Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
March 16, 2017
Rachel Maddow refused to bow to Donald Trump’s baseless threats. After the Trump White House had threatened her, the MSNBC host reported on a leak of Trump’s 2005 tax return.
Video:
......
Maddow said, “The White House confirmed to us tonight that this return is real. They threatened us and said it is illegal for us to publish it. It is not illegal for us to publish it.”
It’s true that the unauthorized release of federal tax returns is a criminal offense, however Maddow argued on the air that releasing the tax returns was a matter of public interest, given that every single president has done so since Nixon except for this one, who just so happens to be under scrutiny for his foreign ties. Thus MSNBC was exercising its First Amendment right.
Trump promised to release his tax returns if elected, and then once elected had his surrogates announce that no one cared. Polls disagree with the Trump administration’s claims on the matter of his tax returns. Americans think they do matter and they want to see them.
(more)
Rachel Maddow Stands Tall And Refuses To Back Down When Threatened By Donald Trump
[FONT SIZE="3"]Rachel Maddow refused to bow to Donald Trump's baseless threats. After the Trump White House had threatened her, the MSNBC host reported on a leak of Trump's 2005 tax return. [/FONT]
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/03/14/trump-white-house-threatened-rachel-maddow.html
Rachel Maddow refused to bow to Donald Trump’s baseless threats. After the Trump White House had threatened her, the MSNBC host reported on a leak of Trump’s 2005 tax return.
Video:
......
Maddow said, “The White House confirmed to us tonight that this return is real. They threatened us and said it is illegal for us to publish it. It is not illegal for us to publish it.”
It’s true that the unauthorized release of federal tax returns is a criminal offense, however Maddow argued on the air that releasing the tax returns was a matter of public interest, given that every single president has done so since Nixon except for this one, who just so happens to be under scrutiny for his foreign ties. Thus MSNBC was exercising its First Amendment right.
Trump promised to release his tax returns if elected, and then once elected had his surrogates announce that no one cared. Polls disagree with the Trump administration’s claims on the matter of his tax returns. Americans think they do matter and they want to see them.
(more)
March 15, 2017
... they get!
https://www.facebook.com/100010902512781/videos/401746443532103/
here's a funny video. till you realize this is what the GOP does to "average" Americans every chance
... they get!
https://www.facebook.com/100010902512781/videos/401746443532103/
March 15, 2017
a couple figures the CBO scoring of TrumpCare bill left out..
We all know that the CBO scoring of the Trumpcare bill will result in 24 million people, who are now insured thanks to Obamacare to lose their health insurance coverage.
Trumpcare could cost 24 million people their insurance, government analysis finds
But what the CBO report in estimating costs and potential savings from that bill left out was:
1) The cost of providing care to those who lose their insurance
Medical care needs won't go away just because people have lost their health insurance - except for those who die of course (yeah, for those who would have lived under Obamacare, that will save money because the dead don't need healthcare. - Hoo-ray!... thank you GOP). For those who lose their insurance, they will return to emergency rooms for medical care. That is the most expensive way to provide healthcare. Also, without insurance they won't be seeing a doctor on a regular basis and almost all the serious health concerns won't be caught early on, when you can treat them more effectively (and more economically). Hospitals will see their costs of uncompensated care increase. Where will the money come from to reimburse hospitals? This is a cost the CBO didn't examine.
2) TrumpCare allows insurance companies to sell 'bare bones' plans, in other words: FAKE insurance.
That is, insurance that doesn't really provide complete or adequate coverage of all costs incurred when the policy holder needs medical care. This means again, increased costs that will fall to the hospitals to 'eat'. How much will the extra costs be which will NOT be covered by the 'bare' bones insurance (i.e. FAKE insurance)?
Any estimates of the costs / savings from passing the Trumpcare plan that does not consider these costs is not complete or realistic.
March 14, 2017
for backround, see: FLASHBACK: When Millions of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered a Media Shrug - Alternet
and: [link:THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS|THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS - Newsweek]
the Untold Story of the Bush WH emails - 22 million "lost" then "found"
CREW: BUSH WHITE HOUSE IGNORED WARNINGS ABOUT EMAIL - CREW
You Want a Real Email Scandal? Take a Look Back at the Bush-Cheney White House. - Mother Jones
Flashback: Rove Erases 22 Million White House Emails on Private Server at Height of U.S. Attorney Scandal – Media Yawns - Pensito Review
Cons insurgents rage 4 more HRC emails, while Bush admin "lost" millions of emails never supplied to
National Archives and Records Administration. While the Conservative insurgents of Judicial Watch are demanding further harassment of Hillary Clinton via emails, nobody seems to have any interest in millions (yes, I said "Millions"
of emails the Bush administration claimed were lost - later to be "found", when Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued the Executive Office of the Presidency to reveal them. While the Bush administration "found" some of these emails millions have still not been provided the National Archives and Records Administration.
In Bush administration there were a dozen or so, White House staff and advisors using an email account with a commercial emails service provider. Actually, the account owned by the Republican National Committee, and since it was an account with a commercial email service provider, these emails can be 'found' by that email service provider - even if the Bush administration "couldn''t find" them.
CREW LAWSUIT REVEALS 83% OF BUSH-ERA EMAILS WERE NEVER ARCHIVED
Washington, D.C. – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the National Security Archive (the Archive) asked U.S. Archivist David S. Ferriero to restore all of the millions of missing emails from the Bush White House based on newly-obtained evidence that 83% of emails from 21 days between September 2003 and August 2005 were never archived. Rather than restoring the missing emails, the Bush White House spent over $10 million trying to prove no emails were missing.
As part of a settlement of the lawsuits CREW and the Archive brought against the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) over the millions of Bush-era emails missing from White House servers, EOP agreed to conduct a comparison of archived email and email restored from backup tapes for 21 days previously identified as having a suspiciously low volume of email. The comparison revealed that 83% of emails found on the backup tapes was not part of the archived collection of Bush emails and would be lost if not for CREW’s and the Archive’s lawsuits. But, as CREW and the Archive explained in their letter to the archivist, because EOP used a patently flawed process to identify low volume days, a large volume of unrestored emails on backup tapes still remains missing. The archivist now has custody and control over all the backup tapes that would be used for further restoration.
CREW and the Archive also sent a second letter to White House Counsel Bob Bauer, Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra, and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Cass Sunstein, asking them to lead a broader effort to address the government-wide problem of managing and preserving emails. NARA recently released a report showing that 79% of federal agencies responding to a NARA survey may be improperly destroying records in violation of federal law. CREW and the Archive called on the White House to convene a high-level commission to develop a plan of action to respond to this systemic problem.
Anne Weismann, CREW’s chief counsel, said, “The Bush administration spent millions of dollars trying to prove there were no missing emails in the first place. Now we know the truth: emails did in fact vanish from White House servers. Unless the archivist takes further action, most of the emails lost from a 2 year period critical to our nation’s history will never be recovered.” Ms. Weismann continued, “As troubling as the missing Bush emails are, the Obama administration has a much bigger problem on its hands. With the majority of federal records at risk of destruction, the government simply cannot sit back and do nothing while valuable records are lost to history .”
As part of a settlement of the lawsuits CREW and the Archive brought against the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) over the millions of Bush-era emails missing from White House servers, EOP agreed to conduct a comparison of archived email and email restored from backup tapes for 21 days previously identified as having a suspiciously low volume of email. The comparison revealed that 83% of emails found on the backup tapes was not part of the archived collection of Bush emails and would be lost if not for CREW’s and the Archive’s lawsuits. But, as CREW and the Archive explained in their letter to the archivist, because EOP used a patently flawed process to identify low volume days, a large volume of unrestored emails on backup tapes still remains missing. The archivist now has custody and control over all the backup tapes that would be used for further restoration.
CREW and the Archive also sent a second letter to White House Counsel Bob Bauer, Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra, and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Cass Sunstein, asking them to lead a broader effort to address the government-wide problem of managing and preserving emails. NARA recently released a report showing that 79% of federal agencies responding to a NARA survey may be improperly destroying records in violation of federal law. CREW and the Archive called on the White House to convene a high-level commission to develop a plan of action to respond to this systemic problem.
Anne Weismann, CREW’s chief counsel, said, “The Bush administration spent millions of dollars trying to prove there were no missing emails in the first place. Now we know the truth: emails did in fact vanish from White House servers. Unless the archivist takes further action, most of the emails lost from a 2 year period critical to our nation’s history will never be recovered.” Ms. Weismann continued, “As troubling as the missing Bush emails are, the Obama administration has a much bigger problem on its hands. With the majority of federal records at risk of destruction, the government simply cannot sit back and do nothing while valuable records are lost to history .”
for backround, see: FLASHBACK: When Millions of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered a Media Shrug - Alternet
and: [link:THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS|THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS - Newsweek]
the Untold Story of the Bush WH emails - 22 million "lost" then "found"
CREW: BUSH WHITE HOUSE IGNORED WARNINGS ABOUT EMAIL - CREW
You Want a Real Email Scandal? Take a Look Back at the Bush-Cheney White House. - Mother Jones
Flashback: Rove Erases 22 Million White House Emails on Private Server at Height of U.S. Attorney Scandal – Media Yawns - Pensito Review
March 10, 2017
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — East Bay Congressman Rep. Eric Swalwell launched a new webpage Wednesday for the sole purpose of highlighting the ties between the Russian government and the Trump administration.
The new webpage, Protect Our Democracy, lays out what Rep. Swalwell (D-CA) says are the many ties between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
ALSO READ: George W. Bush: ‘We All Need Answers’ On Trump & Russia
In January, Swalwell a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act to set up an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.
“Our intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated these cyber attacks in order to influence the 2016 election to favor then-candidate Donald Trump,” Swalwell said.
(more)
from Protect our Democracy site:
Russia: Trump & His Team’s Ties
graphic:
Congressman Swalwell Launches Webpage Outlining Trumps Ties To Russia
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/08/congressman-swalwell-launches-webpage-outlining-trumps-ties-to-russia/SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — East Bay Congressman Rep. Eric Swalwell launched a new webpage Wednesday for the sole purpose of highlighting the ties between the Russian government and the Trump administration.
The new webpage, Protect Our Democracy, lays out what Rep. Swalwell (D-CA) says are the many ties between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
ALSO READ: George W. Bush: ‘We All Need Answers’ On Trump & Russia
In January, Swalwell a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act to set up an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.
“Our intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated these cyber attacks in order to influence the 2016 election to favor then-candidate Donald Trump,” Swalwell said.
(more)
from Protect our Democracy site:
Russia: Trump & His Team’s Ties
President Trump has also surrounded himself with people who do business with and are sympathetic to Russia. The New York Times reported that members of Trump’s 2016 campaign and other Trump associates had frequent contact with senior Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign. In addition to these questionable communications, here are a few other associates with ties to Moscow:
graphic:
March 8, 2017
Of course, the CBO has already stated that a repeal of Obamacare would result in 36 million more uninsured Americans by 2026, and Price’s response indicates not only a refusal to guarantee that will not happen, but that preventing such an outcome is not even a goal. According to Standard & Poors, the GOP plan could result in 10 million fewer insured.
As to the cost, the CBO has also previously stated that repeal would blow a hole in the deficit, and the Republican plan does not address that at all.
The Republican plan may indeed be much shorter than the Affordable Care Act in actual pages, but that means it is shorter on substance, as well. And as Price’s non-response makes clear, the GOP’s “plan” will likely lead to millions of Americans losing their affordable health insurance.
Watch Trumps Health Secretary dodge millions who will lose insurance under Trumpcare
[font size="3"]Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price was Sean Spicer's opening act at the first televised White House briefing in over a week, and he gave a stunning non-answer when asked if the Republicans' replacement plan would result in millions of people losing health insurance.[/font]
http://shareblue.com/watch-trumps-health-secretary-dodge-millions-who-will-lose-insurance-under-trumpcare/
REPORTER: Keeping in mind that the CBO score isn’t in yet, [font size="+1"]can you guarantee that this plan will not have a markedly negative impact on the deficit, or result in millions of Americans losing health insurance?[/font]
PRICE: [font size="+1"]What I can say is that the goal and the desire, I know, of the individuals on the Hill, is to make certain that this does not increase the cost to the federal government.[/font]
Of course, the CBO has already stated that a repeal of Obamacare would result in 36 million more uninsured Americans by 2026, and Price’s response indicates not only a refusal to guarantee that will not happen, but that preventing such an outcome is not even a goal. According to Standard & Poors, the GOP plan could result in 10 million fewer insured.
As to the cost, the CBO has also previously stated that repeal would blow a hole in the deficit, and the Republican plan does not address that at all.
The Republican plan may indeed be much shorter than the Affordable Care Act in actual pages, but that means it is shorter on substance, as well. And as Price’s non-response makes clear, the GOP’s “plan” will likely lead to millions of Americans losing their affordable health insurance.
March 7, 2017
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-ceos-20170307-story.html
Concealed within the 123 pages of legislative verbiage and dense boilerplate of the House Republican bill repealing the Affordable Care Act are not a few hard-to-find nuggets. Here’s one crying out for exposure: The bill encourages health insurance companies to pay their top executives more.
It does so by removing the ACA’s limit on corporate tax deductions for executive pay. The cost to the American taxpayer of eliminating this provision: well in excess of $70 million a year. In the reckoning of the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank that analyzed the limitation in 2014, that would have been enough that year to buy dental insurance under the ACA for 262,000 Americans, or pay the silver plan deductibles for 28,000.
As part of an effort to rein in soaring executive pay, the ACA decreed that health insurance companies could deduct from their taxes only $500,000 of the pay of each top executive. That’s a tighter restriction than the limit imposed on other corporations, which is $1 million per executive. The ACA closed a loophole for insurance companies enjoyed by other corporations, which could deduct the cost of stock options and other “performance-based” pay; for insurance companies, the deduction cap is $500,000 per executive, period.
The idea was to signal that the ACA, which cemented health insurance companies into the center of American healthcare, wasn’t a pure giveaway to the industry.
(more)
Here's the secret payoff to health insurance CEOs buried in the GOP Obamacare repeal bill
[font size="3"]“Consumers across America should know that when they pay their hard-earned dollars to cover the soaring cost of premiums, they are not just chipping in to pay for the CEOs’ next new yacht,” said then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).[/font]http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-ceos-20170307-story.html
Concealed within the 123 pages of legislative verbiage and dense boilerplate of the House Republican bill repealing the Affordable Care Act are not a few hard-to-find nuggets. Here’s one crying out for exposure: The bill encourages health insurance companies to pay their top executives more.
It does so by removing the ACA’s limit on corporate tax deductions for executive pay. The cost to the American taxpayer of eliminating this provision: well in excess of $70 million a year. In the reckoning of the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank that analyzed the limitation in 2014, that would have been enough that year to buy dental insurance under the ACA for 262,000 Americans, or pay the silver plan deductibles for 28,000.
As part of an effort to rein in soaring executive pay, the ACA decreed that health insurance companies could deduct from their taxes only $500,000 of the pay of each top executive. That’s a tighter restriction than the limit imposed on other corporations, which is $1 million per executive. The ACA closed a loophole for insurance companies enjoyed by other corporations, which could deduct the cost of stock options and other “performance-based” pay; for insurance companies, the deduction cap is $500,000 per executive, period.
The idea was to signal that the ACA, which cemented health insurance companies into the center of American healthcare, wasn’t a pure giveaway to the industry.
(more)
March 7, 2017
~~
[font size="3"] Little in politics shocks me. The process House Republicans want to use for their health care bill does. After literally years of complaining Obamacare was jammed down the American people’s throats with insufficient information or consideration, the GOP intends to hold committee votes on their bill [font color="red"]two days after releasing it, and without a Congressional Budget Office report estimating either coverage or fiscal effects[/font]. It’s breathtaking.
If Republicans believed the American people — or even their own legislators — would like the results of a thorough estimate of their proposal’s effects, they would have waited for one. We’ll get a CBO report anyway, of course. My guess is it will say this: The GOP plan will lead to significant declines in coverage (Loren Adler estimates an eye-popping 15 to 20 million people will lose insurance) as well as accelerating the exhaustion of the Medicare trust fund due to the tax cuts. After years of Republicans complaining that co-pays and deductibles were too high in Obamacare,[font color="red"] co-pays and deductibles will be significantly higher under their replacement. The plan will significantly reduce taxes on the rich[/font].
I honestly have no idea what it will do to the deficit — it’s hard to see any short-term reduction, and if there’s a long-term reduction, it will only be due to deep, deep Medicaid cuts, which will mean a correspondingly large increase in the uninsured. It’s worth noting that the GOP’s main idea for reducing health care costs — ending or capping the tax break for employer-provided insurance — has been left out of this legislation. There is simply no theory of cost control in this bill at all.
~~
~~
The plan is strikingly regressive compared to the Affordable Care Act. Cynthia Cox estimates that a 40-year-old making 160 percent of the poverty line would get $4,143 in subsidies under the ACA, but only $3,000 under the GOP plan. By contrast, a 40-year-old making $75,000 would get nothing under the ACA, but $3,000 under the GOP plan.
Hypocrisy is a minor sin in politics, but still, it is remarkable how much of it there is to be found in this legislation. A core Republican complaint when Obamacare was passed was that the law delayed many of its provisions in order to reduce public outcry and manipulate the CBO’s score. The GOP bill is similarly aggressive with such tricks, delaying changes to the Medicaid expansion until 2020 and pushing Obamacare’s tax on expensive insurance plans out until 2025.
(more)
The GOP health bill doesnt know what problem its trying to solve - Ezra Klein
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement~~
[font size="3"] Little in politics shocks me. The process House Republicans want to use for their health care bill does. After literally years of complaining Obamacare was jammed down the American people’s throats with insufficient information or consideration, the GOP intends to hold committee votes on their bill [font color="red"]two days after releasing it, and without a Congressional Budget Office report estimating either coverage or fiscal effects[/font]. It’s breathtaking.
If Republicans believed the American people — or even their own legislators — would like the results of a thorough estimate of their proposal’s effects, they would have waited for one. We’ll get a CBO report anyway, of course. My guess is it will say this: The GOP plan will lead to significant declines in coverage (Loren Adler estimates an eye-popping 15 to 20 million people will lose insurance) as well as accelerating the exhaustion of the Medicare trust fund due to the tax cuts. After years of Republicans complaining that co-pays and deductibles were too high in Obamacare,[font color="red"] co-pays and deductibles will be significantly higher under their replacement. The plan will significantly reduce taxes on the rich[/font].
I honestly have no idea what it will do to the deficit — it’s hard to see any short-term reduction, and if there’s a long-term reduction, it will only be due to deep, deep Medicaid cuts, which will mean a correspondingly large increase in the uninsured. It’s worth noting that the GOP’s main idea for reducing health care costs — ending or capping the tax break for employer-provided insurance — has been left out of this legislation. There is simply no theory of cost control in this bill at all.
~~
~~
The plan is strikingly regressive compared to the Affordable Care Act. Cynthia Cox estimates that a 40-year-old making 160 percent of the poverty line would get $4,143 in subsidies under the ACA, but only $3,000 under the GOP plan. By contrast, a 40-year-old making $75,000 would get nothing under the ACA, but $3,000 under the GOP plan.
Hypocrisy is a minor sin in politics, but still, it is remarkable how much of it there is to be found in this legislation. A core Republican complaint when Obamacare was passed was that the law delayed many of its provisions in order to reduce public outcry and manipulate the CBO’s score. The GOP bill is similarly aggressive with such tricks, delaying changes to the Medicaid expansion until 2020 and pushing Obamacare’s tax on expensive insurance plans out until 2025.
(more)
March 7, 2017
... You might want to take notes. Olbermann covers the Trump - Russian connections better than anybody I've heard (hell, on M$M they aren't even trying to)
https://thescene.com/watch/gq/the-closer-with-keith-olbermann-the-russian-developments-that-matter-most
The Russian Developments that Matter Most --- Keith Olbermann - This is GREAT!
... You might want to take notes. Olbermann covers the Trump - Russian connections better than anybody I've heard (hell, on M$M they aren't even trying to)
https://thescene.com/watch/gq/the-closer-with-keith-olbermann-the-russian-developments-that-matter-most
March 7, 2017
~~
The basic premise of the First Amendment is that truth should defeat her opposite number. "Let her and Falsehood grapple," wrote the poet and politician John Milton, "who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"
But this rather optimistic adage accounts only for speech and debate between citizens. It doesn't apply to accusations made by the government. Those are something altogether different.
In a rule-of-law society, government allegations of criminal activity must be followed by proof and prosecution. If not, the government is ruling by innuendo.
Shadowy dictatorships can do that because there is no need for proof. Democracies can't.
Thus, an accusation by a president isn't like an accusation leveled by one private citizen against another. It's about more than factual truth or carelessness.
(more)
Commentary: Donald Trump's wiretap tweets raise his risk of impeachment - Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-impeachment-wiretapping-20170306-story.html~~
The basic premise of the First Amendment is that truth should defeat her opposite number. "Let her and Falsehood grapple," wrote the poet and politician John Milton, "who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"
But this rather optimistic adage accounts only for speech and debate between citizens. It doesn't apply to accusations made by the government. Those are something altogether different.
In a rule-of-law society, government allegations of criminal activity must be followed by proof and prosecution. If not, the government is ruling by innuendo.
Shadowy dictatorships can do that because there is no need for proof. Democracies can't.
Thus, an accusation by a president isn't like an accusation leveled by one private citizen against another. It's about more than factual truth or carelessness.
(more)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
