Blogs | Mother Jones Mother Jones logo en Donald Trump Tried to Cheat Veterans out of $1 Million <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I want to make this simple. Here's what Donald Trump did recently:</p> <ul><li>He pledged $1 million to help veterans.</li> <li>He tried to weasel out of it for months and hoped no one would notice.</li> <li>When he finally got caught, he ponied up grudgingly and insulted the reporter who caught him.</li> </ul><p>Even among sleazebags, <em>this is not normal behavior</em>. This is pathological sleaziness. It's literally beyond belief. Do not let Trump distract you with his <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_five_dollars_0.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">latest barrage of insults. Do not turn your attention to the latest polls. Do not let this be normalized away as "just another Trump thing."</p> <p>Maybe we need to put this in simpler terms. $1 million is one ten-thousandth of Trump's claimed wealth. The average American household has a net worth of <a href="" target="_blank">about $50,000.</a> One ten-thousandth of that is $5. In terms of its effect on his personal finances, what Trump did was the equivalent of promising five bucks to a homeless vet and then trying to weasel out of it. What kind of person would do that?</p> <p>This deserves far more attention than it's gotten. If character is supposed to be important in our presidents, this is evidence of the most contemptible kind of character imaginable. <em>He tried to cheat a bunch of veterans!</em> Can we please not shrug our shoulders and let this fade away?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 19:09:29 +0000 Kevin Drum 304901 at Weekly Flint Water Report: May 14-19 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Here is this week's Flint water report. As usual, I've eliminated outlier readings above 2,000 parts per billion, since there are very few of them and they can affect the averages in misleading ways. During the week, DEQ took 189 samples. The average for the past week was 17.08.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_flint_lead_water_2016_05_19.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px 15px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 18:01:11 +0000 Kevin Drum 304871 at Chart of the Day: Here's Why Our Infrastructure Is Crumbling and Our Recovery Is So Weak <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Tim Fernholz says that <a href="" target="_blank">this chart shocked him:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_net_government_investment.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 60px;"></p> <p>It's pretty shocking, all right. We're allowing our infrastructure to crumble because we'd rather keep taxes on millionaires low than spend the money it takes to keep our country in decent shape. But it's even worse than that. This seems like a good time to update my chart showing total government spending after our four most recent recessions. Here it is:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_spending_recessions_26_quarters_1.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 7px;"></p> <p>It's now 26 quarters since the official end of the Great Recession and total government spending is <em>still</em> below its 2009 level. This is entirely unlike previous recessions, in which we spent our way to recovery. After 26 quarters, Reagan was spending 19 percent more than in November 1982, when his recession ended. Clinton (and the Gingrich congress) were spending 6 percent more. Bush was spending a whopping 26 percent more.</p> <p>But the Republican Congress has prevented the same thing from happening on Obama's watch. We're still spending 5 percent <em>less</em> than we were in June 2009, when the recession ended. Is it any wonder that our recovery has been so weak?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 17:20:10 +0000 Kevin Drum 304866 at IG Report on Clinton Email Concludes With...Nothing New <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The State Department's inspector general has finally issued his report on email preservation and retention practices within the department, <a href="" target="_blank">and he's not impressed:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>OIG identified multiple email and other electronic records management issues during the course of this evaluation....Insufficient Oversight of the Recordkeeping Process....Print and File Requirements Not Enforced....Limited Ability To Retrieve Email Records....No Inventory of Archived Electronic Files....Unavailable or Inaccessible Electronic Files....Failure To <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_clinton_email_oig_report.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">Transfer Email Records to IPS....Failure To Follow Department Separation Processes....Failure To Notify NARA of Loss of Records</p> <p>OIG discovered anecdotal examples suggesting that Department staff have used personal email accounts to conduct official business....<strong>OIG identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts to conduct official business.</strong>...OIG also reviewed an S/ES-IRM report prepared in 2010 showing that more than 9,200 emails were sent within one week from S/ES servers to 16 web-based email domains, including,, and former Director of Policy Planning wrote: <strong>&ldquo;State&rsquo;s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Yikes! But no one cares about this. We care about Hillary Clinton. Are you ready? Here's the IG's blistering report:</p> <blockquote> <p>Sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, <strong>Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records</strong> with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department&rsquo;s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.</p> <p>NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that <strong>Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure</strong> and to surrender such records upon her departure. OIG concurs with NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s production was incomplete. For example, the Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first few months of Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s tenure.</p> <p>....With regard to Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s immediate staff...<strong>OIG learned of extensive use of personal email accounts by four immediate staff members</strong> (none of whom responded to the questionnaire). During the summer of 2015, their representatives produced Federal records in response to a request from the Department, portions of which included material sent and received via their personal email accounts. The material consists of nearly 72,000 pages in hard copy and more than 7.5 gigabytes of electronic data.</p> <p>....During Secretary Clinton&rsquo;s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU [Sensitive But Unclassified] information and that, if they needed to transmit SBU information outside the Department&rsquo;s OpenNet network on a regular basis to non-Departmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM. However, <strong>OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution,</strong> despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.</p> </blockquote> <p>In other words, this is pretty much all the stuff we already knew. The Department of State apparently has epically bad email systems. Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton should have consulted with State's IT staff about her personal email account. She didn't. She should have turned over her work emails sooner. She didn't. Ditto for her staff.</p> <p>And that's about it. Hillary screwed up. The IG report doesn't present any evidence that her system was ever hacked. Nor does it suggest that Hillary was deliberately trying to prevent work-related emails from being retained. Nor was she the only one conducting official business on a personal account. Colin Powell did it too, as well as dozens of other State employees.</p> <p>Nonetheless, Hillary exercised poor judgment here. That's been clear for a long time. Beyond that, though, there's not much more to say.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 15:58:56 +0000 Kevin Drum 304851 at Repeat After Me: Democrats and Republicans Are Not the Same <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Charles&nbsp;Camosy proposes <a href="" target="_blank">a grand bargain for Democrats and Republicans:</a></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>How to pass federal paid family leave and limit abortions</strong></p> <p>Family leave programs and child-care support are energetically backed by liberals....[But] these kinds of programs violate the extremist small-government orthodoxy of the Republican Party. Even if Democrats were to win the presidency this year, and a majority in the House and the Senate, the GOP would almost certainly filibuster bills that meaningfully addressed paid family leave and child-care costs.</p> <p>That means that Democrats who want to see such bills pass need to come up with a carrot to get moderate Republicans on board. A nearly perfect one exists: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which was passed by the House last year but filibustered by Senate Democrats. The bill would ban elective abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy. The United States is extreme in allowing such abortions in the first place; it is one of only seven countries in the world that permit abortions beyond 20 weeks.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hmmm. Paid family leave and child-care support in return for limiting abortions after 20 weeks instead of 26. Camosy is right: there are probably some Democrats who'd back that deal. At a guess, there would be at least enough to defeat a filibuster and put this on the president's desk. So let's give it a try!</p> <p>Oh wait. We need some Republican votes too. At the moment I can think Republicans who wouldn't dismiss this out of hand. Other than that, though, it sounds like some great out-of-the-box thinking.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 15:15:42 +0000 Kevin Drum 304841 at Peter Thiel's Secret War Against Gawker <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><em>Forbes</em> provides some interesting dirt on <a href="" target="_blank">Hulk Hogan's libel suit against Gawker:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Peter Thiel, a PayPal cofounder and one of the earliest backers of Facebook, <strong>has been secretly covering the expenses for Hulk Hogan&rsquo;s lawsuits against online news organization Gawker Media</strong>....During court proceedings, which ended in late March with a $140 million victory for Hogan, there had been rumors that a wealthy individual had funded <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_peter_thiel.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">Hogan&rsquo;s case though there was never any hard evidence that surfaced to prove that was true.</p> <p>....Money may not have been the main motivation in the first place. Thiel, who is gay, has made no secret of his distaste for Gawker, which attempted to out him in late 2007 before he was open about his sexuality. In 2009, Thiel told PEHub that now-defunct Silicon Valley-focused publication Valleywag, which was owned by Gawker, had the &ldquo;psychology of a terrorist.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p><em>Mother Jones</em> has had its own recent run-in <a href="" target="_blank">with a zillionaire who tried to sue us into oblivion,</a> so maybe I'm biased. But I'd like to hear a little more about this from the folks who think that safe spaces and campus protests are harbingers of doom for the First Amendment. You know what could <em>really</em> hurt a free press? Mega-millionaires who know that defending a suit can easily put a small publication out of business, and don't really care much if they win or lose. For them, a few million dollars is chump change anyway. And if they can do it secretly? All the better.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:35 +0000 Kevin Drum 304826 at Trump Finally Caves, Gives Money to Vets After Media Badgers Him Into It <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_trump_greedy.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">Our story so far: on January 28, Donald Trump pledged $1 million at a charity fundraiser for veterans. Four months later, after considerable digging, the <em>Washington Post</em> was unable to find any evidence that he had made good on his pledge, so they asked his campaign manager about it. <a href="" target="_blank">On Friday,</a> Corey Lewandowski said "The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump&rsquo;s money is fully spent." So who did he give it to? "He's not going to share that information."</p> <p>So the <em>Post</em> kept digging all day Monday. Finally, on Tuesday, we learned that Lewandowski had lied. Trump had not, in fact, <a href="" target="_blank">given any money to anyone:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Trump said in an interview Tuesday that he pledged the $1 million to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation. The mogul notified the group's chairman, retired FBI official James Kallstrom, <strong>in a phone call sometime Monday night,</strong> according to Kallstrom's wife, Sue Kallstrom.</p> <p>The <em>Washington Post</em> had been querying charities on social media, trying to find evidence that his $1 million had been received by any veterans' groups. Trump fulfilled his pledge hours later, it appears.</p> <p>Why had it taken almost four months? "You have a lot of vetting to do," Trump said....<strong>When asked if the Monday donation was in response to questions from the news media, Trump said: "You know, you&rsquo;re a nasty guy. You&rsquo;re really a nasty guy. I gave out millions of dollars that I had no obligation to do."</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Even for Trump, this is inexplicable. Whenever you think he can't possibly be a bigger douche, he proves you wrong. What a revolting human being he is.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 23:49:25 +0000 Kevin Drum 304806 at Hillary Clinton Needs Some Better Hobbies <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>David Brooks tries to explain <a href="" target="_blank">why Hillary Clinton is generally disliked:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun? We know what Obama does for fun &mdash; golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.</p> <p>But when people talk about Clinton, they tend to talk of her exclusively in professional terms....Clinton&rsquo;s career appears, from the outside, to be all consuming. Her husband is her co-politician. Her daughter works at the Clinton Foundation. Her friendships appear <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hillary_bill_clinton_dogs.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 30px 0px 15px 30px;">to have been formed at networking gatherings reserved for the extremely successful.</p> </blockquote> <p>Brooks has been mocked extensively for this, but that's unfair. He has a point here.</p> <p>Before I get to that, though, let's insert the obvious caveat: one of the main reasons Hillary is disliked is because Republicans have spent a quarter of a century attacking her character relentlessly. Benghazi is just the latest of a long string. This has done plenty of damage on its own, but it's also caused Hillary to build a very thick shell between herself and the press. This naturally makes her seem distant and calculating.</p> <p>Now let's get back to Brooks. Here's the thing: like it or not, from cherry trees to log cabins to men from Hope, presidents have always been as much about image as reality. In the modern era, that means presidents have a carefully constructed TV persona. JFK played touch football on the White House lawn. LBJ lassoed calves on his ranch. Nixon bowled.<sup>1</sup> Carter went fishing. Reagan rode horses on his ranch. Bush the Elder went sailing off Kennebunkport. Bill Clinton practically focus grouped his vacations. Bush the Younger cleared brush. Obama does hits on ESPN talking about his March Madness bracket.</p> <p>Apparently Hillary's hobbies are Scrabble, gardening, and crossword puzzles. That's not a lot to work with, but it's something. For example, here's a picture of Hillary and Bill in a Scrabble death match against the Bidens. Here's another of Hillary relaxing after a long day with the <em>New York Times</em> crossword puzzle. And here's one of her planting some new spring bulbs in her&mdash;</p> <p>Wait. What's that? You don't see any pictures? Sorry about that. I couldn't find any. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.</p> <p>Bottom line: Brooks has a point. It doesn't matter if you think it's fair or not. Modern presidents all know perfectly well that TV has brought the American public into their lives, and the public wants to know what they do for fun. They want to feel like their president is someone who relaxes at the end of the day and lets off a little steam. But Hillary Clinton won't let them see that.</p> <p>Sure, a lot of this is artifice. So what? It still matters.</p> <p><sup>1</sup>For all the good this did him. But at least he tried. Not for nothing did Nixon turn to media guru Roger Ailes for advice on how to appear less like the devious prick he was.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 23:20:48 +0000 Kevin Drum 304801 at Paging Joe Conason to the Assignment Desk <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>As we all know, Donald Trump recently suggested that Vince Foster's suicide was "fishy." He did this solely to get everyone talking about the old conspiracy theories that maybe Hillary had him murdered, and it worked. Everyone's talking about it. Sure, most of the talk is about how the conspiracy theories were thoroughly discredited years ago, <a href="" target="_blank">but as Digby says:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The problem is that nobody believes fact checks they don't already agree with. And from what I'm hearing from some of my readers, this is all news to them and they're ready to believe it. Clinton lies about everything so why not about murder?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah. If you're under 35, you probably barely heard about this in real time. It's all brand new, and if you're a Bernie supporter who loathes Hillary as part of the corrupt, warmonger, Wall-Street-loving establishment, you're primed to give it a listen.</p> <p>Needless to say, Trump is likely to repeat this about every one of the long string of pseudo-scandals that have been aimed at Hillary over the past 25 years. So here's what we need: a series of cheat sheets. One for Vince Foster, one for Whitewater, one for Travelgate, etc. Here's a proposed format:</p> <blockquote> <p>Description of alleged scandal (100 words max).</p> <p>Where it came from (150 words max)</p> <p>Actual truth of the matter (250 words max)</p> <p>Conspiracy theory talking points (1 million words max)</p> </blockquote> <p>Just kidding on that last one. Let's keep it to a few hundred words, OK? The idea here isn't to be exhaustive, it's to provide something that people might actually read. Something that allows folks who don't know about this stuff to get up to speed in a minute or two. I nominate Joe Conason for this task, but anybody else with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Arkansas Project and its bastard cousins is welcome to contribute instead. I hate to say it, but we're probably going to need this.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 22:11:21 +0000 Kevin Drum 304786 at Millennials Are the First Generation In Which Men Outnumber Women <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>This post was just completely wrong. Men generally outnumber women in every generation until mortality rates turn things around after middle age. I'm not really sure what I was thinking here.</p> <p>Anyway, I've deleted the whole thing. If you already read it, try to forget it.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 19:21:58 +0000 Kevin Drum 304766 at Republicans Really Do Have Themselves to Blame for Donald Trump <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Is the Republican Party/Movement Conservatism responsible for the rise of Donald Trump? <a href="" target="_blank">Megan McArdle rounds up five theories about how Republicans brought Trump on themselves</a> and concludes that they don't make sense. It turns out that four of her theories seem pretty marginal to me, so instead I'm going to offer three of my own. Here we go:</p> <p><strong>#1: Talk radio and Fox News made conservatives crazy.</strong> This is McArdle's Theory #1, and it's the only one on her list that I hear frequently&mdash;and agree with. But she doesn't: "Media follows its audience, rather than leading it. Opinion columnists <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_frankentrump.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">who spend any time at all interacting with their readers are well aware of how pitifully rarely we manage to change anyone&rsquo;s mind about anything."</p> <p>I feel her pain. But Rush Limbaugh is in a whole different universe from Megan McArdle and Kevin Drum. Obviously his popularity owes much to the fact that he channels his listeners' views, but he's also influenced them over the years. It was (and is) very much a vicious/virtuous circle: Limbaugh and his audience basically egg each other on. His influence on his listeners is why he was made an "honorary member" of the congressional class of 1994. I don't know what the official political science view is about this, but Republicans at the time sure thought that Limbaugh was instrumental in stoking the anger that led to the Gingrich revolution&mdash;and I agree with them.</p> <p>Beyond that, common sense suggests that the Rush/Fox/Drudge axis has had a big influence on the conservative movement. It's created a take-no-prisoners style of conservatism that disdains facts, encourages conspiracy theories, creates secret enemies around every corner, rails against compromise of any kind, and insists that conservatives could win if only their leaders were strong enough. This became fertile ground for someone like Donald Trump.</p> <p><strong>#2: Tolerance of racism.</strong> Are leading Republicans racist? How should I know? But honestly, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they've been plainly tolerant of racism and xenophobia in their ranks because it's politically convenient. Now along comes someone like Trump, who all but wears his racism on his sleeve, and they're shocked, shocked, that much of the Republican base is swooning over him. But what did they expect? We've been through years of attacks on "urban" welfare recipients. Years of opposition to affirmative action policies that affect only a tiny fraction of the population. Years of attacks on political correctness that are barely concealed gripes about not being able to tell off-color jokes anymore. <a href="" target="_blank">Years of race-baiting from Fox News.</a> Years of pandering to angry white males. Years of racially inflected attacks on Barack Obama.</p> <p>Is it merely an amazing coincidence that all this stuff and more is really principled conservatism that just happens to code as racist? Spare me. Republicans let this stuff fester because it helped them keep their base enraged, and now Donald Trump has reaped the benefits.</p> <p><strong>#3: The hack gap.</strong> I don't imagine I'll persuade McArdle of this, but conservatives really do have an intellectual superstructure that exists almost solely to provide backup for conservative beliefs. Obviously there are liberals who play this role too, but there are also plenty of mainstream lefties who routinely try to keep things real. Hell, we even have a name for them: "Even the New Republic" liberals. These are the folks that Bernie Sanders supporters deride as sellouts and shills, and there's really hardly anything comparable on the right anymore. You can find occasional pushback against conservative dogma from, say, libertarians, but they have little influence among mainstream conservatives. In the heart of the movement, it's a considerable surprise if you ever find a think tank or magazine article warning that facts on the ground don't really support some beloved tenet of conservatism. I believe that McArdle herself <a href="" target="_blank">has been a victim of this.</a></p> <p>This has created an electorate that doesn't really care about facts anymore&mdash;or, at least, is convinced that they aren't worth worrying about since the facts are so plainly on their side. So along comes Donald Trump, the ultimate fact-free salesman, and it should be no surprise that the Republican base is fine with this. They've been trained for decades not to be concerned about trivia like telling the truth. If Trump says it, they're willing to believe it. Why wouldn't they?</p> <p>So that's that. Republicans created a field that turned out to be fertile ground for someone like Donald Trump, and guess what? They got someone like Donald Trump. Now they're troubled because Trump has his own agenda&mdash;which, it turns out, the Republican base likes better than theirs&mdash;but it's too late. The only thing left to do at this point is to work for Trump's defeat and then spend some time rethinking their larger strategy. We'll see how that goes.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 18:07:55 +0000 Kevin Drum 304746 at White-Collar Coup in Brazil Becomes Ever More Coup-Like <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_romero_juca.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">I haven't had much to say about the recent impeachment of Brazilian president Dilma Roussef, but today comes evidence that certainly makes it look ever more like a white-collar coup designed to keep a whole lot of people out of jail. When Roussef was impeached, vice president Michel Temer took over, and now Temer's right-hand man&mdash;planning minister Romero Juca&mdash;has gotten the plotters in some very hot water. For reasons that are a little fuzzy, Sergio Machado, a former oil executive, recorded a conversation <a href="" target="_blank">he had in March with Juca:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The recordings were allegedly made secretly by Machado who, like Juca, is the target of an investigation into massive embezzlement centred on state oil company Petrobras.</p> <p>In the conversations, <strong>Juca is heard calling for a "national pact" that he appears to suggest would stop the investigation,</strong> known as Operation Car Wash, in which dozens of top-ranking politicians from a variety of parties, as well as business executives, have been charged or already convicted for involvement in the Petrobras scheme.</p> <p>In comments immediately taken up by Rousseff and her supporters as evidence for her claim that the impeachment process is a coup in disguise, Juca said: "We need to change the government to stop this bleeding."</p> <p><strong>"I am talking to the generals, the military commanders. They are fine with this, they said they will guarantee it,"</strong> he said. He also said that he has been clearing his plans with justices on the Supreme Court, which oversees impeachment proceedings.</p> </blockquote> <p>Juca says his comments are being taken out of context, which is what I'd probably say too if I were in his shoes. However, since the entire transcript of the conversation has been leaked to the newspaper <em>Folha de Sao Paulo</em>, that doesn't seem like a defense likely to hold water.</p> <p>So why did Machado record this conversation? He's the former head of Transpetro, Brazil's largest oil and gas transport company, and is under investigation over his alleged involvement in the Petrobras scandal. <a href="" target="_blank">From the BBC:</a> "The newspaper alleges he recorded the conversations with a view to negotiating a plea bargain, wanting to exchange information implicating other suspects for a lower sentence."</p> <p>No honor among thieves, I guess.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 15:30:46 +0000 Kevin Drum 304726 at Trumpapalooza for May 23, 2016 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>A while back I asked how to handle the fire hose of Donald Trump news, and one suggestion was to ignore it during the day and then put all of it into a single end-of-the-day roundup. I'm not sure this is a viable long-term solution, but let's give it a <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_trumpapalooza.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">try. Here's the Trumpapalooza for May 23, 2016:</p> <p><u><strong>Global Warming</strong></u></p> <p>Publicly, Trump has made it clear that he thinks global warming is a hoax. But when it comes to building a sea wall to protect one of his golf courses, <a href="" target="_blank">it turns out he's a true believer:</a> "If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct," his company says in a letter, "it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring....As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."</p> <p><u><strong>Wall Street</strong></u></p> <p>Trump apparently isn't quite as plugged into the world of the rich and powerful <a href=";_r=1" target="_blank">as he thinks:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>If there were any prevailing doubts of his stature on Wall Street, Mr. Trump said the chief executive at Deutsche Bank could easily allay it. &ldquo;Why don&rsquo;t you call the head of Deutsche Bank? Her name is Rosemary Vrablic,&rdquo; he said in the recent interview. &ldquo;She is the boss.&rdquo;</p> <p>Ms. Vrablic is a private wealth manager at Deutsche Bank in New York. <strong>She is not the company&rsquo;s chief executive;</strong> John Cryan holds that role. Both declined to comment on Mr. Trump.</p> </blockquote> <p><u><strong>Energy Policy</strong></u></p> <p>Trump recently met with Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, <a href="" target="_blank">and had a question for him:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>During the meeting, Murray said Trump had asked him about numerous facets of U.S. energy policy. At one point, Murray said he would suggest lifting obstacles to opening liquefied natural gas, or LNG, export facilities to reduce the supply glut of natural gas in the country.</p> <p>He said that Trump was agreeable with the idea, but then had a question. <strong>"What's LNG?"</strong> Murray said Trump asked.</p> </blockquote> <p><u><strong>Rape</strong></u></p> <p>Josh Marshall says that if Trump is going to dredge up groundless old rape accusations against Bill Clinton, it's time to ask him some questions about <a href="" target="_blank">his own past sexual conduct:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Trump's former wife Ivana said Trump raped her in a sworn deposition. Given how central a role rape accusations have played in Trump's campaign&nbsp;&mdash; against Mexicans, political opponents, etc. it is clearly a highly germane question, as frankly it would be for any presidential candidate.</p> <p>The details surrounding the alleged rape are bizarrely novelistic even by Trumpian standards. <strong>According to Ivana, Trump was driven to freakish rage by a failed anti-baldness surgery&nbsp;&mdash; a so-called 'scalp reduction'.</strong> But the actions are very clear cut. According to her deposition, Trump flew into a rage, attacked her, held her down and began pulling hair out of her head to mimic his pain and then forcibly penetrated her....This was a pretty concrete and specific [accusation]. And the author of the book that first surfaced the deposition said he'd found numerous friends of Ivana's who she had confided the incident to at the time.</p> </blockquote> <p><u><strong>Vince Foster</strong></u></p> <p>The right-wing fever swamp has long believed that Vince Foster, a deputy White House counsel in the Clinton administration, didn't commit suicide on July 20, 1993. Rather, Hillary Clinton had him murdered and then ordered his body dragged to Fort Marcy Park, where he was found the next day. Even by conservative standards this is both fantastical and repulsive (Foster was a good friend of Hillary's). Naturally, <a href="" target="_blank">that didn't stop Trump:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>When asked in an interview last week about the Foster case, Trump dealt with it as he has with many edgy topics &mdash; raising doubts about the official version of events even as he says he does not plan to talk about it on the campaign trail. <strong>He called theories of possible foul play &ldquo;very serious&rdquo; and the circumstances of Foster&rsquo;s death &ldquo;very fishy.&rdquo;</strong></p> <p>&ldquo;He had intimate knowledge of what was going on,&rdquo; Trump said, speaking of Foster&rsquo;s relationship with the Clintons at the time. &ldquo;He knew everything that was going on, and then all of a sudden he committed suicide.&rdquo; He added, &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t bring [Foster&rsquo;s death] up because I don&rsquo;t know enough to really discuss it. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don&rsquo;t do that because I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s fair.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>There was also some polling news, but who cares about polls in May?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 03:29:58 +0000 Kevin Drum 304711 at Conservatives Win Pyrrhic Victory in Facebook War <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Facebook has caved in to conservative demands that it revamp its Trending Topics feed. Brian Fung describes <a href="" target="_blank">how the algorithm works:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>To be considered for a place in the Trending Topics portion of the site, a topic must generally be mentioned 80 times per hour or more. Facebook takes steps to exclude repeated events that don&rsquo;t constitute news, such as the hashtag &ldquo;lunch,&rdquo; <strong>which usually produces more activity during lunchtime,</strong> the company said in its letter.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm glad to see that Facebook is on top of this. However, I suspect that conservatives are going to be disappointed in the results. Facebook has agreed to stop using external news sites to help it decide which topics are truly trending, and this is likely to have two effects: It will make the Trending Topics feed (a) stupider and (b) more liberal. After all, if you rely entirely on Facebook users, you're relying on an audience that skews young and college educated. How likely is it that this will favor stories about Agenda 21 and Benghazi?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 01:47:34 +0000 Kevin Drum 304706 at Bernie Sanders Kinda Sorta Officially* Admits He Lost <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Bernie Sanders <a href="" target="_blank">gets tossed a bone today:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Top Bernie Sanders supporters Dr. Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will be among those on the Democratic Party's important Platform Drafting Committee after the Vermont senator won a key concession as he looks to leave his mark on the party's platform. The roster of the drafting committee, released by the Democratic National Committee on Monday, <strong>reflects the party's agreement that Sanders would have five supporters on the committee, compared to six for Hillary Clinton.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>First off: If Bernie has officially agreed to accept five out of 11 members on the Platform Committee, isn't that a tacit admission that he's already lost the nomination?</p> <p>But also: Does anyone care about the platform? Seriously. I know it's a big fight every four years, but does either party platform ever have any effect at all on the election?</p> <p>And as long as we're talking about Bernie, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels write today that his supporters <a href=";_r=0" target="_blank">don't actually support his lefty politics:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders...were less likely than Mrs. Clinton's supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered...<strong>including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes.</strong></p> <p>&hellip;Mr. Sanders has drawn enthusiastic support from young people, a common pattern for outsider candidates. But here, too&hellip;the generational difference in ideology seems not to have translated into more liberal positions on concrete policy issues&mdash;even on the specific issues championed by Mr. Sanders. For example, <strong>young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services.</strong> Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's interesting, if not especially surprising. We're all basically tribalists at our cores. Except for you and me, of course.</p> <p>*Okay, okay, it's not official. It's&hellip;um, a semi-admission of reality? Or something. In any case, I've gotten a bunch of non-ranty emails about this, which is a welcome change. So I'm happy to clarify that I was sort of semi-joking. Or something.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 24 May 2016 00:03:32 +0000 Kevin Drum 304701 at Quote of the Day: The Conservative Fight to Become First Gnat <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><a href="" target="_blank">From conservative Jim Geraghty</a> on the ongoing spat between right-wingers about who's selling out to whom in the great Facebook War of 2016:</p> <blockquote> <p>I&rsquo;m pretty darn sure that throwing around accusations of gutlessness and useful idiocy are far more about deciding who should be deemed First Gnat than they are about actually changing behavior in Silicon Valley.</p> </blockquote> <p>The ostensible subject of this war is whether Facebook is deliberately suppressing conservative stories in its Trending Topics feed. A bunch of conservatives met with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about this, and when it was all over Glenn Beck praised Zuckerberg for listening while Tucker Carlson insisted that Beck was a Zuckerberg toady. It went downhill from there.</p> <p>But here's what gets me. Unless I've missed something, this entire squabble is based on the claims of one (1) anonymous former member of the team responsible for Trending Topics. That's it. Am I wrong about this? Has there been any other serious evidence one way or the other about Facebook's alleged bias? Are conservatives really rending their garments over something so thin?</p> <p>Of course, we liberals are going through the same thing on a larger scale in the current war between Hillarybots and Berniebros (or whatever we call them these days). But at least that's tediously normal, since it happens every time Democrats are competing for the White House. I recommend that conservatives go back to fighting over Donald Trump. At least that matters.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 23 May 2016 21:30:13 +0000 Kevin Drum 304691 at Universal Health Care Is Probably No More Popular Now Than It's Ever Been <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Harold Pollack says that Bernie Sanders has <a href="" target="_blank">started a political revolution:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Not enough of one to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but enough to put the dream of single-payer health care back on the national political agenda in a way few would have expected five years ago....Just this week, <a href=";g_medium=newsfeed&amp;g_campaign=tiles" target="_blank">Gallup released a poll</a> indicating that "58% of U.S. adults favor the idea of replacing [the Affordable Care Act] with a federally funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans." <em>Politico Magazine</em> reports that <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_sanders_medicare_for_all.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">Sanders&rsquo;s health plan "is the most popular of the three remaining candidates."</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd be thrilled about this if it were true, but I have my doubts. The problem is that Americans have a long history of supporting things in the abstract but not so much when they become concrete partisan proposals. Take Obamacare. In 2013, a <a href="" target="_blank">CNBC poll</a> showed 37 percent unfavorability toward the "Affordable Care Act," but 46 percent toward "Obamacare." In 2014, a <a href="" target="_blank">Morning Consult poll</a> showed 71 percent support for offering Medicaid to all adults under the poverty line, but only 62 percent support for expanding Medicaid "as encouraged under the Affordable Care Act." A <a href="" target="_blank">Marist poll</a> in Kentucky showed 57 percent disapproval of Obamacare but only 22 percent disapproval of kynect&mdash;Kentucky's version of Obamacare. And of course, we have <a href="" target="_blank">years of polling</a> showing that lots of people like nearly all the individual elements of Obamacare, but then turn around and insist that they hate Obamacare itself.</p> <p>As for universal health care, a <a href="" target="_blank">Harris poll</a> last September found 63 percent approval. A <a href="" target="_blank">Kaiser poll</a> in December found 58 percent support for Medicare-for-all. <a href="" target="_blank">Gallup polls</a> going back 15 years show higher support for government guarantees of health care during the Bush years than they do now.</p> <p>So color me skeptical that Bernie Sanders has really had much effect on the health care debate. Gallup's poll last week didn't so much as breathe the word "taxes," and if it did, support for the universal health care option would sink like a stone. Americans have long had mixed feeling about universal health care, and those feelings are deeply tied up in partisan attitudes and willingness to pay. Unfortunately, Sanders doesn't seem to have moved the needle on this at all.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 23 May 2016 19:08:22 +0000 Kevin Drum 304666 at Please. Enough With the Schmooziness Theory of Presidential Power. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I was pretty gobsmacked last night watching Norah O'Donnell's interview with Obama chum Valerie Jarrett. O'Donnell has been covering politics for a long time, but she nonetheless badgered Jarrett for <em>nine consecutive questions</em> about <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_jarrett_odonnell.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">whether Obama is a failure because he's not friendly enough with congressional Republicans. <a href="" target="_blank">Here's her side of the interview:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Norah O'Donnell: Valerie, this is probably one of the last big fights of the president's term in office. And he can't even get Senate Republicans to give him a hearing. Most Republicans won't even meet with Judge Garland. Does that say something about President Obama's inability to reach across the aisle? To have friends on the other side?</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: But in two terms, seven years, why hasn't the president been able to find a Republican that he can call up and say, "Help me out on this"? Does he have any Republican friends?</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: Isn't that part of the president's job? Is to convince people on the opposite side to do something like this? To get a judge up on the Supreme Court?</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: So since the president doesn't have a personal relationship with Republicans, instead you're gonna go to the American people and put political pressure on them? It's a campaign? It's a political campaign--</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: Isn't politics about schmoozing, though? And isn't politics about friendship?</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: Maybe they don't feel welcome here.</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: But Valerie, it's front page news when the Republicans come here to the White House. That shouldn't be front page news.</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: This has nothing to do with the president's style of leadership, or his ability to reach across the aisle?</p> <p>Norah O'Donnell: It's all the Republicans' fault?</p> </blockquote> <p>I'll give O'Donnell a break only this far: Valerie Jarrett is one of the toughest interviews in Washington. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone as relentlessly on message as Jarrett and as unwilling to provide any actual information. So maybe O'Donnell figured that repeated badgering was the only way to break her down.</p> <p>It didn't work, though, because she was asking about something so patently dumb. As Jarrett said repeatedly, what's going on with Merrick Garland has precisely nothing to do with Obama's schmoozing or lack thereof. Hell, Republicans themselves say the same thing. They have nothing against Garland and nothing new against Obama. They just don't want to allow another liberal onto the Supreme Court. End of story. They make no bones about it.</p> <p>More generally, the idea that Obama's problems with Congress have to do with schmooziness betrays a truly puerile view of politics. It's remarkable that there are reporters out there who are apparently still in thrall to this nonsense.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 23 May 2016 15:02:35 +0000 Kevin Drum 304616 at Sunday Goose Blogging - 22 May 2016 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>As promised, here's our local crop of Canada goose babies. First up, this is one of the goslings that we originally saw a few weeks ago. As you can see, he's going through those traumatic teenage weeks. But I'm sure he'll get over it and grow up to be a majestic, honking adult:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_geese_1.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 40px;"></p> <p>And here comes the brand new crop of babies:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_geese_2.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 40px;"></p> <p>Aren't they adorable? But I'll tell you something: I'll never complain about photographing the cats again. These little guys are <em>hard</em>. You can't get too close or else the mama geese get upset. So that means using the longest zoom setting on the camera. And these goslings zigzag along relentlessly. Keeping them in focus and in the middle of the viewfinder is tricky business. But I succeeded a few times:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_geese_3_0.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 40px;"></p> <p>Here's a couple of them taking a (very) short break from the grueling task of eating whatever it is they're eating.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_geese_4.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 40px;"></p> <p>Finally, breakfast is over and it's nap time under the watchful eye of mama.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_geese_5.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 40px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sun, 22 May 2016 17:39:44 +0000 Kevin Drum 304601 at Evil Dex For the Win! <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The Evil Dex is becoming eviller. Or perhaps more cunning. As you already know if you obsessively follow every word I write, my doctor recently switched me to a lower dose of dexamethasone. I now take only 12 mg once a week, so my sleeping should be less disrupted. Right?</p> <p>Well...not so much. The problem is that the effects of dex accumulate over time, so it becomes hard to predict exactly how it's going to work. In my case, it takes 4-5 hours to kick in and lasts for about 36 hours. But I'm taking a lower dose! So on Friday I decided to try taking it in the morning. On the bad side, that meant it would be at full strength by bedtime. On the good side, it would be worn off completely by Saturday night.</p> <p>So I took the dex in the morning and then took a double dose of sleep meds at bedtime. Remarkably, this had no effect. None. I was up all night and only barely a little drowsy. This accounts for the late night blogging (remember to subtract three hours when you look at the time stamps on my posts). The silver lining to this is that my experiment had extremely clear results, so next week I'll go back to taking the dex at night.</p> <p>So why the headline? You may recall that <a href="" target="_blank">a couple of weeks ago</a> I promised you pictures of our Canada goose babies. That turned out to be harder than I expected. I found them again once, but the pictures I took were pretty so-so. After that, they just weren't around. But yesterday, since I was up at 6 am anyway, I figured I'd go out and see if they were active in the morning. And they were! So later this morning I'll regale you with a photo album of adorable Canada goslings. Never say that this isn't a full-service blog.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sun, 22 May 2016 14:00:06 +0000 Kevin Drum 304596 at What's So Great About 401(k)s, Anyway? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>After I wrote my <a href="" target="_blank">Thursday post on 401(k) plans,</a> I got a fair amount of pushback. Essentially it boiled down to "What's so good about them compared to old-style pensions? Why not just get rid of them and expand Social Security instead?"</p> <p>The answer to the second question is simple: 401(k)s are meant as supplements to Social Security. If we want to expand Social Security, that's fine. But that's <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_401k_nestegg.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">no reason not have additional options to save privately for retirement.</p> <p>Fine. But why 401(k)s? What <em>is</em> so good about them? The basic answer, of course, is that they're set up to encourage monthly contributions in a hassle-free way and the money you contribute is tax-deferred. Beyond that, though, there are several advantages that a 401(k) plan has over a traditional pension. Here are five:</p> <ul><li>401(k) plans are portable. They begin accumulating immediately (or close to immediately) when you start a new job, and if you leave your job your 401(k) comes with you. This isn't true of old-style pensions.<br> &nbsp;</li> <li>If you want, you can withdraw your 401(k) as a lump sum when you retire. This can be handy if you want to use a portion of your retirement savings for a single large purchase, like a house or a motor home.<br> &nbsp;</li> <li>If you die early, your kids will inherit your 401(k). They won't get a dime from Social Security or an old-style pension. This may or may not be something you personally care about, but a lot of people do.<br> &nbsp;</li> <li>The main drawback of a 401(k) is that it's risky: since you don't know how long you'll live, you can never be sure how much you can safely withdraw each year. But in 2014 the Treasury issued <a href="" target="_blank">guidance</a> that made it easier for 401(k) owners to allocate all or part of their contributions into an annuity fund that pays out steadily upon retirement.<br> &nbsp;</li> <li>Annuities are getting better, but it's still true that you have to be pretty careful selecting one. Some are bad deals. But there's another way to effectively annuitize your 401(k) without paying a dime: delay your Social Security retirement age. Here's how it works.<br><br> More and more people are retiring at age 62, but this reduces your Social Security payment by about 20 percent compared to retiring at age 65. For example, a $2,000 monthly Social Security payment would be reduced to $1,600 if you retire at 62.<br><br> Instead, use your 401(k) to fund your retirement from 62 to 65. In this example, it would require a final 401(k) balance of about $72,000 or a little less. You'd draw out $2,000 per month and then, at age 65, switch over to your Social Security payout. You've basically guaranteed yourself a lifetime income of $24,000 per year instead of $19,200 without any worries about whether your 401(k) will last forever.</li> </ul><p>Nothing in life is perfect. There are also advantages to old-style defined-benefit pensions, as well as to a simple expansion of Social Security. And 401(k)s require workers to shoulder more responsibility for figuring out how to invest their savings. They also have to shoulder more of the risk of market downturns.</p> <p>Nonetheless, 401(k)s aren't bad. The 2006 Pension Protection Act improved them by allowing employers to sign up workers automatically (they can opt out if they want), and this has significantly increased the number of workers who participate. It's especially raised the number of low-income workers who participate. The PPA also allowed employers to automatically increase the contribution rate over time (again, workers can opt out), which promises to make 401(k)s more substantial retirement vehicles. It also encouraged the use of low-fee lifecycle funds that make riskier investments when you're young and slowly switch to safer investments as you get closer to retirement.</p> <p>All of these things have improved the 401(k) landscape. The economic recovery has too: a lot of the scare stories about 401(k) plans were based on using data through 2011 or 2012, which meant choosing an end date literally in the middle of the worst recession since World War II. That's cherry picking of the worst kind. 401(k) plans were bound to recover within a couple of years, and they did. If you look at data through 2014 or 2015, average 401(k) returns look pretty good. When it comes to retirement funds, you have to look at the long term, not just the best or worst years.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sun, 22 May 2016 04:42:00 +0000 Kevin Drum 304591 at How to Deal with Cretinous Twitter Mobs: A Bleg <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_twitter_mob.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">I'm going to venture into dangerous territory and just hope that everyone will give this a sympathetic reading. I'm not trying to shift blame or dismiss a real problem.</p> <p>The problem in question is the treatment of women by men on Twitter and other social platforms. In a word (or two), there's a subset of really loathsome assholes out there who harass women mercilessly: comments about looks, about rape, about death threats, etc. etc. The best solution, of course, is to get these men to knock it off, but there's no way that will happen quickly. At best, it will take many years to leach this kind of misogyny out of the internet.</p> <p>In the meantime, the problem is that this treatment causes women genuine pain and stress. I don't get anywhere near this kind of abuse, but I sometimes get a bit of it, and it's no fun. So I have at least a glimmer of what it's like.</p> <p>So here's my question: is there any kind of relatively simple therapy that can train people not to succumb to panic attacks over Twitter mobs attacking them? I'm not talking about ignoring genuine threats, like folks posting addresses and suggesting someone should be raped. Those should go straight to the police. It's all the rest that I'd like to learn to take in stride as nothing more than the meaningless ravings of cretinous sad sacks.</p> <p>So: Is there anything like this? Does anyone know a reliable method for building up a thicker skin? Sort of like the hypnosis of Peter Gibbons in <em>Office Space</em>, except something that actually works. I know we shouldn't have to, but sometimes it's worth it even if it's galling that we need to do it at all.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sat, 21 May 2016 13:08:54 +0000 Kevin Drum 304586 at How About a Constitutional Right to Vote? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I have a longstanding belief that a liberal democracy is basically in good shape if it guarantees three rights:</p> <ul><li>Freedom of speech/press.</li> <li>The right to a fair and speedy trial.</li> <li>The right to vote.</li> </ul><p>I don't mean to denigrate other important rights. Freedom of religion is important, but plenty of free countries operate just fine with state religions. Freedom of assembly can probably be mandated by law. Warrants for searches are necessary, but again, could probably be mandated by law. A ban on slavery is important, <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_vote_button.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">but we already have it, and it's not really a pressing issue in the 21st century anyway. And lots of democracies take wildly different views on the right to bear arms. The bottom line is that all these things <em>can</em> be in the Constitution, but if they're not they probably don't preclude a pretty free society.</p> <p>The first two rights on my list are already enshrined in the Constitution (speech and press freedom in the First Amendment; fair trials in the Fifth through Eighth Amendments). The third, for generally disgraceful reasons, isn't. But for some reason, among the dozens of pet amendments that various interest groups propose even though they're mostly pie in the sky, this one gets almost no attention. Why not?</p> <p>Don't worry too much about the precise wording of a voting rights amendment. <a href="" target="_blank">Here's a proposal from Reclaim Democracy! that originated with Jesse Jackson:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.</p> </blockquote> <p>Reps. Pocan and Ellison have recently proposed <a href="" target="_blank">a shorter version:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.</p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe you'd want to add some further protections: change voting day to voting week; mandate early voting; make changes to redistricting rules to better guarantee that all votes count equally. I'm agnostic about this.</p> <p>Needless to say, this would open a can of worms. Basically, anyone who shows up to vote is assumed to have the right to vote unless the government has actively put them on a list of non-voters. Possibly some kind of ID would be required: maybe a Social Security card or a national ID card. Perhaps everyone would be required to enroll for voting on their 18th birthday, and would be given a card that identifies them as a voter. They could do it at the same time they enroll with Selective Service (just as soon as women are added to Selective Service requirements).</p> <p>There would be exceptions. Can prisoners vote? The Supreme Court has already ruled that prisoners have limited access to free speech rights. They obviously have no right to freedom of assembly, and the right to bear arms has been curtailed with extreme prejudice. This would almost certainly be the case with voting rights as well, though it could easily be written into the text of an amendment if it was considered important enough to spell out specifically.</p> <p>So why not do it? It seems like a pretty populist idea for a Democratic presidential candidate. How about it, Hillary? She already supports automatic voter registration at age 18, and that's a short jump to a constitutional amendment.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sat, 21 May 2016 10:51:25 +0000 Kevin Drum 304581 at The Great Matt Bruenig-Neera Tanden Kerfuffle Sort of Explained <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I spent the afternoon catching up on the latest in the world of liberal scuffles. Here's the background: Lefty gadfly Matt Bruenig got into a Twitter fight with Joan Walsh yesterday morning over the topic of young people supporting Bernie Sanders. It culminated with this from Bruenig: "I have a daughter too. Your pathetic ageism against young people (remember taunting them as "barely shaven") is sickening to me." About then, CAP president Neera Tanden weighed in with <a href="" target="_blank">a light comment</a> defending Walsh, which prompted this follow-up from Bruenig:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">It's fun when the geriatrics who worked to starve my mother of cash assistance get going. <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Matt Bruenig (@MattBruenig) <a href="">May 19, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="">@neeratanden</a> <a href="">@joanwalsh</a> Scumbag Neera uses welfare when she needs it then takes away from others when they need it. Disgusting.</p> &mdash; Matt Bruenig (@MattBruenig) <a href="">May 19, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>Tanden is&mdash;and has been for a long time&mdash;a Hillary staffer and ally, so it's not unreasonable to suspect that she <em>might</em> have supported welfare reform in the 90s. But Tanden denies ever having supported it, which is believable on its face since (a) her family used welfare when she was growing up, and (b) she was in law school at the time welfare reform was being debated.<sup>1</sup></p> <p>In any case, Bruenig's tweets were nasty, apparently unfounded, and a bit two-faced (charging Walsh with "ageism" followed by insulting Tanden as "geriatric"). So what happened next? I'll get to that, but perhaps some of you don't know who Neera Tanden is. You should. To the best of my memory, I've never interacted with her and don't really know anything about her, but a bit of googling turned up this:</p> <ul><li>Her birthday is a deeply held secret. However, she was born in 1970 and says she's 45 now, so it must be sometime after May 19.</li> <li>Her brother attended USC and she attended UCLA. Woot! I approve already. We need less Ivy League and more West Coast in high places.</li> <li>She uses the word "actually" a <em>lot</em>. Maybe she picked this up at UCLA.</li> <li>She is the president of CAP, the Center for American Progress. CAP is a high-powered progressive think tank that most people think of as either a very influential mainstream liberal think tank or, if you want to be a little more insidery, as the Clinton family's personal think tank.<sup>2</sup> Being president of CAP is, as Joe Biden might say, a Big Effin <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_neera_tanden_cspan.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">Deal. Tanden is the kind of person who gets mentioned frequently as a possible chief-of-staff in a Hillary Clinton White House.</li> <li>Here's the <em>Washington Post</em> <a href="" target="_blank">shortly after she took over CAP:</a> "At 5 feet 2 inches tall, with an infectious laugh and impatience for ineptitude, Tanden brims with a moxie that can shift to sarcasm. Critics and allies alike describe her as an effective molder and messenger of intricate policy, as well as an expert practitioner of in-house politics. Friends say she is remarkably well-rounded: a model wife and mother, ideal company for a glass of wine, a perfect partner for spontaneous office dancing." Yikes!</li> </ul><p>OK, so what happened next? Bruenig works for Demos, a lefty think tank (yeah, they're everywhere), which got wind of his tweets and <a href="" target="_blank">immediately apologized:</a> "Sincerest apologies for @MattBruenig's judgment and demeanor. It's unacceptable and we're on it. While @MattBruenig blogs with Demos, we do not condone personal attacks. We are dealing with this internally. Thank you for understanding. We value the important work you've done and continue to do. @neeratanden @joanwalsh" <a href="" target="_blank">This afternoon Demos fired him:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Today, we are taking a harder look at how our staff, fellows and independent contractors engage on social media&mdash;and unfortunately, we are finding that we have not met our own standards of vigilance to ensure that nobody associated with Demos is crossing an important line. After our tweet apologizing for Matt&rsquo;s personal attacks including the term &ldquo;scumbag,&rdquo; <strong>we received emails from multiple individuals who made it clear that we were not aware of the extent to which Matt has been at the center of controversies surrounding online harassment of people with whom he disagrees.</strong></p> <p>It was evidence of a pattern of behavior that is far out of line with our code of conduct. <strong>After multiple conversations, Matt Bruenig and Demos have agreed to disagree on the value of the attack mode on Twitter.</strong> We part ways on the effectiveness of these kinds of personalized, online fights and so we are parting ways as colleagues today. And just as we did with Matt three years ago when he first joined our blog, Demos will continue to find and amplify the voices of lesser-known progressive policy commentators to make for a more inclusive public sphere.</p> </blockquote> <p>As their statement goes on to say, there's an overlay of Bernie vs. Hillary in all this, and this prompted a flurry of Twitter condemnations of Demos. Glenn Greenwald was fairly typical:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">He fought w/head of most powerful Dem think tank- likely to be Hillary's WH Chief of Staff- so <a href="">@Demos_Org</a> fired him <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) <a href="">May 20, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">It's about enforcing discipline under the guise of "civility": fired for fighting with a key Clinton ally &amp; aide <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) <a href="">May 20, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Here's the email we sent hrs ago to <a href="">@Demos_Org</a> they never answered: firing people to curry favor is time-consuming! <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) <a href="">May 20, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>So which was it? Was Bruenig fired for offending the great and good, or was he fired for being a jerk? It's hard to say, isn't it? Demos says it got a pile of emails that suggested a longtime pattern of "online harassment." But the rest of us haven't seen those emails, so who knows? They also say they had "multiple conversations" with Bruenig, and apparently he declined to just apologize and move on. It also sounds like he declined to rein in his behavior.</p> <p>If you assume that Demos is telling this straight, it's hard to see how they could hold onto him. This is the kind of thing that I'd normally call a non-firing offense, but only if the offender agrees there's a problem and promises to rein it in. The risk of having an employee like this go completely ballistic at some point and write something either libelous or just plain repellent<sup>3</sup> is too great. All of these tweets may have been on Bruenig's private account, but he's still very publicly associated with Demos&mdash;which is explicitly in the influence biz and has to be careful about making lots of random enemies just because one of its employees has a bit of a temper problem.</p> <p>The whole thing is a damn shame. I hope Bruenig lands on his feet somewhere, but I'll bet that any future employer will ask for pretty much the same promise about tone and harassment that Demos did. It's a little hard to imagine any outfit in the think tank trade not caring about this. In the end, I suspect Matt Yglesias has the final word:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">The only life advice that matters: never tweet.</p> &mdash; Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) <a href="">May 21, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p><sup>1</sup>It's times like this I wish I still had access to Nexis so I could check this out, but I don't.</p> <p class="loose"><strong>UPDATE:</strong> Nexis problem solved. I searched "Neera Tanden" for the entire decade of the 90s. The first hit is from 1992 in the <em>Los Angeles Times</em>: "<span class="SS_L3"><span class="verdana">UCLA student Ne<span class="hit">era</span><span class="hit"> Tanden</span> was awarded the first Sam Law Leadership Award by the Asian Pacific Alumni of UCLA at a Nov. 17 reception held at Royce Hall on the campus. Tanden, a senior planning to attend law school, was selected for her leadership experience, community and university service."</span></span></p> <p class="loose"><span class="SS_L3"><span class="verdana">The other 11 hits were all the same: she was listed as a contact in press releases for the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996. I did a more cursory search from 2000 through the present, and found mostly mentions of health care reform. The closest thing I could find about welfare was from a 2014 interview where Tanden criticized Republican budget cuts: "</span></span>Food stamps have been cut. Proposals to cut nutrition aid would drop children from school lunch programs. Section 8 housing and welfare aren't keeping up with the need. I'm concerned about how the attack on these programs is going to impact people in our country because I know that I wouldn't be here today if they hadn't been available to me."</p> <p class="loose">If Tanden ever so much as mentioned welfare reform, she sure didn't do it publicly.</p> <p><sup>2</sup>Dammit, is there a synonym for <em>think tank</em>?</p> <p><sup>3</sup>More repellent, anyway. You know what I mean.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sat, 21 May 2016 03:39:04 +0000 Kevin Drum 304576 at Donald Trump, Still a Skinflint? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>David&nbsp;Fahrenthold reports today that Donald Trump's $6 million fundraiser for veterans actually raised only $4.5 million. I don't have a big problem with that. Sometimes people make pledges and then back out of them. That's life in the fundraising biz, where a 75 percent fulfillment rate<iframe align="right" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="240" src=";end=24" style="margin: 25px 0px 15px 30px;" width="430"></iframe> probably isn't unheard of. But Fahrenthold managed to identify two of the donors who backed out. One was a shopping mall magnate. <a href="" target="_blank">The other was...</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The other donor had made a much bigger promise: Trump, with his vow to give $1 million. In the past few days, <em>The Post</em> has interviewed 22 veterans charities that received donations as a result of Trump&rsquo;s fundraiser. None of them have reported receiving personal donations from Trump.</p> <p>Did Trump make good on his promise to give from his personal funds? &ldquo;The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump&rsquo;s money is fully spent,&rdquo; Lewandowski said.</p> <p>Who did Trump give to, and in what amounts? &ldquo;He&rsquo;s not going to share that information,&rdquo; Lewandowski said.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is just weird. Is it really possible that Trump reneged on his promise to donate $1 million? That would be completely nuts. It would be like me promising to toss in twenty bucks for an office party gift and then backing out, even though I knew there was a good chance I'd be caught. What kind of pathological skinflint would do that?</p> <p>And yet, if he <em>has</em> donated $1 million, what possible reason is there for not telling us where it went? That's crazy too, since it inevitably leads to stories just like this one. Even Trump's most rabid fans would probably hold it against him if it turns out he lied about making a donation to veterans.</p> <p>Aside from everything else, Trump is one seriously weird dude.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 20 May 2016 20:48:25 +0000 Kevin Drum 304561 at