GOP has trained media to take their legislative terrorism as a given

No “Sunday movie” this weekend. Yesterday’s opera was enough. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos discussed the “Limit, Save, and Grow Act” passed by House Republicans. Yeah, the Senate will reject it, and Biden has already declared a veto. It does raise the debt limit a bit, high enough that it would need to be done a year from now – in time to be a spectacle for the election. McCarter described the bill this way:

Speaker Kevin McCarthy is telling President Joe Biden that he has two choices: Destroy the economy with a default on the nation’s debt, or destroy the economy by accepting ruinous cuts to government operations.

Shalanda Young, Director of the Office of Management and Budget explained that, since the Department of Defense would be exempt from cuts, everything else in the federal budget would get a 22% cut – this year, deeper cuts in later years. Young spelled out some of the impacts. Here are a couple:

A 22 percent cut would impact 25 million students in schools that teach low-income students and 7.5 million students with disabilities, which could force a reduction of up to 108,000 teachers, aides or other key staff. A 22 percent cut would result in 7,000 fewer rail safety inspection days next year alone, and 30,000 fewer miles of track inspected annually—enough track to cross the United States nearly 10 times.

McCarter added:

All of these cuts, the White House veto statement notes, citing a Moody’s Analytics report, “would lead to 780,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2024 and would meaningfully increase the risk of recession.” ... It’s not about the deficit. It’s not about keeping the nation from going into default. It’s about wrecking Joe Biden’s economy. Oh, and more tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s always about that for Republicans.

In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Dan Froomkin of Press Watch:

Republicans threaten to tank economy. Media blames Biden. ... Sure, Biden says he won’t negotiate, but “business groups, fiscal hawks and some congressional Democrats” want him to make a deal. So Biden, Tankersley writes, “faces a cascading set of decisions as the nation, which has already bumped up against its $31.4 trillion debt limit, barrels toward default.” But the nation is not “barreling toward default,” nor is it “careening,” or even “drifting” there. It is being pushed there by Republicans. ... Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall tweeted: “Has there ever been a clearer example of the ‘GOP has trained us to take their legislative terrorism as a given’ mentality so clear in so much MSM reporting?”

I’ve written that the goal of Russia in Ukraine is genocide. In a Ukraine update Mark Sumner of Kos reported that Russia is now saying Poland is next. Sumner quoted a tweet by Anton Garashchenko who quoted Dmitry Medvedev, who used the phrase “who should be ruthlessly exterminated like stinky rats.” Back on March 31 the Marketplace episode included a segment by Krissy Clark titled Poverty is a big business. They don’t offer a transcript, so these are my notes from listening to it again. Republicans are again pushing the idea that to receive government benefits a recipient needs to show they are working. They say this would reduce the deficit and the labor shortage and keep recipients from becoming dependent. Clark looked at a foos assistance program in Milwaukee that already has a work requirement. Compliance for that program has been outsourced to a private company, one that is multi-million and multi-national. The company requires people go through a job readiness program. In addition to the stuff about resumes, proper dress, and how to hunt for jobs, the students hear a lot of blather about “self-sufficiency” and aphorisms about hard work. The company claims they are better for this task than government because they already have a “business mentality.” They pitch their students to companies that need workers, usually for low paying jobs. As part of the student’s training tasks they are sometimes sent to zero-pay “internships” to get work experience. Divide their welfare check by the number of hours worked and this is below minimum wage. Clark talked to one of the students who got a job – doing something she had done before and heard about through friends. This job was part time, had no benefits, and she still qualified for food assistance. From the company’s side, this is good business. They get a bonus of thousands of dollars if the student stays in a job, even a low paying job, for a month. Another bonus when the student stays in the job three months. Between the management fees and bonuses the company got more than the student got in assistance. Over the last decade the company got $7 million because a few thousand people got jobs. The student now works two jobs, 60 hours a week, and still qualifies for assistance. Which means the student would do a lot better if that $7 million went to those needing assistance instead of going to the company. Since the student got these jobs on her own all the company did for her was a bit of resume coaching. The governor says he’ll be reviewing the program. Also from a month ago Laura Clawson of Kos talked about those attempts to add work requirements to assistance programs. Rep. Dusty Johnson is one of those leading the effort. Johnson said, “We know that work is the only path out of poverty.” So why are they making getting and keeping a job harder? There is already evidence that increasing work requirements only remove people from assistance rolls. And that makes them hungry. They are removed because of a complicated verification system, which may require them taking time off work. It also doesn’t allow for losing one job before finding another. No vacation, no sick leave. And if they fall out of compliance they are screwed for three years. In a pundit roundup from the end of March Chitown Kev of Kos quoted an article by Ronald Brownstein in The Atlantic, discussing the comparative makeup of Congressional districts held by Republicans and Democrats. Here’s Brownstein’s summary:

Equally revealing is to examine what share of each party’s total strength in the House these seats represent. From that angle, the parties offer almost mirror-image profiles. About two-thirds of House Republicans represent districts with more seniors than the national level, while about two-thirds of Democrats represent districts with fewer of them. Roughly two-thirds of House Republicans represent districts where the median income lags the national level, while three-fifths of Democrats hold seats where incomes surpass it. Almost exactly half of Republicans, compared with only about one-third of Democrats, represent districts with an unusually high concentration of people lacking health insurance.