What Will Make People Decide Who To Vote For In November?

There are a bunch of run-of the-mill Democrats and semi-Democrats running in Michigan this year, including for the district in the southwest corner of the state (MI-06) held by Fred Upton. One-- sleazy lobbyist George Franklin-- is especially bad. He's been helping finance Upton against Democrats for years. And now he wants to run against him. What a joke! I can see the GOP ads now: "I was for him before I was against him." And he was. Why? What changed, Georgie?

Upton is real bad but but Franklin is-- at best-- the lesser of two evils. The best Democrat in the race is Paul Clements. This week he told his supporters that "despite hearing that we're in a prolonged economic recovery, over half of all Americans are economically insecure-- unable to maintain long-term savings, fearful of emergencies they can't afford, unable to relax even a little. Whether you're below or above the poverty line, economic insecurity is unhealthy, exhausting, and bad for our democracy. You can read my entire economic agenda here, but I want to focus on three things I will do in Congress to reduce economic insecurity in America.

1. Medicare for All

Canada's health care system has not only produced longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the United States; Canadians also know they won't go broke if they get sick. In Congress, I will push for, support, and vote for Medicare for all.

2. Increased Wages

Americans should be able to support their families by working one job. I will work to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour or, for now, half the regional median ($12 an hour in Michigan).

3. Postal Banking

Millions of Americans lack access to affordable banking and financial services, and that means it costs more money to be poor. In Congress I will support the revival of United States Post Office banking, facilitating basic banking services and low-interest loans that can help working class Americans.

There are 6 counties in MI-06. Obama won all 6 both times he ran. Then in 2016 Bernie beat Hillary in 5 counties. And then along comes Trumpanzee-- he won all the counties but one in the district too and beat Hillary district-wide 51.3% to 42.9%, a district Bernie won in the primaries and Obama won against McCain. Here was primary day, 2016

• Allegan County:

• Bernie- 5,545
• Hillary- 3,489
• Trump- 5,327

• Berrien County:

• Bernie- 5,942
• Hillary- 6,546
• Trump- 7,817

• Cass County:

• Bernie- 1,683
• Hillary- 1,657
• Trump- 2,859

• Kalamazoo County:

• Bernie- 20,146
• Hillary- 12,593
• Trump- 8,655

• St. Joseph County:

• Bernie- 2,219
• Hillary- 1,382
• Trump- 2,655

• Van Buren County:

• Bernie- 3,656
• Hillary- 2,484
• Trump- 3,287

Clements is the candidate running on a Bernie-like platform, but the Democratic Party establishment, of course, prefers the lobbyist, Franklin. As of March 31, Franklin had raised $534,743 (the source of $100,000 of it unaccounted for) while Clements had raised $257,757.

Meanwhile, as Clements pushes a cutting edge progressive economic message for working families, Trump and Ryan-- with Upton firmly in tow-- are still trying to chip away at the social safety net-- including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Remember the tax scam that lined the pockets of multimillionaires and billionaires, while doing nothing for the rest of us? They always had the idea of making the rest if us pay for it. Yesterday, the New York Times asserted that "Trump, spurred on by conservatives who want him to slash safety net programs, unveiled on Thursday a plan to overhaul the federal government that could have a profound effect on millions of poor and working-class Americans. Produced over the last year by Mr. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, it would reshuffle social welfare programs in a way that would make them easier to cut, scale back or restructure. Among the most consequential ideas is a proposal to shift the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a subsistence benefit that provides aid to 42 million poor and working Americans, from the Agriculture Department to a new mega-agency that would have 'welfare' in its title-- a term Mr. Trump uses as a pejorative catchall for most government benefit programs." A couple of days ago, writing for the Washington Post, Erica Werner warned that the budget Trump and Ryan (and Upton) purposely exploded will be balanced on the backs on cuts to Medicare and other programs Trump vowed over and over to not touch while he was campaigning.

[T]he budget serves as an expression of Republicans’ priorities at a time of rapidly rising deficits and debt. Although the nation’s growing indebtedness has been exacerbated by the GOP’s own policy decisions-- including the new tax law, which most analyses say will add at least $1 trillion to the debt-- Republicans on the Budget Committee said they felt a responsibility to put the nation on a sounder fiscal trajectory.

“The time is now for our Congress to step up and confront the biggest challenge to our society,” said House Budget Chairman Steve Womack (R-AR). “There is not a bigger enemy on the domestic side than the debt and deficits.”

The Republican budget confronts this enemy by taking a whack at entitlement spending. Lawmakers of both parties agree that spending that is not subject to Congress’s annual appropriations process is becoming unsustainable. But Trump has largely taken it off the table by refusing to touch Medicare or Social Security, and Democrats have little interest in addressing it except as part of a larger deal including tax increases-- the sort of “Grand Bargain” that eluded President Barack Obama.

The House Republican budget, titled “A Brighter American Future,” would remake Medicare by giving seniors the option of enrolling in private plans that compete with traditional Medicare, a system of competition designed to keep costs down but dismissed by critics as an effort to privatize the program. Along with other changes, the budget proposes to squeeze $537 billion out of Medicare over the next decade.

The budget would transform Medicaid, the federal-state health-care program for the poor, by limiting per capita payments or allowing states to turn it into a block-grant program-- the same approach House Republicans took in their legislation that passed last year to repeal the Affordable Care Act (the repeal effort died in the Senate, but the GOP budget assumes that the repeal takes place).  It also proposes adding work requirements for certain adults enrolled in Medicaid. Changes to Medicaid and other health programs would account for $1.5 trillion in savings.

Social Security comes in for more modest cuts of $4 billion over the decade, which the budget projects could be reached by eliminating concurrent receipt of unemployment benefits and Social Security disability insurance.

The budget also proposes a number of other cost-saving measures, some of which could prove unpopular if implemented, such as adding more work requirements for food-stamp and welfare recipients and requiring federal employees-- including members of Congress-- to contribute more to their retirement plans. It assumes repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act that regulated banks after the financial crisis 10 years ago, something Congress recently rejected in passing a banking bill into law that softened some of the key provisions of Dodd-Frank but left its overall structures intact. And the budget proposes $230 billion in cuts from education and training programs, including consolidating student loan programs and reducing Pell Grant awards.

The budget also relies on rosy economic-growth projections and proposes using a budgetary mechanism to require other congressional committees to come up with a combined $302 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Overall, the partisan proposal is reminiscent of the budget released in 2011 by now-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who was then the Budget Committee chairman and advanced a bold proposal attacking entitlements, slashing spending-- and creating lines of attack for Democrats once Ryan became Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate on the GOP ticket the following year.

How is this going to go over with voters? Latest Monmouth poll shows the tax scam is losing more and more support: "34% of the public approve of the tax reform plan passed by Congress last December and 41% disapprove. Another 24% are not sure how they feel.  These results have shifted in the past six weeks. Approval is down 6 points from 40% in late April and disapproval is down 3 points from 44%. The number who give no opinion on the plan has risen 8 points from 16%.  Polls earlier this year had shown a more evenly divided public-- 41% approve to 42% disapprove in March and 44% approve to 44% disapprove in January-- with a smaller percentage of undecided opinion. Public opinion on the Republican lawmakers’ signature accomplishment has never been positive, but potentially growing uncertainty about how American taxpayers will be affected does not seem to be helping the GOP’s prospects for November,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute."

The chair of the House Budget Committee is Steve Womack (R-A). He's in a safe Republican seat that Trump won with 62%. The PVI is R+19, the worst and most backward district in Arkansas, so he doesn't care... but his local paper, the Arkansas Times castigated him for the betrayal. Commenting on his dishonest press conference touting the bonus "A Brighter Future," they reported that "He didn't mention that rising deficits were made worse by the tax cut for the rich he supported. Nor did he mention the pain his budget will cause millions of Americans.

With the nation's attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump's horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.

"It's morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American," the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP's budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic programs.

Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), argued in a statement that the Republican proposal demonstrates clearly shows the "House majority's fiscal priorities haven't changed.

"It’s easy to become numb to the harshness of these budgets and to brush aside their policy implications based on the assumption (likely correct) that few, if any, of these policies will be enacted this year," Greenstein said. "But this budget reflects where many congressional leaders—and the president—would like to take the country if they get the opportunity to enact these measures in the years ahead. Rather than help more families have a shot at the American dream, it asks the most from those who have the least, and it would leave our nation less prepared for the economic and other challenges that lie ahead."

Progressives have been warning for months about the GOP's plan to axe crucial safety net programs following the passage of its deeply unpopular $1.5 trillion tax bill, which has sparked a boom of corporate stock buybacks while doing little to nothing for most American workers.

"Each GOP budget is more fraudulent than the last," Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote on Tuesday. "We know what they stand for: tax cuts paid for with healthcare cuts."

In addition to proposing devastating safety net cuts, the House GOP budget also calls for partial privatization of Medicare and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a move that would throw tens of millions off their health insurance.

Josh Mahony is the Democrat running against Womack this cycle. He noted that "Womack has forgotten the very people he represents. Cuts to these programs will seriously affect Arkansas families. With cuts to education, healthcare, and Social Security, this bill shows the true priorities of Republicans and it’s not to hard-working Arkansans."

My guess if that the good folks in Arkadelphia, Hope and Texarkana noticed that the person Trump was shooting on 5th Avenue was their kid, they'd vote for him anyway. (Yes indeed; these are the ones.) And they're the ones who were probably offended and totally pissed off yesterday when Ted Lieu played this on the floor of the House of Representatives:

It Could Change With Time, But Trump's Worst Appointment So Far Is Scott Pruitt

A lot of Republicans, when they work up the nerve to criticize Señor Trumpanzee, try to couch the criticism in a paean to the greatness of his judiciary and cabinet picks. First of all, he doesn't care how criticism is couched; he'll be looking for an opportunity at revenge sooner or later-- and it won't be pretty-- and, second, his personnel selections are among his worst and most existentially risky decisions, not his saving grace. Remember this? It's clear to anyone who isn't a deranged Republican that Trump can always be counted on to hire the worst people, as we saw last week when we looked at his horrendous appellate court selections. But, as horrible as Betsy DeVos has been and as putrid as John Kelly has turned out to be, I'm still convinced that Trump's very worst appointment was Scott Pruitt, the EPA Administrator. In fact, Pruitt-- who just hired more bodyguards so that his goon squad is now 30-- may well be the worst presidential appointment in contemporary history... but just for the country.

Yesterday, the NY Times editors, who have bashed Pruitt mercilessly, ran a column of letters by readers under the title The E.P.A. vs the Environment... just to allow some other voices on the matter. Leila Hadj-Chikh of Baltimore wrote that "History may be written by the victors, but thankfully science is not so subjective. However hard Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, tries to censor his own scientists, he cannot alter the laws of physics. Nor can he magic away climate change by removing it from his agency’s website. Nevertheless, it’s clear we can no longer expect the E.P.A. to provide rational answers to our climate problem. The task now falls to Congress, and the logical solution is to ensure that fossil fuel prices accurately reflect their cost to society. By placing a fee on carbon pollution and returning the revenue to households, we can recoup the economic damages of climate change while weaning ourselves off the fossil fuels that drive it. In passing such legislation, Congress would be on the right side of history, as well as science." Barry Lurie from Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, is no fan of Pruitt either. "With all of the turmoil in the Trump administration," he wrote, "it is easy to overlook how efficient and effective Scott Pruitt has been at dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency. Industry insiders are shaping policy. Coal is back as a primary energy source. The proposed budget for the E.P.A. would mark a 40-year low, adjusted for inflation. The objective seems to be returning to the environment of my youth. Polluted streams and rivers where nothing could live, lakes so polluted that they caught fire, air thick with smog, acid rain, toxic waste dumps and carcinogenic building materials. If you think Mr. Pruitt is on the right track, please write and tell him so. However, if you have a different vision of the world for your children and grandchildren, please at least tell your members of Congress. And don’t wait too long."

Back in April, Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin, writing for the Washington Post, reported that Trump's EPA was moving to dismantle programs that protect kids from lead paint. Pruitt-- and Trump and the GOP-- immediately looked to roll back 2 programs aimed at reducing lead risks by cutting $16.61 million and more than 70 employees. "Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and particularly harmful to children and the elderly. Its dangers in gasoline, paint and drinking water have been scientifically documented over many decades, which has led to stronger regulatory protections. In a 2014 report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 243,000 children had blood lead levels above the danger threshold-- and that permanent neurological damage and behavior disorders had been associated at even lower levels of lead exposure."

And a few months later it was Lisa Friedman and Brad Plummer at the Times writing about Pruitt's-- and presumably Trump's-- decision to repeal Obama’s signature policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Describing the Obama-era regulation as the “so-called Clean Power Plan,” the E.P.A. statement said that repealing the measure “will also facilitate the development of U.S. energy resources and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with the development of those resources.”

The repeal proposal, which will be filed in the Federal Register on Tuesday, fulfills a promise President Trump made to eradicate his predecessor’s environmental legacy. Eliminating the Clean Power Plan makes it less likely that the United States can fulfill its promise as part of the Paris climate agreement to ratchet down emissions that are warming the planet and contributing to heat waves and sea-level rise. Mr. Trump has vowed to abandon that international accord.

It also is a personal triumph for Mr. Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general helped lead more than two dozen states in challenging the rule in the courts. In announcing the repeal, Mr. Pruitt made many of the same arguments that he had made for years to Congress and in lawsuits: that the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. (Last year, the Supreme Court blocked the rule from taking effect while courts assessed those lawsuits.) A leaked draft of the repeal proposal asserts that the country would save $33 billion by not complying with the regulation and rejects the health benefits the Obama administration had calculated from the original rule.

Coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants are responsible for about one-third of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. When the Clean Power Plan was unveiled in 2015, it was expected to cut power sector emissions 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005. While many states are already shifting away from coal power for economic reasons, experts say scrapping the rule could slow that transition.

Environmental groups and several states plan to challenge the repeal proposal in federal courts, arguing against Mr. Pruitt’s move on both scientific and economic grounds.

Yesterday, Newsweek's Joseph Frankel reported on why Pruitt and the EPA have been accused of scientific censorship. He wrote that "the LinkedIn profile of Scott Pruitt, the current director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), continues to describe him as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda." Pruitt's latest shenanigan was to bare 3 EPA scientists from speaking at a conference on climate change at the Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island.

The Narragansett Bay is the biggest estuary in New England. It is also the site of a three-year environmental research program, the results of which are being presented at this conference.

...The program has received grant funding from the EPA, and EPA scientists-- including ecologist Autumn Oczkowski, the originally intended keynote speaker-- participated in that program’s research.

“Narragansett Bay is one of Rhode Island’s most important economic assets, and the EPA won’t let its scientists talk with local leaders to plan for its future. Whatever you think about climate change, this kind of collaboration should be a no-brainer,” the Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told the Washington Post.

“It’s definitely a blatant example of the scientific censorship we all suspected was going to start being enforced at EPA,” John King, an oceanographer who works on the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, told New York Magazine. “They don’t believe in climate change, so I think what they’re trying to do is stifle discussions of the impacts of climate change.”

Derrick Crowe is running for the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat occupied with the Climate Change denying chair of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith. Earlier this morning, Derrick told us that "Smith's total silence over Scott Pruitt's appointment and behavior shows his blatant hypocrisy. Smith has harangued the EPA under Obama for supposed secrecy when crafting regulations and undertaking science, but has said not a thing as Pruitt wastes taxpayer dollars literally installing soundproof rooms to work in as he dismantles environmental protections. Pruitt is a dangerous authoritarian crank propped up by other dangerous authoritarian cranks."

Paul Clements is running for Congress in southwest Michigan, in a district where Fred Upton,widely considered the more dangerous enemy of the planet earth, has his lair. Paul told us that "Pruitt is Trump’s worst appointment because he is doing the most harm. It challenges the imagination-- as we move from 1 degree of warming today to 2 degrees around mid-century, and the devastation of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and forest fires in northern California becomes routine-- as we move from 60 million refugees and internally displaced people to maybe 200 million-- as fish stocks plummet coral reefs die from ocean acidification-- the human consequences are hard to fathom. But Pruitt blocking EPA leadership in the fight against climate change, weakening the institution, supporting and encouraging carbon polluters: the effect is more carbon in the atmosphere probably for a thousand years. Well, before there was Pruitt (in the federal government) there was Upton. In 2010 when Upton became chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee he morphed into a climate science denier and became the most powerful opponent to President Obama’s climate action programs in the House. The LA Times called Upton Congress’ #1 enemy of planet earth, and indeed, if he had used his authority to work with the President and combat global warming, today America could have much more sustainable energy and the world could be way ahead of the Paris agreement. I have been a climate change activist and scholar for decades, and it was Upton’s climate science denial that sparked my interest in running against him in 2012. Clean energy and climate leadership were important planks for my campaigns in 2014 and 2016, as they are in my current race, and I have remained a leader in local climate activism. One of my classes wrote the Kalamazoo Climate Action Plan with our Kalamazoo city planner. Since Pruitt, Trump and Upton have set us back so far, Congress more than ever needs the kind of leadership I can bring."