by simply ignoring their existence—essentially a passive aggressive “pocket veto”. Considering the level of disfunction that Congress habitually demonstrates, enactment of REINS would bring the function of the federal government to its knees. REINS would require Congress to act twice on every major regulation, first by passing enabling legislation and, second, by requiring affirmative approval of every “major” regulation the established agency developed. Any regulation that might cost the business interests that fund and control Republican members of Congress would have to await Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress to take effect.

How do Republicans expect to sell this POS to the American public? They would do so simply by relying on ignorance and propaganda. The sales pitch starts with the name, REINS. It stands for “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny”. The appeal relies on decades-long Republican/Libertarian think tank propaganda nurturing distrust in the federal government. (Think back to the drumbeat of Republican propaganda around the “spotted owl” as just one example.)

McMorris Rodgers’ propaganda wing spun REINS with this disingenuous statement to her targeted email audience of followers on June 16th: 

I [McMorris Rodgers] made a promise to bring an end to President Biden and House Democrats’ reckless spending, which is why I helped pass the REINS Act this week to finally put a check on the president’s executive actions that are costing taxpayers billions of dollars anddriving inflation through the roof. We still have a long way to go before we erase our nation’s historic debt, but holding the administration accountable for the economic crisis it created is a great place to start so we can get our country back on track. [the bold is hers, not mine]

Huh? What? McMorris Rodgers, the entire Republican/Libertarian Party, and their business allies and funders deserve a prize for disingenuous salesmanship that is just barely distinguishable from a bald-faced lie. Characterizing the REINS Act, a radical attack on the function of the federal government, as being an act that would rein in inflation and save money for taxpayers is horse manure at it finest, a characterization sold to an audience of brainwashed true believers. 

REINS is the embodiment of Steve Bannon’s and Grover Norquist’s “deconstruction of the administrative state”. While most of America and all the major media paid no attention, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was lobbying hard for the passage of REINS, suggesting that it would publicly score members of Congress for their vote on Act. The Chamber statement uses words like “transparent, cost-effective, and rational” to obscure the full intent of REINS to deconstruct the administratively managed regulatory process that has brought us clean water and clean air—among many other benefits. 

The fact that REINS was packaged with H.R.1640, the disingenuously (i.e. lyingly) named “Save Our Gas Stoves Act”, is telling. (The regulation trashed by H.R. 1640 has nothing to do with existing gas stoves.) If REINS were to become law, individual laws blocking regulations of things like the unhealthy emissions from gas stoves would become totally unnecessary. Instead, such agency-proposed regulation could just be ignored (assuming that anyone would make the argument that such regulation would have a minimum of $100 million dollars worth of effect anywhere in the economy).

You can be sure that if Republicans ever hold the presidency and simultaneously achieve working majorities in the both houses of Congress (a federal “trifecta”) they will immediately pass a REINS bill and make it law. Once enacted as law these bills would cripple the function of the Executive branch, concentrate power in Congress, and devolve power to the individual states, a profound re-arrangement of our governing structure. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. If you want a window on how REINS is being sold to our neighbors by Republican/Libertarian media I recommend “House passes legislation to rein in the administrative state” from the Washington Examiner, a totally online, free-to-read conservative/libertarian mouthpiece owned by mega-billionaire Philip Anschutz, whose wealth is rooted in oil-drilling.

McMorris Rodgers’ Machine

Daniel Walters Ignited Something

On June 8 the Inlander published an article by Daniel Walters entitled “How a network of politicos tied to U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers are pulling behind-the-scenes strings to tar up local liberals”. I provided an annotated version of Walters’ article here in hope of clarifying the cast of local characters. Two more articles have since been published in the Spokesman. Apparently, Walters’ article jangled a nerve. First, on June 18, the Spokesman published Shawn Vestal’s “Team Cathy helps drive local politics, but mum’s the word”. It is a great read. Vestal’s writing alone is reason to subscribe to the Spokesman. It is pasted below. 

Then yesterday, June 22, the Spokesman published Sue Lani Madsen’s “Shocking news – there’s politics in government”. I encourage you to click and read it, it is a study in classical Republican “whataboutism” with a dose of “I’m just asking questions.” Instead of “What about Hunter Biden?” or “What about her emails?”, Sue Lani brings whataboutism to the local level. She raises “What about Brian McClatchey?” and “What about the Smith-Barbieri Progressive Fund?”. What does she allege? That Democrats communicate with Democrats (perhaps in pursuit of real solutions for real problems—like providing shelter to unsheltered Spokanites). Oh my! Sometimes Democrats actually contribute money to Democratic candidates. Horrors! Sue Lani herself admits this “Could be another nothingburger”—the fact of which a careful reading of her article as much as proves.

Sue Lani pretends equivalence—both sides do “this”, it’s just politics as usual. But Daniel Walters’ Inlander article details multiple efforts pushed by the McMorris Rodgers Machine not toward constructive solutions for problems, but efforts to undermine by accusation. McMorris Rodgers-associated-operatives are coaching the filing of dubious “ethics complaints” to be brought against Spokane City Council President Breean Beggs and former City Council President Ben Stuckart. Chud Wendle, former district director for McMorris Rodgers, is cozying up to Spokane Chief of Police Meidl for to extract body cam video to use against Council Member Betsy Wilkerson (District 2, South Hill). This is not constructive. It is precisely the opposite—it is a desperate smear campaign to gain Republican power over Spokane City government. It is not equivalent politics—and don’t let Sue Lani Madsen get away with pretending that it is. (I encourage you to read or re-read Daniel Walters’ article as you consider Ms. Madsen’s non-equivalent proposition. Shawn Vestal’s article pasted below wraps it up.) 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Shawn Vestal’s “Team Cathy helps drive local politics, but mum’s the word

Sunday, June 18

If the Cathy McMorris Rodgers machine is hand-puppeting some of the fund-raising, policy-making and PR ploys of conservative politics in Spokane city government – an undercurrent that was illuminated in detail last week in the Inlander – the question is: Why do the local politicians she’s helping tie themselves into knots to keep it quiet?

It’s not really a difficult question. The congresswoman is an electoral juggernaut in Eastern Washington, but the city of Spokane is one place in McMorris Rodgers Country that is not McMorris Rodgers Country.

Consider the indigo cast of recent elections among city voters (according to a breakdown by Logan Camporeale, a local elections data wonk and historian working on a project identifying racist housing covenants in Eastern Washington).

Among voters in the city, McMorris Rodgers trailed Lisa Brown by 17 percentage points the 2018 race. In 2022, the congresswoman trailed Democratic challenger Natasha Hill by 11 points.

The city went for Hillary by 10 points and Biden by 17.

You see the pattern. We’re an island in a district McMorris Rodgers’ mostly dominates. Which is why city candidates and office-holders on the right – from former Mayor David Condon to current Mayor Nadine Wodward to the conservative candidates who are pretending not to be conservative – have done their best to obscure their connections to the congresswoman and GOP politics, often pretending to be mere ideological blanks, pure and unopinionated non-partisans whose only values are “common sense” and “safety” and who are disgusted by how political other people are.

The Inlander story outlined a network of consultants with ties to the congresswoman, as well as current and former staffers, operating as the wind beneath the wings of political activities on the local right. That has included helping put together the appearance of support for the misbegotten Trent shelter (putting millions into the pockets of a Woodward donor) to organizing PR for a push to expand laws sanctioning homeless sweeps to coordinating criticisms of the participation of Councilman Zack Zappone in the redistricting process.

This web also threads into the email bombardment of City Council members by a small group of wealthy property owners, as well as the cozy, favor-granting relationship between that group and Police Chief Craig Meidl.

The resulting picture is that of a political machine gliding on the surface of city politics like a swan, while paddling furiously and constantly under the water.

This overlap of national and local politics came amusingly to light recently when the mayor’s campaign account sent out a tweet boasting “I am proud to have led the passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act two weeks ago in the House” above an image with the word, “Cathy.” It was obviously meant to appear on the account of McMorris Rodgers; apparently a social media staffer working for both of them made a simple mistake.

Not a huge deal. Just an enlightening one.

The most illustrative example in the Inlander piece about the participation of Team Cathy in city politics – as well as the lengths people go to hide it – involved an ethics complaint filed in May 2022 against former City Council President Ben Stuckart.

The complaint was advanced by Councilman Jonathan Bingle, who charged that Stuckart had improperly participated in discussions about a homeless shelter operator when he was up for a job with one of the candidates. It might have seemed strictly like a case of inside baseball at City Hall.

Local politics at it localiest.

But in fact the complaint was carefully attended by Team Cathy – which Bingle denied when the Inlander asked him about it last year. In fact, the complaint and a news release announcing it were worked on by three separate people with ties to the congresswoman.

Emily Strode, a consultant who was a former campaign manager for McMorris Rodgers, helped put together the complaint and news release. Another consultant and former longtime McMorris Rodgers finance director, Dawn Sugasa, “reviewed and tweaked,” the news release, the Inlander reported. And the congresswoman’s deputy chief of staff, Patrick Bell, helped doctor up the “quotes” from Bingle in the news release.

You might say that all politics is built on connections and associations, and you’d be right. You might note that political consultants of all stripes tend to swim in the same ideological pond, and you’d be right. You might point out that news releases are heavily doctored propaganda, not instruments of truth – and you’d be right.

You might also point out that city politics – while technically non-partisan – have been obviously divided into partisan camps for a while now. The members of the liberal majority absolutely have connections in the world of Democratic politics.

Still, the extent of Team Cathy’s involvement in local politics is unusual even in that context, both in the degree of involvement and the efforts to keep it out of sight.

There’s plenty of help for those who want to join the team. But mum’s the word.