No money for health care, endless money for unpopular war

Charlie Warzel of The Atlantic discussed Poolgate, the mess in the Reflecting Pool at the National Mall. Warzel says the mess is an example of the nasty guy’s debacles, which tend to unfold in 13 steps. I won’t mention all 13, partly because some of them repeat. Devise unnecessary spectacle, such as improving a landmark. All the better if he can claim he’ll do it faster, cheaper, and better than Obama. Disregard expertise. Bypass normal procedures because it has to be done right away. Declare victory too early. Spend way more than estimated. Realize it’s not going well. Bypass procedures to fix the problem. Allege conspiracy and sabotage, blame other people. Lose interest. Pretend it never happened and move on to the next thing. Emily Singer of Daily Kos said the nasty guy has asked Congress for $87.6 billion cover costs of the war with Iran, to bail out farmers hurt by his tariffs, and to fund his vanity construction projects around DC. He’s asking for that much even though the war is widely unpopular and many voters think it was a waste. As for his vanity construction projects he appears to be turning his eye towards the WWII Memorial and its fountain (having learned nothing from Poolgate).

If Republicans vote to give Trump more money for the conflict and bail out farmers but not help average Americans afford their skyrocketing cost of living, Democrats will almost certainly use that in attack ads this year. “President Trump launched a reckless and costly war with Iran—without authorization from Congress or the support of the American people—that he should never have started, and now, instead of doing anything to help families get by, he is asking taxpayers to pick up the tab and give him billions more to wage wars overseas,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement. Murray added, “This president is telling the American people there’s no money for health care, housing, or child care—but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support.”

I heard a bit about this in the morning news and I’m glad I found links to the whole story. That story is told by Pete Buttigieg on his Substack about what his family just went through. An anonymous person called Child Protective Services saying that a woman claimed that several years ago Buttigieg told her he had committed violent crimes against his twin children, now age 4. The caller thought those children were still at risk. I’ll pause the story to note that if Buttigieg said that “several years ago” the children would have been infants or it happened before they were born. Did CPS spend any time investigating the veracity of the claim before traumatizing the family? Buttigieg doesn’t say. He eventually told them he had never been to the place where the woman said it had happened. Because of the allegation he had to stay away from the children for 24 hours. They stayed with grandparents. The next day each child was interviewed with no family member present. Only after that would the case workers interview him, then explain what was going on. They ended by saying there was nothing to substantiate the allegation. That was traumatic for the kids. After being warned against talking to strangers each child had to spend an hour with only strangers. The night before they couldn’t have Papa read their bedtime stories and couldn’t understand why. That was also traumatic for Buttigieg. He’s endured all kinds of hate and cruelty from opponents and is able to take it in stride. But this cruelty involved his kids. And it appears to be politically motivated. Buttigieg noted that the target of this cruelty was a family led by gay dads and done during Pride month.

Now our family is left to deal with the aftermath. I worry about any unseen effects this had on our kids, on Chasten and me, and on the rest of our family. Even though the accusation was absurdly and obviously false, and was promptly rejected by law enforcement, I still worry about the harm it has done. Chasten and I worry about who else might try to do this kind of thing, to us or to others. And at the most basic level, I worry about how anyone, even in today’s world, could fail to respect the absolutely fundamental principle that whatever you think about someone in politics, you leave people’s kids out of it.

Jon Paul Sydnor of the Kos community and its Street Prophets group discussed a progressive Christian political vision. Towards that he discussed authenticity. To be in a relationship with God we must be honest and authentic.

If a church demands that we hide our self to be accepted, if a church creates an artificial standard and demands that we conform to it, then that church has stifled the image of God within us.

Sydnor divides churches into low social control and high social control.

A low social control church respects members’ uniqueness, trusting that cohesion will emerge from diversity, as it does within God. Some churches deny the possibility of unity-in-diversity and become high social control groups, subjecting members to shame, shunning, denial of sacraments, and threats of damnation if they fail to be who the church wants them to be. These churches demand that members subordinate their God-given uniqueness to a church-generated stereotype, hiding their authentic self within a conformist shell.

Where there is hiding, there are secrets, and there is shame. A low social control church, an authentic church, celebrates their LGBTQ members. A high social control church does not, instead it denies what LGBTQ people know about themselves. And that causes horrific harm. When transgenders transition they frequently change their name. The Bible has stories of people who undergo a profound change and change their name.

Abram became Abraham, Sarai became Sarah (Genesis 17), Jacob becomes Israel (Genesis 32), Simon becomes Peter (Matthew 16), and Saul becomes Paul (Acts 13).

A church that is a true reflection of God is one that celebrates the authenticity of its LGBTQ members.

Must show that they’re actually willing to take on corruption

Grace Panetta, in an article for The 19th posted on Daily Kos, reported that Graham Platner, running for US Senate in Maine is saying, “We will take back our government from the Epstein class.” He’s one of many Democrats using the phrase that Rep. Ro Khanna created. They use it because it connects with voters.

“I’ll give the survivors credit, but I did coin the phrase ‘Epstein class’ because they’re a group of rich and powerful people who are not playing by the rules, and it offends the sense that we have one tier of justice,” Khanna told The 19th.

The phrase connects because it encapsulates two ideas – high level corruption and rich people rigging the system for their own interests.

“I think it directly fits in with voters’ top concern of cost of living right now,” [Ryan] O’Donnell [executive director for Data for Progress] said. “Broadly, Democrats, if they want to fight their way out of this, have to show that they’re actually willing to take on corruption in that way, and I do think that the Epstein class language is one way to do that.”

Oliver Willis of Kos, in his series Explaining the Right, discussed “Why Republicans suck ad being patriotic.”

As a whole, Republicans don’t understand the idea of American patriotism, which is far more complex and unifying than bellicose virtue signaling about being “strong” and “powerful.” ... Republicans are of limited scope—they can’t understand America as anything but the story of faux macho men. They don’t understand America at all.

Lisa Needham of Kos reported on the latest method the nasty guy is using to rig the election.

If they can’t win on the law, they’ll win with the purse strings and illegally withhold money from states that won’t comply with Trump’s conspiracy-addled demands. The money the administration is threatening to withhold, however, only highlights how little Trump cares about the country’s safety and security and how far he will go to get his way. States that refuse to bend the knee and let Trump dictate how their elections work could face losing 20% of Department of Homeland Security grant money that is intended to be used to protect infrastructure, combat terrorism, and prepare for disasters. Sure seems like a weird move for an administration that constantly claims that we are awash in terror and DHS needs infinite funding to keep us safe.

The nasty guy wants to add state voter rolls to a database so non citizens can be flagged. However, that database frequently incorrectly flags citizens. And state election officials (well, some of them) know that. Dion Nissenbaum, in an article for Votebeat posted on Kos discussed getting new voting rules in place faces a race against time. Changes to the voting system don’t happen quickly. First, there will be court challenges. Then there is the logistics of turning the nasty guy’s demands into an actual, workable system in time for election day. Votebeat included a discussion of how to election fact from fiction. The suggestions fit many types of claims. What was the original source? Is there evidence beyond screenshots and that it “just seems weird”? Do independent observers and credible sources said anything? Also, isolated irregularities, a tiny part of every election, are not proof of widespread fraud. Anna Maria Barry-Jester, in an article for ProPublica posted on Kos discussed yet another way the nasty guy is defying Congress. The budget that Congress passed for this fiscal year has specific amounts the State Department is to spend in particular ways. An example is the $5 billion to be spent on emergency humanitarian aid. Another is money designated for USAID, though Elon Musk and DOGE closed it last year But the administration isn’t spending the money according to what Congress put into law. All the money goes through the Office of Management and Budget (as is normal, as far as I can tell). Russel Vought is the head of OMB and a top supporter of the nasty guy. When the money reaches him he classifies a great deal of it as “unallocated” in defiance of Congress. All unallocated money needs his approval and he isn’t approving very much, leaving money unspent. Or the money is held up so the nasty guy can make a deal with the target country that favors himself.

As ProPublica has chronicled, Vought takes an expansive view of presidential power and has moved to give the executive branch dramatically greater authority to not spend legally appropriated money. Foreign aid has been a clear focus; after USAID was razed last year, Vought was made acting administrator and tasked with overseeing the closeout of the agency.

Emily Singer of Kos reported Congress has passed a bill with several provisions to eventually make housing more affordable. It even had broad bipartisan support! The nasty guy was set to sign it. Then he said he wouldn’t until Congress also passed his SAVE Act, the one that demands verification of citizenship to vote. Enough Republicans refuse to vote for it so it won’t pass. And they need something to show their constituents that they’re working on affordability. Amazingly, according to a tweet by Jake Sherman, Speaker Mike Johnson might finally be defying the nasty guy.

SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON is sending the housing bill to President DONALD TRUMP. Starts a 10-day clock for him to take action -- or it becomes law.

A tweet from Telegraph Football with a link to an article in the Telegraph:

Fifa will not stop fans from bringing rainbow flags into the stadium when Iran face Egypt in the controversial “Pride Match” in Seattle. Egypt and Iran have both lobbied Fifa demanding they have no association with Seattle’s PrideFest.

Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos included a few quotes (not necessarily recent) appropriate for the end of Pride month.

“Pride is both a celebration and a protest, and in the last few years pride marches have become big business, raking in millions of dollars for their host cities. And when corporations heard all those ch’chings, they jumped in. But ever since Donald Trump started viciously attacking the LGBTQ community, corporate sponsors are now pulling back their pride support. As one corporate insider said: they ‘never know if day-to-day they’ll be targeted.’ Wow—not knowing if you’ll be targeted must be so hard for those companies. I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been for them to come out to their parents…as companies.” —Stephen Colbert

Why is someone donating this much money?

Kos of Daily Kos posted a piece titled Why Democrats need their own Trump. He admitted that was a poor choice for a title. But his point is a good one: The nasty guy has been the most effective recent president. Alas, what he’s done is all to benefit himself and not the country.

The reason is simple: Trump doesn’t believe in constraints. He doesn’t care about norms, traditions, public opinion, elite opinion, or whether anyone thinks he should be doing what he’s doing. ... Trump has shown that all those traditions and conventions were nothing more than artificial constraints on the power of the presidency. All those Democrats before him who claimed they couldn’t do this or that? It’s all been shown to be bulls---. The office has extraordinary power, now with the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval. ... Trump has exposed something that many Americans—and certainly many Democrats—never fully appreciated: The modern presidency is far more powerful than anyone admitted. For decades, Democratic presidents treated many of those powers as off-limits, constrained by norms and a fear of backlash from the wealthy and powerful interests most invested in the status quo. Sometimes public opinion mattered too. But more often, caution was treated as wisdom because the people who benefited from inaction demanded it. Trump has demonstrated that most of those constraints were voluntary.

Too often Democrats used their time in power to make small adjustments while explaining why they can’t make bigger changes. I see that as a big reason why voters are so annoyed with Democrats. To succeed in 2028 Democrats much actually use power. Anything less and voters are caught between Republicans who break the government and Democrats who restore the status quo. There is the illusion that good things can’t happen quickly. That illusion benefits the wealthy – and we now have a trillionaire. Kos knows what kind of candidate he wants out of the dozens who will run for the Oval Office in 2028. He knows what kind he doesn’t want. Anyone who talks about the old Congressional camaraderie, who wants to make sure the other party has a voice, who accepts that the Supreme Court can’t be fixed – instant disqualification. I add: Yes, Democrats have been too constrained. But in many cases we need that constraint. We need a president who spends money according to how Congress allocates it, who brings Congress with him when he thinks war should be declared, who respects the right to vote and its outcome, who protects the little guy from the big guy instead of the reverse, who works for democracy instead of breaking it. That post prompted a second. In the comments of the first post many said the nasty guy and Republicans smash things. Democrats need to build. Kos agrees that Democrats need to build – housing, clean energy, infrastructure, health care that actually works, an economy for all people. But before building, Democrats need to smash a lot of things too, to make all the building possible. They have to stop protecting the machinery that created and protects today’s extreme inequality. Kos lists more than a dozen things Democrats should smash and says in his first draft of the post the list went on for pages. Here’s just a few things from his list.

+ The Senate filibuster + Citizens United and the campaign finance system it unleashed + Corporate monopolies + The revolving door between Wall Street and Washington + Social media algorithms designed to maximize outrage instead of informing people + Major media outlets owned and controlled by right-wing billionaires + Private prison companies

These things exist because they protect the people with money and power. Democrats need to stop treating them as if they were inscribed on stone tablets – that was the party’s big mistake between the two nasty guy terms. Democrats like to say change takes time. Zohran Mamdani became mayor of New York because he was able to say here is part of the solution we can implement right now. Obama accepted the conventional limits to the presidency. The nasty guy tested every limit. Don’t mistake the status quo for progress. Robert J Petersen of the Kos community posted Hunter Biden’s advice to Democrats prior to the New York primary earlier this week. Here are a few of his points:

+ Authenticity is measurable. Voters can smell a focus group from a mile away. + Conviction beats caution. The candidates who said hard things about rent, about who pays for what, about Gaza, they won. The triangulators lost. + Cost of living is everything. Everything else is wallpaper. + If you want to lead a party you have to be willing to fight inside it. Mamdani didn’t ask permission. He took the field.

In a third article Kos wrote that conservatives are sicker and die younger than liberals. We remember their antics during the pandemic when they refused masks and other things that could keep them healthy. But this study includes data from the mid-to-late 2010s. One reason for the disparity might be that less healthy people became more conservative. See how the right responded when Michelle Obama suggested children eat vegetables. Another reason might be more disturbing: “Conservative politics itself may now be a health risk.” People on the right are more skeptical of medicines, not just vaccines. They’re more distrustful of the “institutions and professionals trying to keep them alive.” They’ve been told expertise is the enemy and are hostile to it.

And to add insult to injury, liberals are now subsidizing those ridiculously unhealthy conservatives through higher health insurance premiums, just like rural red America wouldn’t survive without blue states and cities subsidizing them.

Wednesday’s pundit roundup for Kos, assembled by Greg Dworkin, features several quotes about the New York primary I mentioned. The short answer is that the candidates that Zohran Mamdani endorsed won. Below that Dworkin included tweets by Jamie Dupree:

Senate rebukes Trump over the Iran war, voting 50-48 to approve a House-passed resolution directing the President to remove U.S. military forces from hostilities against Iran. 4 Republicans voted Yes, 1 Dem (Fetterman) voted No. Trump cannot veto this war powers resolution on Iran - because the form it was in (a concurrent resolution) does not go to a President for signature. In essence, it is a non-binding vote by Congress.

Axios commented on US House races in Maryland suburbs to Washington. The summary: There is such a thing as spending too much on a candidate. It leads to people asking, “Why is someone donating this much money?” Down in the comments. ClimateHawk reported on the number of formerly Confederate states won by Republicans (the party that freed the slaves) from 1880 (after Reconstruction ended) to 1948. In those 18 presidential elections Republicans took zero of those eleven states, except for 1920 when they took 1 and 1928 when they took five (Hoover). They took 3-5 states from 1952-1965, two of those were for Eisenhower. Then Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Voting Rights Act in 1965. He said he was doing the right thing but would lose the South for a generation. In the 15 presidential elections since then (much longer than a generation) Democrats have taken 0-3 states except when voting for Carter after Watergate, when all Southern states voted for him, and when Clinton took 4 of 11 states. In today’s roundup Chitown Kev quoted Robert Jimison and Michael Gold of The New York Times:

“Hours after President Trump angrily confronted Senate Republicans for joining Democrats to approve a war powers resolution rebuking his handling of the war in Iran, Republican leaders brought another, nearly identical measure to the floor. In a 50-to-47 vote, with one senator voting “present,” they defeated the measure in a largely symbolic move that did nothing to change the resolution the Senate had narrowly approved a day earlier. Instead, it served as an unmistakable gesture to mollify a furious president who had just berated them. ... Ultimately, the maneuver did not undo Tuesday’s vote, which was the first war powers measure approved by both chambers since the war began and remains adopted. Wednesday’s vote neither rescinded nor superseded it. Still, Republicans sought to characterize the procedural move as a chance to “re-vote,” even though the initial action cannot simply be erased through a subsequent vote on different legislation.”

Jay Michaelson of Forward wrote that Israel is now pretty much isolated in the world and is doing a good job of alienating its allies in the US.

And for what? For what bowl of porridge did Israel sell its birthright as a member of the civilized world? For nationalist pipe-dreams of Gaza wiped off the map? For keeping Bibi’s coalition alive so he doesn’t go to jail for bribery? For messianic dreams of Greater Israel? For the most hawkish possible interpretation of Israel’s legitimate security needs? For revenge?”

I saw images of this elsewhere (which I can’t find now). The Independent in Britain reported that in 2014 a French TV channel showed a fictional weather report for August 2050 to show the effects of climate warming. It showed France hitting 43C (109.4F). That prediction was surpassed 24 years early. France and much of Europe and Britain are in a heat wave and the temperature in Paris hit 42.6C (108.7F). And that happened in June. This is a big problem because only a quarter of homes in Paris are air conditioned.