Tag Archives: Congressional Democrats

national security

Infrastructure is too big to ignore

Of all the policy pronouncements that Donald Trump has made since becoming a politician, two of them ring true to me.

Yeah, I know. It’s just two. One of them involves judicial sentencing reform. The president is pitching the idea of getting rid of federal sentencing standards that too often, he says, send people into the federal prison for longer terms than they deserve.

However, I want to discuss briefly the other notion. Infrastructure repair, rehab, rebuilding, renovation.

He wants to spend a lot of money. What’s the cost? A trillion bucks? Two trillion? More than that?

The details of how much money it will cost or how the government will find the money to spend remain murky. We need to repair our bridges, our highways and our airports. Those are the three elements of our national infrastructure the president has mentioned specifically.

Yes, he is dealing with an extremely hostile Congress. The hostility runs red hot in the House of Representatives, which now is being run by Democrats. If you believe the media, you presume I suppose that every one of the 235 House Democrats detest Donald Trump deeply. They don’t want to do anything to advance a legislative agenda item. At one level, I cannot blame them, given the manner in which he “governs,” which is to say he doesn’t have a clue.

On another level, though, the nation needs to build things again. It needs to re-charge its energy level to improve the quality of our ground and air transportation.

I see studies almost weekly that tell us about crumbling bridges. In Texas, where I live, we are passionately in love with our motor vehicles. We need safe highways and bridges over which to drive from point to point.

The Texas Department of Transportation is hard at work rebuilding and renovating bridges and highways throughout our state.

However, TxDOT funds only go so far. We are part of the United States of America. Every state, even one as big and rich as Texas, ought to be able to lean on the federal government for funds to renovate part of the national infrastructure.

The president and congressional Democrats are supposed to meet this week to talk over the issue of how to come up with the money they might need to rebuild this essential element of life in our country. Don’t ask me for a clue. I have none.

I do know that life in 21st-century America requires enabling its citizens to get from point to point safely and without worrying whether the street or the bridge on which they are traveling won’t collapse under the weight of their vehicle. Airport service needs to be maintained at the highest level possible; currently, it isn’t.

How do we get there? From where I come from, I believe it’s called deploying “good government.”

International news

Declaring rhetorical ‘war’ on border-security demagogues

I am on the verge — or perhaps I’ve already taken the step — of declaring rhetorical “war” on those who insist that that those who oppose The Trump Wall are in favor of “open borders,” or are soft on crime, or who don’t want to protect the nation.

I am one of those who opposes the barrier that Donald Trump keeps insisting we build along our southern border.

Do I favor open borders? No. Am I soft on crime? No. Do I want to protect the nation against those who would do us harm? Yes.

Why is this so troublesome? It bothers me in the extreme to hear otherwise normally reasonable people say the things they do out loud, in public, about those of us who believe the president is wrong to declare a national emergency just to build The Trump Wall.

The president promised to make Mexico pay for its construction. It didn’t happen; it won’t happen. Now he is trying to foist The Wall on taxpayers. Congressional Democrats are digging in against that idea, too. So, to circumvent Congress, the president has declared a national emergency where none exists. Democrats are fighting back and, lo and behold, they’re getting some Republican support against the emergency declaration idea.

The day after making the declaration, he flew to Florida to play a few rounds of golf. National emergency? Hmm?

Trump has led the demagogic drumbeat against those who oppose The Wall. He yaps and yammers about open borders, national security and contends that his foes favor the former and oppose the latter.

I simply cannot take any more of that blind demagoguery coming from the president and his political base of supporters.

No one will get hurt in this “war” I intend to declare. Unless, of course, I inflict damage on some feelings along the way.

If so . . . that is just too bad.

International news, military news

Danger still lurks in Syria, Mr. POTUS

Donald Trump, the self-described “stable genius,” has given us yet another demonstration of why he is so damn dangerous as commander in chief of history’s greatest military machine.

With all the combat-experienced officers surrounding him, he either (a) ignored their advice or (b) never consulted with them prior to announcing a decision to pull all 2,000 or so troops out of Syria.

Trump declared that the Islamic State in Syria “has been defeated.” Really? Has it? Do we believe this president’s simple declaration? Do we take anything he says about such matters as a statement of irrefutable fact? I certainly do not!

The Pentagon got a major surprise Wednesday when the president tweeted a decision to pull the troops out. So did the State Department. Same with the CIA and the director of national intelligence.

No one saw it coming, according to reports.

One theory being kicked around is that Turkey’s president talked the president into pulling out of Syria. What do you suppose might have prompted that request? It might be that the Turks wanted our forces out of the way so they can deal more aggressively with Kurdish forces along the Turkey-Syria border; the Turks, you see, hate the Kurds and want to eliminate the threat posed by the Kurds — who have been fighting against the Syrian government — to the Turkish government.

Let’s not forget another party that is happy with this decision: That would be Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. Enough said about that one, yes?

To be clear, Trump acted within his presidential authority. He is the commander in chief. He possesses broad executive authority to do what he did.

It’s the so-called “wisdom” of the decision that has riled so many observers in Congress, most notably many of the president’s supposed “allies” within the Republican caucus in both congressional chambers. Congressional Democrats, of course, are shaking their heads in astonishment.

They, too, were surprised. The president didn’t consult with them, either.

Many of the president’s more ardent critics point out another curious dichotomy. It is that a New York attorney general has ordered the shuttering of the Trump Foundation because of what is alleged to be misuse of charitable donations, but still . . . the creator of that foundation maintains control of the nation’s nuclear launch codes.

Is this how you make America great again?

I think not.

national news

Treason: a serious four-letter word

One more comment on “treason,” and then I’m out … maybe, perhaps, hopefully.

When the president of the United States accuses fellow Americans of committing a treasonous act, he is accusing them of aiding and abetting enemies of the state. He is saying that those who commit such acts should be punished accordingly; the law allows traitors to be, um, executed.

Thus, when Donald John “Stable Genius” Trump tosses the t-word at congressional Democrats whose “crime against the state” is to sit on their hands during the president’s State of the Union speech, he’s being politically vulgar in the worst way possible.

Trump did that while speaking to an Ohio crowd this week. He called Democrats’ actions “un-American”; someone in the crowd yelled “treasonous,” which Trump heard and took it to the next step.

“Why not?” he asked about the word, getting guffaws and hoots from the adoring crowd.

Members of the loyal opposition often are impolite, or rude, or sometimes insulting during these speeches. However, hanging the ultimate four-letter word around them — calling their actions “treasonous” — betrays an utter ignorance of the very principle on which the Founding Fathers created the greatest nation on Earth.

Moreover, I am inclined to think that a more treasonous act would be to collude with a foreign power to corrupt our electoral process … if that happened, of course.

Sickening.

national news

Protest is so very American, Mr. President

I just cannot let go of this idiocy muttered today by the president of the United States.

Donald J. Trump thought he’d tell an Ohio crowd that congressional Democrats who didn’t cheer the economic good news he delivered at the State of the Union were “un-American.” He took the bait offered by someone in the crowd by declaring them as acting “treasonous.”

I saw the clip and noticed the goofy look the president wears when he’s, um, joking. Maybe he was just kidding when he tossed out “treason” to describe Democrats’ behavior.

But still …

I need to declare that sitting on their hands in the congressional chamber is as American an act as I can think of.

Pardon me for reminding us all that the United States was created in an act of protest against a repressive government. Our nation’s founders created a governing document that codifies protest as an essential part of good government.

So, when members of an opposing party choose not to stand, cheer and clap when the president declares that all is good with the nation’s economy … well, that is their sacred right as American citizens.

My desire to seek to set the record straight on Trump’s latest idiotic declaration is aimed directly at the president’s most fervent supporters who actually believe this crap.

national news

POTUS looking like he’s ready to dicker over DACA

I’ve spent most of the past eight months or so telling you why I believe Donald J. Trump Sr. is such a loser as president of the United States. I now want to say something good about him. Shocking, I know. But here it comes.

He has infuriated many of his more conservative core of supporters by doing the unthinkable: negotiate with Democrats in Congress. The latest attempt at deal brokering involves the Differed Action for Childhood Arrivals matter.

Trump rescinded the DACA order a few days ago. He set a six-month phase-out window, enticing Congress to act on a legislative fix that would allow undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children to remain in the United States so they could seek citizenship or permanent legal immigrant status.

He dined with Chuck and Nancy, aka Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at the White House. They struck a form of an “agreement.” Trump would work with Democrats to preserve DACA. Schumer and Pelosi said they and the president agreed to a deal that would preserve DACA, enhance border security, but forgo money to build the wall across our southern border.

Trump has disputed the wall issue. He still wants to build the wall. I and many others think that’s a bad idea.

Trump stuns nation’s capital.

The heartening aspect of all this, despite the chaos arising from the dinner date at the White House, is that the president is now working constructively with those who oppose his policies.

For the 65 million or so Americans out here who voted for Hillary Clinton for president, this is a hopeful sign that the president is finally — finally! — understanding that governance is a team sport that requires presidents to seek common ground with what is euphemistically called the “loyal opposition.”

Have I changed my mind about Trump’s fitness for his job? Not in the least. However, in the spirit of fairness, I am delighted to offer a good word and encourage the president to do what he can to preserve DACA — and to keep working with congressional Democrats.

International news, national news, political news

Partisanship has no place in foreign policy

OK, one more attempt at making sense of this Bibi blowup and I’ll move on.

It’s being reported that about a quarter of congressional Democrats are going to stay away from the speech Tuesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will make before a joint session of Congress.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/234398-bibi-boycott-grows-ahead-of-address

Democrats are angry that Republican Speaker John Boehner invited Bibi to speak without consulting with the White House. I get their anger. It is infuriating that Boehner would flout longstanding diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign head of government in such a manner.

Netanyahu, in remarks today to a pro-Israel group, said he doesn’t want to become the object of partisan scorn in Washington. Indeed, such partisanship shouldn’t be an issue when we’re talking about foreign policy matters.

Who, though, turned it into a partisan event? I’ll go with Boehner, who stuck it in the president’s eye in the way he invited Netanyahu. The prime minister opposes negotiations to get Iran to stop its nuclear development program; he favors tougher sanctions on Iran now, along with Boehner and most Republicans; Obama opposes the sanctions; and the president is miffed over the invitation issue.

None of this means the United States and Israel are going to part company. Netanyahu will affirm the nations’ close ties Tuesday, just as he did today.

The partisan nature of the protest, though, smacks more of petulance than anything else.

I’ll say it again: Democrats should listen to Bibi in person and give him the respect that the leader of our nation’s strongest Middle East ally deserves.

 

International news

Democrats wrong to boycott Bibi's speech

It’s probably too late to change anyone’s mind, but it’s never too late to drive home a point that needs to be made.

Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu’s audience as he speaks to a joint session of Congress this week will be missing about 30 congressional Democrats, who’ve decided to boycott the speech for a couple of reasons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bibis-boycotters-115612.html?hp=r3_3

One is that House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation of Netanyahu was done without consulting the White House. What’s more, Boehner wants the United States to impose sanctions on Iran, which is negotiating with other nations on a possible deal to end its nuclear development; Netanyahu is expected to make that case during his speech to Congress — which the White House doesn’t want to happen.

The other is that the invitation injects the United States into Israeli politics, given that Netanyahu’s governing coalition is facing an election shortly. President Obama has said it’s inappropriate to invite a foreign head of government to make such a speech so close to an election in his or her country.

Democrats shouldn’t boycott the speech. They should sit there, applaud politely, listen to Netanyahu and then decide whether they agree with whatever he says.

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said, “I will not dignify it by being here. It is an unfortunate incursion into Israeli politics.”

“As a long-time supporter of the U.S-Israel relationship, I believe the timing of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress — just days before Israeli elections — is highly inappropriate,” U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement. “I am disappointed that, as of now, the speech has not been postponed. For this reason, I will not attend the speech.”

I don’t think Boehner’s invitation was appropriate, either. I also disagree with the idea of imposing sanctions at the very time we’re seeking a negotiated settlement on whether Iran should pursue its nuclear program. Let the negotiations run their course; if they fail, then drop the sanctions hammer.

But the Israeli prime minister is a key U.S. ally — the current spat notwithstanding. His standing among world leaders compels his foes to sit and listen to his message.

Having said all that, it’s good to know that the absent lawmakers will have access to TV, radio and the Internet to hear the prime minister’s remarks.

Be sure to listen.

 

Uncategorized

Raise the debt ceiling

The debt ceiling battle is about to be joined once more in Congress.

It’s a fight Congress and the White House shouldn’t wage. It threatens the nation’s credit rating, which already has been bumped downward and it poses an extreme threat to our economic health — not to mention the retirement accounts of many tens of millions of Americans who are fed up to here with the foolish games being played.

I am one of those fed up Americans.

http://www.fixthedebt.org/blog/no-putting-a-lid-on-the-debt-ceiling_1#.UkHMCUoo6t8

Congressional Republicans, led by the tea party yahoos, are posing a serious threat to our well-being. They say the debt ceiling shouldn’t be increased, claiming some specious notion that federal spending must be brought under control. It is true the government spends too much. It also is true that if we do not honor our financial obligations — such as paying our bills — the consequences are going to eclipse the petty arguments that might lead us to default on those obligations.

The GOP’s tea party cabal keeps invoking the name of their patron saint, President Ronald Reagan, when discussing these fiscal matters. Here’s a flash: President Reagan, working with a Democratic-led Congress, boosted the debt ceiling 18 times during his two terms in the White House. No muss no fuss. No one griped openly about government “spending too much,” even though the deficit increased during President Reagan’s time in office.

Congressional Republicans are playing with fire if they take us down this road. Mark my words, they will suffer some grievous political burns if they fail to allow the United States to meet its financial obligations.