Author Archives: willykay

At least he made the trains run on time …

20 Sunday May 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Wish I had a nickel, dime or whatever for every time I’ve heard somebody excusing Mussolini’s fascist coup by referring to those timely trains. Which may be why I was so gob-smacked by Republican Senator Roy Blunt’s comments when asked to react to the fact that the current occupant of the White House lies consistently. Blunt refused to engage with the substance, declaring that :

It would [be a problem] “if we weren’t getting things done,” Blunt responded. “What the regulators are doing. … The tax package, better than I would have expected. I think the foreign policy, the president was left with lots of problems. We had about eight years where we acted like the United States of America was basically any other country in the world. And a lot of things got off track during that eight years.”

So, as far as Blunt is concerned, Trump can do no wrong, he can lie, collude with Russians and curry favor from Vladimir Putin, and enrich himself with taxpayer money as long as he delivers on goodies that Blunt has been trying to get for his rich cronies. Because that’s what “getting things done” means.

Stop and think about that list of achievements: The justly unpopular and deficit-busting tax cut for the wealthy? Deregulation? Tell me in a few years how you like living in a country where basic health, consumer and social protections – air and water pollution and our food supply,  for instance – are left to the tender mercies of corporate America. Foreign policy? You gotta be joking. – and don’t give me any backchat about Korea now that it seems more and more likely that the naive and egoistic Trump  is getting played two ways to Sunday.

Funny thing is, the claim that Italian fascists managed to make the trains run on time is equally spurious.  As Brian Cathcart put it in The Independent, “like almost all the supposed achievements of Fascism, the timely trains are a myth, nurtured and propagated by a leader with a journalist’s flair for symbolism, verbal trickery and illusion.”

Sounds a bit like that prominent liar that Blunt is so eager to defend, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, folks like Madeleine Albright* are warning us that if the tendencies that Trump embodies are left unchecked, the U.S., like Italy, could also go the fascist route:

“The possibility that fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage is enhanced by the volatile presidency of Donald Trump,” Albright warns.  “Instead of standing up for the values of a free society, Mr. Trump’s oft-vented scorn for democracy’s building blocks has strengthened the hands of dictators. No longer need they fear United States criticism regarding human rights or civil liberties. On the contrary, they can and do point to Mr. Trump’s own words to justify their repressive actions,” she adds.

In order to save our democracy Albright recommends  “defending the truth in the press, [and] recognizing that no one is above the law, ” both efforts that Blunt eschews because, under Trump, “we” are “getting things done.” I can hear that fascist choo-choo train pulling into the station right on time.

As Snopes observes about Mussolini and the ubiquitous trains trope, if you can’t –  or won’t – govern to benefit the majority of the people, “the next best thing is to convince them that you have done something of benefit to them, even though you really haven’t.” Trumpism – and today’s GOP – in a  nutshell.

*Typo corrected; Albrecht changed to Albright 5/20/18, 11:19.

Don’t say I didn’t tell you that the Crapo bill was crap, Claire

17 Thursday May 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Back in March I wrote that Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was, in my humble opinion, possibly making a big mistake both policy-wise and PR-wise when she decided to throw her weight behind one of the GOP’s efforts to kill Dodd-Frank via the “thousand cuts” strategy. The bill was S. 2155, The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consmer Protection Act, a.k.a. the Crapo bill, so-called after its main sponsor. I wrote then that, in opposition to the analysis of most industry observers who looked at S. 2155:

Many of the red-state Democrats who support the bill, like McCaskill, purport to buy into the argument that Dodd-Frank needs to be revised to help suffering community banks that the law has, they assert, disadvantaged. However, as Rivlin and Antilla report, “A 2017 FDIC report shows that deposits in community banks have grown in each of the past six years. …

In The Intercept, financial writer David Dayen notes, however, that anticipation of the loosened regulatory environment that the Crapo bill will create is already beginning to have the negative effects its critics warned about – effects that are hurting rather than helping the small community banks that had Reps. Ann Wagner (R-2) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3) crying crocodile tears bemoaning their plight, while Democrat McCaskill plodded along the rhetorical trail these and other GOP financial industry minions blazed:

But banking industry analysts say the bill is already having the opposite effect, and its loosening of regulations on medium-sized banks is encouraging a rush of consolidation — all of which ends with an increasing number of community banks being swallowed up and closed down.

“We absolutely expect bank consolidation to accelerate,” Wells Fargo’s Mike Mayo told CNBC the day after the Senate passed the deregulation bill in March. The reason? Banks no longer face the prospect of stricter and more costly regulatory scrutiny as they grow. And regional banks in Virginia, Ohio, Mississippi, and Wisconsin have already taken note before the bill has even passed into law, announcing buyouts of smaller rivals.

A gloating report by FJ Capital Management concludes that, thanks to this newly deregulated environment, “over the next 10 to 15 years, the consolidation trend will reduce the number of banking institutions from 5700 to around 2,000.”

So the effects of this legislation, pitched as a necessary step to protect small, often rural community banks, will instead intensify what FJ Capital describes as a 30 year merger trend that has not only diminished but, thanks to the Crapo bill, will continue to diminish the number of community banks. And don’t kid yourself: it will also help to destroy the relative financial stability that Dodd-Frank has ensured in the wake of the collapse of the almost totally deregulated banking environment of 2008. Too big to fail, here we come.

Remember this next time our red-state Democratic Senator struts her bipartisan cred – she may get a polling bump out of it, but real people will have to make do with the mess of pottage she ends up serving us. But, of course, as usual, do I need to say that  we should save our real disdain for the GOP lackeys who will tell us anything in their fight to take care of their rich cronies.

 

Ann Wagner wants to let auto lenders discriminate against African-Americans

15 Tuesday May 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Got my latest email newsletter from my intrepid Washington Representative, Ann Wagner (R-2). It contained this rather extraordinary paragraph:

The Senate and House took action to roll back the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s backdoor regulating of the motor vehicle industry. In 2013, the CFPB relied on “junk science” when issuing their guidance on indirect auto lending. The Dodd-Frank Act explicitly states the Bureau has no jurisdiction supervising this industry, yet time and time again we see it is an agency willing to issue regulation by enforcement. Since 2013, the CFPB has issued over $200 million in out-of-court settlements to auto lenders based on guidance that was flawed from the start, ultimately harming the very consumers they intended to protect. Through S.J. Res. 57, Congress will bring accountability back to the CFPB and ensure this blatant over-regulation never happens again.

Bet using the phrase “junk science” gave Wagner a real thrill since she continually cites real junk science to justify her effort to deny women their right to abortion. Republicans in general like nothing better than fracturing logic in order to try to turn progressive rhetoric to their own use.

But the style of GOP duplicity in Wagner’s effort to mislead her constituents has to take backseat to its substance. What she’s referring to, the “problem” addressed by S.J. Res. 57, is an effort to address discriminatory auto lending practices via guidelines for indirect lenders rather than auto-dealers who were exempted from consumer protection oversight by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) established under Dodd-Frank. Specifically, the legislation Wagner touts attempts to nullify anti-discrimination provisions meant to protect minorities:

The fight centers on guidance issued by the CFPB in 2013 that took aim at a common industry practice in which auto dealers mark up interest rates offered by finance companies. Finance firms such as Ally, for example, set an interest rate based on objective criteria — including a borrower’s credit history and the size of the down payment. Auto dealers then are free to raise the interest rates within certain limits. The finance companies and the dealers split the extra profits.The CFPB argued that auto dealers were using that discretionary markup to charge black and Latino borrowers more than white ones, even if they had the same credit scores. Over several years, the agency fined numerous auto lenders millions of dollars for discriminating against minority borrowers.

What the “junk science” accusation in Wagner’s screed refers to is the CFPB’s use of  a study by the Center for Responsible Lending that applied statistical analysis to large data sets selected on the basis of last name and zip code. No one disputes that such analysis may not work on the individual level. In the absence of data indicating the race of borrowers,  however, far from being junk science, as Stuart Rossman, Director of Litigation at the National Consumer Law Center, puts it, “this analysis conducted on data from millions of auto finance transactions can find patterns that almost certainly reveal actual differences based on race.”

It also supplements numerous studies that have used other methodologies to show that lenders use the discretionary markup to disadvantage minority borrowers. Rossman, for instance, references more substantive data gleaned in the 1990s:

In fact, a few years ago, the National Consumer Law Center proved the same conclusion in courts of law based on data that did reveal the race of individual borrowers. In the late 1990s, we co-counseled class action lawsuits against all of the major auto finance companies challenging the use of discretionary dealer markups. In discovery, we obtained data on individual loans, and we hired an expert witness to match the loans to drivers’ license data in states that collected the drivers’ race. With millions of loans to analyze, we also could find the race of many borrowers who financed a car in a state that does not collect racial information but previously lived in a state that does. The results were overwhelming: Dealers were twice as likely to add a markup to the loans of African-Americans than to loans taken out by comparable white borrowers. Furthermore, when African-American and compatible white borrowers both were marked up, the African-American borrowers paid significantly more

That was 20 years ago you say – however a study earlier this year showed the same discriminatory lending patterns:

Discrimination in auto lending continues to be a very real problem. In early 2018, a study conducted by the National Fair Housing Alliance paired white and nonwhite testers to visit auto dealerships and shop for the same car within 24 hours of each other. The study found that, more often than not, the better qualified nonwhite applicant was offered more expensive pricing options than the less qualified white applicant. This resulted in those nonwhite borrowers paying on average $2,662 more than white borrowers over the life of the loan. Additionally, NFHA found that 75% of the time, white testers were offered more financing options than nonwhite testers. These statistics further prove the need for continued vigilant enforcement against violations of ECOA, as well as clear expectations for industry like the 2013 guidance provides.

So far no junk science, just many studies with diverse methodologies that point in the same direction. One that folks like Wagner don’t like to acknowledge straight-up. Because, hey, who wants to admit they support discrimination on the basis of race if it helps their banking cronies bottom line to deny it? Especially if the legislator in question has decided to cast her lot with the Idiot-in-Chief who’s helped her do lots of good for those in financial circles and who specializes in bringing the GOP’s racist dog whistles out of the shadows and into the light.

Police state flag waves over West St. Louis County

14 Monday May 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

512px-Blue_Lives_Matter_flag.svg.png

You may have seen the flag above as you are out and about. If you live in West St. Louis County, you may have seen it waving proudly on a row of light posts fronting the BMW of West County showroom on Manchester Blvd., alternating with the traditional American flag. A few folks in St. Louis County display them in front of their houses. Most of these displays, at least those that I’ve seen, also have signs declaring their support of the police which are far more common.

The flag is known as a “Thin Blue Line” flag or, as it  has been controversially labeled more recently, utilizing the phrase most often employed in opposition to “Black Lives Matter,” a Blue Lives Matter flag.  The thin blue line stands for the idea, according to Wikipedia, “that law enforcement is a Thin Blue Line that stands between chaos and order or between criminals and the potential victims of crime, and it is primarily used to show solidarity with police.”

Where’s the controversy, you ask? We all support the police. If government is to be effective it must have a well-funded enforcement arm. It’s that well funded part that should ensure that it’s also well-directed and in possession of sufficient funds to hire the very best candidates and guarantee that they serve all the people in an accountable and transparent fashion.

But for some, the fact that a policeman did it, whatever it is – and as long as it’s not done to them – means it’s okay. That attitude certainly means that we can hire our police lots cheaper, and since plenty of fools think keeping taxes hyper-low is the name of the game, no matter how it may endanger civic well-being, one can see the appeal. There is also the tendency to, in the words of conservative Federalist contributor Rachael Lu, “virtue-cloak” a profession that we respect, insisting, against any emergent evidence to the contrary,  that all members of the profession are what “we know they should be.”

In this regard, I am reminded of many of the policemen I’ve encountered in my life – some of them family members and their friends. Most have been conscientious, kind people who just want to do a difficult job well. But I have to admit that some – including some of those family members – lacked the mental frame of reference necessary to facilitate that desire. This is America: there’s always the question of overt or unconscious bias. There’s also the fact that there are lots of sad losers who are attracted to occupations that let them throw their weight around. It’s gratifying to little men to play at being the big man. Serious educational requirements, solid, ongoing training and rigorous psychological screening could easily address such problems.

But you get what you pay for. Support good policing standards with cold cash and you might get better policing.

The situation is also complicated by the fact that for many citizens the chaos and criminal behavior from which police have to hold that thin blue line  has a black face. And they want their armed representatives to employ whatever force necessary to keep that black face where it belongs – out of their line of vision. These are, by and large, the people who have tried to distract us from Black Lives Matter concerns by elevating the police to, in the words of  Lu, “quasi-sacerdotal” status.

Evidence? Remember when you saw your first Blue Lives Matter sign or flag? I don’t know about you, but I never saw any of these devices until just about the time black folks took to the streets to demand accountability from a police force they experience as out-of control instruments of white repression. When black people began to use cell phones to document police behavior, the Blue Lives Matter train seems to have well and truly pushed out of the station, tooting it’s big old dog whistle loud and clear.

Blue lives do matter. But the fact that they are ever at risk is simply a given of the job policemen have chosen to perform – and another argument for better pay and benefits along with the outsize power over people lives that we now grant them. But hey, black lives still matter just as much as they did before elderly white folks in my neighborhood started to tie blue ribbons around the trees in their yards. And the fact that black lives are at risk, not because of their freely-chosen but risky jobs, but because they are demanding that the police serve them too rather than catering to the the prejudices of a shrinking segment of the population ought to help put those Blue Lives emblems in the proper perspective.

What really scares me about all this furor over whose lives matter? We’ve got a president sending out authoritarian feelers while encouraging police brutality, an Attorney General who makes no bones that he shares the belief that the worst criminals on the other side of the thin blue line are African-Americans, while supposedly solid, salt-of-the-earth Middle Americans find that the American flag, the one that stands for all citizens, regardless of religion or race, just won’t do the job any more. Instead they hoist flags arguably meant to encourage a special, protected police status in the face of blue line rampage. And don’t let them fool you. They understand what they’re saying when those flags go up.

By the way – maybe someone ought to give the proprietors of BMW of West County an earful. It’s their right to display whatever flag they choose, but it’s our free-speech right to let them know if we’re offended.

No, Chuck Raasch, nobody’s giving Eric Greitens’ scandals short shrift

22 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Washington correspondent, Chuck Raasch, occasionally indulges in the tired whinging about the Beltway’s (media) neglect of the good, solid folks in “flyover” country, a complaint we often hear, especially from Beltway journos intent on separating themselves from the herd by pretending to have a special line direct to the long-suffering, salt-of-the-earth folks hiding in the heartland (another tired designation for the center of the country). His latest complaint seems to be that, thanks to Eric Greitens, Missouri’s got an honest-to-god, big-time sex and corruption scandal and isn’t getting any credit for it:

For the record, on the day after a scathing legislative report on Greitens, one co-authored by five Republicans in which Republican Missouri House Speaker Todd Richardson labeled allegations against the Republican governor “very disturbing,” the Washington Post did not mention the report in its paper edition. It did, however, have four stories encompassing 140 column inches and five editorials or opinion columns on the resignation of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

For the record, the WaPo did report on latest in the Greitens brouhaha on the next day’s paper edition, just as they – and, as I can personally attest, numerous other national outlets – have reported regularly on the latest developments in the seemingly endless Greitens saga. (And shoudn’t Raasch be more interested in the digital version of the paper which likely has greater reach?)

If larger, coastal newspapers aren’t saturating their front pages with Greitens naughty behavior, as lamented by Raasch and Helaine Olen, whose WaPo article on the subject Raasch references, one of the reasons is that the practical considerations our Missouri scandal raises are probably of greater interest to the citizens of Missouri who will have to live with the consequences than it is to folks elsewhere. And who would expect anything else?

Of course, there’s also the fact that sex sandals are a dime a dozen lately. When the President of the United States is implicated in paying off porn actresses and Playboy models – and stands accused of eleven (or is it more?) instances of sexual assault, Greitens’ efforts seemed to be, at least until the most recent revelations of abusive behavior, essentially subpar.  Olen speculates that Greitens isn’t getting his due measure of shaming:

… partly because the Trump presidency is a news black hole, sucking up so much of our attention that almost nothing else can break through. But it’s also because the Trump administration, by ratcheting up the bounds of what is acceptable — at least to President Trump — is ensuring that actions that would normally shock all of us fly under the news radar.

As for Greitens’ alleged corruption – isn’t corruption the Republican way of life nowadays?

None of which is to say that newspapers have actually failed to report on the ever more salacious Greitens scandal. The issue is that bad behavior, that of both Greitens and Trump,  doesn’t seem to result in serious outrage, no matter how many folks are reading all the sordid details of life in the political fast lane.

Nor should we ignore the judgemental fingers pointed by various pundits over the past weeks. Ruth Marcus, also of The Washington Post, compared Greitens’ situation to that of the scandal-ridden EPA head, Scott Pruitt – three days before Olen lamented the lack of coverage and four days prior to Raach’s article. Like Olen, Marcus credits Trump’s Little of Circus of Horrors for the lack of consequences, declaring, “that Greitens and Pruitt remain in office, as of this writing, says something — not just about them, but about the degraded state of our politics.” Yep. And about Republicans too – don’t forget the prime enablers.

Finally, if Raasch wants Missouri to get credit for it’s own brand of sordid, he’ll definitely be gratified by the fact that Talking Points Memo has awarded Greitens one of its weekly Golden Duke awards. The Golden Duke, “named for former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, is given to a political figure by TPM following an attention-grabbing display of corruption, abuse of power, or risible behavior.” TPM’s editor, Josh Marshall, after detailing Greitens’ offenses, asserts that he deserves the award, because of “his refusal to read the writing on the wall.” He adds:

It’s unclear if Greitens will change his mind and voluntarily step down, be impeached, or attempt to ride out the allegations. But it appears he’ll have to adjust his political ambitions; he will likely have little use for the ericgreitensforpresident.com domain name he registered.

One can only hope.

Getting ironical about Greitens

13 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 23 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Are Republicans cynical, confused, or just outright hypocrites?

Cynical: The White House spokespeople, folks who work for Donald Trump, P****-grabber and sexual predator extraordinaire, who are claiming that they find the abuse allegations against the Missouri Governor, who is, compared to Trump, a junior-grade sexual predator, “very concerning.”

Confused: The three Missouri legislators, Republican Senators. Rob Schaaf, Doug Libla and Gary Romine, who are appealing to the same White House predator – who will never in a thousand years resign himself – to force Greitens to go gently into the looming political night. I guess our state-level pols just haven’t been paying attention. Read their letter – except for the parts that glorify Geitens’ Navy SEAL past, it could be describing the antics that have been imputed to the Orange Buffoon himself. Of course, the fool in the White House could end up doing just about anything, depending on the state of his “gut,” so maybe their gambit will pay off.

Outright hypocrite: Then, finally there’s the case of Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2). Wagner couldn’t wait to declare that when it comes to Greitens, she is “disgusted,” and asserts that he “is unfit to lead our state.” But I’m betting that a few of you remember when, in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, she called on Trump to withdraw and labeled him “predatory and reprehensible.” Didn’t take her too long to reverse herself, though, when she realized which way the wind was blowing among the crazy reds in the Missouri GOP base. Nor is it surprising that she’s spent the last year kissing up to the Orange Buffoon who has showered her financial industry patrons with goodies. So much for her country-club rectitude.

Don’t ever doubt that our Annie will do whatever it takes when it comes to going along to get along. So we’ll wait and see if Greitens manages to hang on whether or not, in the end, all will be forgiven.

Are we tired of 2nd Amendment overkill (and I do mean kill) yet?

24 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I wasn’t able to attend the St. Louis version March for our Lives in which thousands participated in at least 800 cities over the entire country. An estimated 500,000 showed up for the “mother” march in D.C., there were 20 blocks of marching people in New York – you get the idea; the marches were a big deal. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the downtown St. Louis event (there are other local marches as well) drew at least 10,000 participants, including Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. No Roy Blunt though; he seems to be okay with turning our schools into killing grounds as long as he gets those NRA checks.

There have also been a small sprinkling of pro-gun counter-protests as well, at least fifteen according to one accounting. Counter marches weren’t necessarily that impressive though. The one in Phoenix Arizona only managed to attract about two dozen participants while the Phoenix iteration of the March for our Lives brought out 15,000 marchers. Politicians, take note.

What was impressive about the pro-NRA gun-love demonstrators , though, is how tired and stale their rhetoric has become. It has always been dishonest; what I’m talking about is the fact that it seems at this point to be no more than a parody – and a dull-witted parody at that.

In Montana, which, along with the highest gun ownership rates, has the most gun deaths in the U.S.,  a local politician proclaimed apropos of the student-inspired rallies that:

I have a basic right that’s not granted by society — it’s granted by God — to self-defense, […] I don’t see how people in society can make the argument that they have the right to take a right from me because one person did something bad.

I have to admit that the gentleman’s narrative did differ from the same ol’, same ol’  reliance on an unsupported belief in an alll-permissive 2nd Amendment. This old boy infers that the right to carry guns is, by virtue of a gargantuan leap of logic, God-given. But by the same logic, don’t I and millions of other Americans have a right to defend ourselves from the legion of often hair-trigger fools who think they need guns to stay safe? As a student attending the Helena March for our Lives put it, “We don’t want anybody’s constitutional rights taken away, [… ] but we don’t want those rights to infringe on others’ rights to be able to exist safely in public spaces.”

Mr. Montana Pro-gun Pol himself bolsters my argument when he insists that  his rights might be abrogated “because one person did something bad.” Sorry, but the reason we’re considering regulating guns (as in well-regulated militia, per the Constitution) is that thousands of persons did and continue to do “something bad” with their guns, putting thousands more at risk. The catch-phrase favored by him and his is right. People kill people. Far too often people with guns. It’s just so easy to point and pull a trigger. And when that trigger is on a military-style assault gun – whooee – shooter’s going to town! Consider the fact that since the Parkland, Fla. murder of 17 high school students – a period of 37 days – 73 teenagers have been killed by guns.

Well-indoctrinated gun nuts do usually invoke the Constitution to justify their fury at any suggestion that gun ownership might be regulated in any way, and there were numerous quotes to that effects from folks at the counter-protests who were all hot and bothered because, they contended, the pro-gun control marchers were using their 1st Amendment rights to oppose the 2nd Amendment rights that the pro-gun demonstrators believe they have. Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, that codified the idea of a 2nd Amendment right to private ownership of guns, also seems to have green-lighted common sense regulations of the sort that are currently being promulgated by those folks exercising their 1st Amendment rights:

 On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” 

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Won’t somebody educate the 2nd Amendment crazies about the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting it?

One attendee at an Indiana counter protest declared with a straight face that, “as a parent I feel horrible for the kids that were killed [… .] But you don’t say, ‘Hey there’s 200 deaths from drinking and driving and now we take all the cars away from people.’”

Newsflash, Dad. Regulating guns doesn’t require confiscation of legal firearms. Nor is the automotive comparison viable. We do regulate (i.e., license) drivers of cars – I personally lack a license because of a physical impairment that makes me a risky driver. You should be glad that I can’t get that license. But plenty of people continue to own and drive cars. There are also age requirements to buy alcohol. These measures may not always be effective or prevent all drinking and driving accidents, but I – and the individual quoted above – are lots safer than we would be because they exist.

When it comes to guns, we know that states with extended background checks, for instance, have had “35 percent fewer gun deaths per capita than those without the requirement. ” And guess what? There are folks in those states, those upstanding gun owners that the NRA likes to pretend that it represents,  who continue to own guns in spite of the stronger gun laws. Nobody took away their guns.

Finally, the  most stupid stance taken by the pro-gun crowd? Over and over they either called the gun-control marchers leftists, socialists, communists, or naive folks manipulated by leftists, socialists or communists.* Big Whoop. First, it’s not true;  polls  suggest that even a fair number of Republicans believe guns should be better regulated and there was Republican support for the March for our Lives. Those tired political labels are losing their power to scare anyone born later than 1960. Armed right-wing militias are lots scarier to many of us.

To borrow a slogan from a sign photographed at one of gun control rallies today, “Guns don’t kill people …. er, yes, they do.”

*ADDENDUM (3/25/18, 2:48): In addition the NRA is claiming the high schoolers are puppets of “Hollywood elites” and “gun-hating millionaires” – which is rich coming from an organization that, along with the  the Kochs and the rest of the dark money cabal, now owns most GOP politicians who are, once again, toeing the NRA line.

 

Has McCaskill chosen the wrong “bipartisan” issue?

11 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

At this still, admittedly, early date, Claire McCaskill, Missouri’s Democratic Senate incumbent, is running eight points, 44-52, behind wet-behind-the-ears AG Josh Hawley, who is probably her best known challenger from among the GOP primary lineup. How can this be, you ask? McCaskill’s got the money, she’s been working hard to make sure that out-state Missourian’s know that she understands rural “Missouri values,” trekking from one town hall to another, tacking carefully and skillfully to the center in an effort to cultivate those famous moderates we keep hearing about – although we rarely seem to see them nowadays.

But recent events leave me wondering if McCaskill’s might have honed in on the wrong issue in order to prove her non-partisan bona fides. I’m referring to her support for a Republican bill that would once again deregulate banks. As Garry Rivlin and Susan Antilla of The Intercept describe it:

… the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, […] represents the greatest threat to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law since its passage in 2010. The bill would relieve all but the country’s largest dozen banks of increased scrutiny and ease mortgage rules imposed after the financial crisis. It would undermine fair lending rules designed to counteract race discrimination and weaken the Volcker rule, which limits a bank’s ability to make speculative trades with federally insured deposits. …

In spite of the fact that bank earnings have continuously surged since 2010, proponents speciously insist that, due to the act, banks “are suffering and so, by extension, are consumers, businesses, and the economy at large.” Part and parcel of the GOP belief, reinforced by the Liar-in-Chief in the White House, that if you say it, it will be so, reality be dammed.

Many of the red-state Democrats who support the bill, like McCaskill, purport to buy into the argument that Dodd-Frank needs to be revised to help suffering community banks that the law has, they assert, disadvantaged. However, as Rivlin and Antilla report, “A 2017 FDIC report shows that deposits in community banks have grown in each of the past six years. Another report showed that 96 percent of the country’s 5,294 community banks were profitable, as of the third quarter of 2017.” If you’re interested in learning more about the problems with this legislation, including the effect on community banks, noted economist Jared Bernstein spells some of them out here in greater – but not too lengthy or ponderous -detail.

The issue for McCaskill, though, could go beyond pandering through bad policy, and might actually cost her politically. Consider, for example, the speculation that banking champion GOP Rep. Ann Wagner may be vulnerable this time around. It’s true that there are several reasons other than her dedication to fighting for the banks that so generously fund her that might leave her in a little shakier position than in the past. Her district has changed somewhat, she plays shy with her constituents in an effort to avoid controversy – and dim any potential sunlight on her priorities. There is, of course, also some indication that the hard-core Trumpies may not totally buy her Trump-MAGA conversion and are likely put off by her coy country club Republican aura.

But it’s equally true that there’s somewhat louder discussion than in past years about Wagner’s single-minded efforts to gut the financial rules, the fiduciary rule that protected investors from dishonest financial advisors in particular. People aren’t always as stupid as politicians think they are, particularly when it involves financial survival issues. And don’t forget, lots of Trump’s so-called populist voters were motivated by anger at Wall-street and the big banks – and there are those among them who are feeling a bit disillusioned right now.

McCaskill should take care – linking herself with folks like Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer, big-time Missouri shills for the banking industry, might just prove to be the proverbial millstone that could harm more than it helps with contrary voters. Oh, and there’s always the damage the actual policy may do to all of us. Don’t any of these Democratic fools playing the bipartisan game remember 2008?

ADDENDUM: Kevin Drum points out that the Dodd-Frank roll-back will also gut provisions that prevent racial redlining, voicing his – and my dismay – that any Democrats – are you listening Senator McCaskill – are supporting this piece of drek.

Trump, Russia, the NRA and today’s tweet storm

18 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

After Donald Trump – and to be honest, most of the Republican political class – totally failed to discuss the gun part of the fact that the children in Parkland, Florida were massacred by a kid armed with a legally purchased assault weapon, there was lots of right-minded noise about how the GOP is a totally owned subsidiary of the NRA. But, nevertheless, I found it odd that nobody – to my knowledge – has brought up this little bit of news from a few days earlier:

But when it comes to funding, the NRA may have finally gone too far: the FBI recently launched an investigation to determine whether a Russian central banker, and Putin ally, illegally funneled money through the organization to help the Trump campaign.

Kind of casts Trump’s worries that the Russia investigation might be eating up too many FBI resources in another light. Also explains his tight-lipped stance when it comes to bucking the NRA line. It might just not be the Russians who may have a few dirty secrets our putative president would prefer to keep quiet when it comes to money laundering.

Of course, given the limited intellectual capacity of the current White House occupant, it’s really not too surprising that he might not believe that the agents of a huge, complex agency like the FBI can walk and chew gum at the same time.

It’s getting scary out there – and our congresspeople are pretending not to see

17 Saturday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Nancy LeTourneau of The Washington Monthly did a first-rate if brief summary of the failed Trump presidency to date. The gist of her piece:

Taking a step back from getting caught up in the latest outrage, a look at what has happened over the last 13 months paints a picture of an utterly failed presidency. Because Donald Trump is incompetent, ignorant and mentally unfit to be president, he is not likely to improve on his performance to date. […]

Even if we ignore all of the obnoxious things he has said or tweeted and focus on his personnel and policy failures, the list is long.

  1. Failed to repeal Obamacare
  2. Failed to pass his immigration plan
  3. Travel ban and recision of DACA have been overturned in the courts
  4. Voter fraud commission disbanded after it went “off the rails”
  5. More than one in three staffers left the White House in its first year
  6. More than 40 percent his first Cabinet-level picks have faced ethical or other controversies
  7. At least 100 White House officials served with ‘interim’ security clearances until November
  8. A record low job approval rating for his first year

Depending on your politics, the fact that Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and the Transpacific Partnership trade agreement would be viewed as major failures. He still hasn’t completed the re-negotiation of NAFTA.

LeTourneau seems to think that Trump can rely on his fake news outlets, the servile right-wing media conglomerate that dances to Trump’s fiddle, to reframe his disastrous tenure. And indeed, the great right-wing echo chamber has been extraordinarily successful over the past decade in persuading low-information, high dudgeon folks that night is day and vice-versa.

That’s bad. But, oddly, what scares me more is what might happen if it doesn’t work. Consider this tidbit – pure gossip, not confirmed, but worth attention nevertheless:

A US National Security Council (NSC) official has reportedly suggested that a limited preemptive strike on North Korea could help the Republican Party in the upcoming midterm elections — a claim rebutted by the White House.

The alleged comment, which was sourced from a scathing opinion column published Friday by the South Korean newspaper Hankyoreh, was also tweeted by a Wall Street Journal reporter.

“Indeed, White House National Security Council senior director for Asian affairs Matthew Pottinger was reported as saying in a recent closed-door meeting with US experts on Korean Peninsula issues that a limited strike on the North ‘might help in the midterm elections,'” read the English-translated version of the op-ed.

[…]

The remarks come as some advisers to President Donald Trump have reportedly suggested limited military action against North Korea to give it a “bloody nose.”

According to all reputable sources, such a scenario would have an horrendous effect – quite apart from it’s effect on the midterms. Given what we know about Trump and some members of his contingent, however, it seems like it might seem to them to be a hunky-dory way to maintain political dominance.

And our congressional representatives? Would they defend us and the hundreds of innocents who are at risk against such an atrocity? Will we ever be able to rely on the GOP, the members of which have, as LeTourneau notes, utterly failed to hold Trump accountable – the very people who have even tried to cover for him in the face of what some think might amount to possible treason.

And as for Democrats, sure some will come out to do battle. But midterms scare lots of swing state Democrats who still think that it’s wise to tack to the middle. And maybe it is, as far as their individual political careers go. Don’t expect any profiles in courage.

My own Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, is good at this walking the center line game. And usually I’m glad that she is. This is Missouri after all. But there’s lots going on now, and what’s Claire patting herself on the back for doing? In a recent email newsletter that I received, she informed me that her “bipartisan valentine” was the craven, corrupt Roy Blunt:

Since he and I have been in the Senate, we’ve teamed up on 331 bills and resolutions for the Show-me State—and that’s a record I think we can both be proud of.

Despite what you see on the news and online, there are a lot of things Senator Blunt and I agree on, and they’re almost all about commonsense solutions that will help folks in our state. We may not agree on everything, but we can certainly agree that Missourians come first.

Claire’s effort to hog the centrist spotlight is understandable, maybe. Effective in November? I hope. But it does not inspire confidence in the face of the debacle that is taking place in Washington – one abetted by Roy Blunt – although even he can’t resist expressing his doubts about Trump’s competence, at least as far as his ability to to effectively collude with Russia:

My view continues to be that the (Trump) campaign had one asset, which was a candidate that understood the moment and (was) not very capable of anything much more complicated than that.

Evidently, he’s never heard of “useful idiots” as a category. And maybe he doesn’t care, as long as the idiot in question lets him and his corporate clients have their way.

By the way, did Blunt send Claire a bipartisan valentine, I wonder? Will he even say anything nice about her?