Disposal Day #174: Escandalosa!

STORY #1: Fire!

Don’t ask me how I know this, but there is a scene in the Fifty Shades of Grey series in which the lead asshole fires five people in response to an arson in his company’s server room. Apparently that really is how business works, if recent personnel changes at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are any indication. Acting commissioner Steven Miller was asked to resign on Wednesday; Joseph Grant, acting commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities division, did the same yesterday. I think President Obama would have earned more points if he straight-up fired their asses.

This may not make a lot of sense at first, since Miller didn’t become acting commissioner until late last year, and Grant was only appointed to the job he just resigned last week. But Miller was previously deputy commissioner of services and enforcement, which directly supervises the above-named division. Meanwhile, Grant was the division’s deputy since 2007. So, yes, they were there. This likely means Lois Lerner’s job is safe, although someone who can’t figure out that 75 is one-quarter of 300 shouldn’t work for the IRS.

STORY #2: Agents of (media) shield

Can anyone point to a time before this week when President Obama expressed support for media shield legislation? The White House has just asked Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to reintroduce it; his version would “allow media organizations to challenge subpoenas of phone records and offer legal protections for protecting confidential sources.” Of course, The New Yorker has its own way of avoiding having to deal with that. Don’t be surprised if other media outlets catch on.

The trouble, as numerous outlets have pointed out, is that the exact legislation Obama supports may not have prevented the subpoenas of Associated Press (AP) phone records. The AP believes they were targeted over a story concerning a bomb plot in Yemen; the legislation would see to it that a judge could not invalidate a subpoena if the information could help “prevent a future terrorist attack or other acts likely to harm national security.” I would advise you to give The White Paper another read for this administration’s national security standards.

STORY #3: Whipping boys

Meanwhile, the White House decided to do its own leak this week, releasing 100 pages of e-mails designed to show that it really didn’t have anything to do with revising the administration’s talking points on the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi. Of course, they ended up making the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) look worse in the process – except, hilariously, for then-director, now-disgrace David Petraeus – but as long as their ass is covered, right? If they think anyone will be waved off by this, they’re insane as well as incompetent.

Disposal Day #173: You’re late

STORY #1: The general revenue drain

Manitobans who are reasonably informed about government budgets have come to dread the term “general revenue”; around here, it’s considered a code word for “the money they use to pay bureaucrats.” While I can’t confidently say the same about the U.S. federal budget, I can say two lawmakers, Reps. Janice Hahn (D-CA) and Ted Poe (R-TX), have identified a relevant problem. They’re drafting a bill that would funnel revenue from the Harbor Maintenance Tax into . . . well, harbor maintenance.

How many problems around the country would be solved if these specialized taxes were actually used for their stated purpose? I would like to see legislation that requires this of all federal taxes resembling the Harbor Maintenance Tax, with exceptions for funds unspent by the end of the fiscal year, or extenuating circumstances (recession, national emergency, war). Any industry that depends on seaports suffers from shabby harbors. The economy will benefit from getting them in shape – and this move could reduce some overall budget bloat.

STORY #2: The non-starters

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) really doesn’t thrive on competition all that much. If he did, he might be more open to forming a conference committee on the House and Senate budgets without his proposed “framework.” His requires preconditions that the budget not include tax hikes or debt ceiling increases. Contrast this with Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed framework, buried in this article, which would be “centered on elements of commonality” in President Obama’s budget proposal and his. Hey, it’s better than McConnell’s idea.

Not that Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) is an angel when it comes to conferencing; she says Ryan’s proposal for partial Medicare privatization is a “non-starter.” Obama, for his part, isn’t willing to compromise on the debt limit, demanding that Congress develop a grand bargain on the debt and avoid any scrambling to raise the ceiling. Does that mean he’d veto any budget that didn’t meet his criteria of a grand bargain? That would be completely understandable. I just wouldn’t want him to get his hopes up that it’ll only take him one try after about four other tries.

STORY #3: Attempted compromise

Here’s one reason why the topic of compromising on the debt ceiling has come up: The Full Faith and Credit Act, which would allow the government to borrow above the limit should they hit it, but only to pay bondholders and fund Social Security. You know why Obama doesn’t want it; Democrats don’t because, according to them, it leaves federal programs behind, mostly for China. I’m inclined to agree with the GOP on this one. If nothing else, it could demonstrate to the Democrats why ceiling hike after ceiling hike is getting them all nowhere.

Disposal Day #172: Cases for gun control

STORY #1: Children

I don’t care if it’s part of Kentucky culture; any parent dumb enough to give a child a gun should not be a parent. And when I say “child,” I don’t mean “under 18″; I mean “under the age of knowing how their genitals work or how to spell ‘Kentucky.’” Yet, that’s what happened. Authorities are ruling this particular case an accident, which makes perfect sense when we’re talking about a rifle in the hands of a five-year-old. I look forward to hearing from anyone who wants to argue in favor of gun possession rights for kids. Should they be prepared to overthrow a tyrannical gym teacher?

That’s not to leave out the parents who don’t actually want their kids to access guns – as far as we know – but make it easy for them to do exactly that. Like this kid. And this kid. You wonder if their parents had any idea what proper gun storage is. Another case for mandatory firearms education for all adults hoping to get licensed. And, what the hell, let’s throw in some extra safety training for the kids in schools. We teach them how not to light fires and how to ride the bus properly (up until twelfth grade, in Manitobans’ cases); why not how to avoid guns?

STORY #2: Good guys

I would like to believe that most adults can be trusted with guns, with notable exceptions (see below). So does Iraq War veteran Brian Castner, who wrote extensively about this and recommended “profiling for aggression.” He’s got a good point there; if there is any way to detect a person who is prone to shoot when angered, it may be worth it to deny them a gun license. But you can’t always predict an ill-advised shooting, which makes the “good guy with a gun” argument slippery, even if they do exist.

Once again, some more stringent firearms education may be needed; it’s as important to know when not to shoot as it is to know how to shoot. But that wouldn’t be a sure thing, either. If you ever wonder why many cops and soldiers don’t trust civilians with guns, this should make it clear.

STORY #3: The mentally ill

Perhaps Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) should have focused their initial background-check legislation on the mentally ill, if only to achieve a little more political momentum. I defy you to name any senator who would disagree that there should be more communication on this matter between states and the federal government, in order to achieve compliance with a federal law barring the sale of firearms to those “adjudicated as a mental defective.” California and Florida are working on their own versions of those laws. Since the Tenth Amendment keeps the federal government from compelling compliance, more state laws may be the best we can do.

Disposal Day #171: The Intartube

STORY #1: Tax reform, sort of

I still haven’t figured out why the state of the buyer will take in revenue from his or her online purchase, as opposed to the state of the retailer. But that’s the plan under the Marketplace Fairness Act, which is up for a Senate floor vote on May 6, whether senators who want to a) offer amendments or b) review it in the Senate Finance Committee like it or not. The eagerness to bring this bill up for a vote is unlike anything I’ve seen for any other bill that would expand a tax base. But, I must admit, I too am happy to know that this loophole may close, even if I don’t understand why it’s being closed this way.

The bill has sparked something else that we’ll need to keep an eye on. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) announced his retirement this week, which will make Democrats very happy given his history of voting according to Montanans’ preferences. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is in line to replace him; like Baucus, he has come out against this bill, as both represent states that have no sales tax. Wyden also has these reasons, not all of which I take very seriously. But, as he represents a fairly blue Northwest state, don’t expect Senate Democrats to have much trouble with him after this.

STORY #2: Hack be nimble

Remember that tweet from the official Associated Press (AP) account, claiming that two explosions at the White House had left President Obama injured? Turns out a Syrian group on the side of President Bashar Assad – I can only guess they’re working for him, because who else would be on his side? – has claimed responsibility for the hack, which sent markets temporarily reeling on Tuesday. What’s the appropriate response? Should media outlets invest more in their own cybersecurity? Should the U.S. do more to crack down on Assad? Yes, and yes, if we know who our friends are.

But Bart Chilton, one of five commissioners on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), suggests that the problem is traders’ use of social media; he wonders if new “safeguards” might be in order to protect markets. Frankly, I would find it pathetic if new, on-the-book rules were needed to enforce this principle: “Wait until an official source confirms earth-shattering news, then change your trading activity, or not.” Clearly traders have the same conclusion-jumping problem as John King. (No, I’m not letting that go.)

STORY #3: Well, it’s a start

The good: Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) are sponsoring legislation that would require a warrant before police can access e-mails, Facebook messages and the like, which may later be expanded to include GPS data. The bad: It would include an exemption for wiretapping and foreign surveillance. I give it a C.

Disposal Day #170: So much drama

STORY #1: Got ‘em (sort of)

I don’t remember ever using the “news” tag for any column other than the Sunday Drill, but I can’t lump all of the stories we’re focusing on today into one tag, so just go with it. Let’s start with the biggest: One suspect is dead; the second is on the loose; both are suspected of being of Chechen heritage and have been dubbed “terrorists”; and Boston is on lockdown. Meanwhile, President Obama’s speech at Boston’s interfaith prayer service went over very well, satisfying his sole responsibility in this case.

Too bad CNN and the New York Post weren’t quite as on point this week. The Post I can let go, because its reputation isn’t one of accuracy on the best of days. But CNN? What the hell went on there? As a journalism student, we learned to double-confirm all sources; I don’t recall whether or not it was explicitly stated that at least one of them ought to be credible, but it’s a pretty good idea. CNN’s screw-up on the suspect search is the kind of sloppy reporting that The Newsroom is made of. That’s how bad it was.

STORY #2: Shot down

I had a beef with the Senate’s background check expansion bill; naturally, it was the opposite of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) beef. If you’re tempted to blame them as one of the many pernicious special interests destroying Washington, I can only remind you that the politicians with whom you agree have their own special interests. So why did it fail, especially considering massive public support? It comes down to a number of Democrats in conservative states who wanted to save their skins.

This brings up an interesting discussion about the choice between representing the people who elected you and voting your own conscience. (Thanks to vote-whipping, Canadian politicians rarely have this problem.) Yes, doing the former looks like a cynical political move. And a politician should have the guts to risk losing the next election, which isn’t a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. But the point of the Senate is for each state to have a voice, is it not? I welcome discussion.

STORY #3: All shook up

Pro tips for anyone mailing ricin to the president, a U.S. senator and a state official: 1. Don’t put your initials in the letter. 2. Don’t re-post the rest of the message on Facebook. 3. These people generally don’t open their own mail. 4. You’re insane. Another argument for more government support for the mentally ill and this time it didn’t involve a firearm – I feel like calling that progress for some reason. Honestly, though, is there anything more hilarious than “crazy Elvis impersonator tries to poison Mississippi senator?” I haven’t taken a villain less seriously since the eco-terrorist from season 6 of Desperate Housewives. (Not that I ever watched that show. I swear.)

Disposal Day #169: Bullets over Beltway

STORY #1: Define “friends”

Compromise on the issue of universal background checks for gun purchases came down to Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), and this week they announced that they’d reached a deal:

• background checks now applied to purchases at gun shows and online, with records to present to police
• criminally penalizes anyone who “misuses” said records
• bans a national gun registry
• exempts “gun sales and transfers between friends and acquaintances”

So, those checks wouldn’t actually be universal. And what exactly do they mean by “friends and acquaintances?” I’ve never met at least 50 of my Facebook friends in person; would they count as friends? Could you count someone as an acquaintance if you’ve idly chatted a couple of times on the bus? Would you have to demonstrate that you knew each other a certain amount of time prior to the sale or transfer? These questions are going to come up the second the suspect in a shooting says his friend supplied the gun.

STORY #2: The First Lady finish

When the stakes are high enough, First Lady Michelle Obama is capable of rallying many people to President Obama’s side and her own. Knowing this, she joined Chicago mayor and ex-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at a local conference on youth violence, where she emphasized the need to reduce everyday gun deaths – wow, how sad is that phrase? – as well as mass shootings such as Newtown. This prompted the usual headlines about “activist” first ladies versus . . . is there a term for those who stay in the background and talk about “mom stuff?” “Passivist” first ladies?

Either way, as a lifelong Chicagoan, Obama’s role on a national scale is to put a different human face on the gun debate than that already provided by firsthand victims. She adds the perspective of a citizen who is painfully aware of the scourge of gun violence in American inner cities and, perhaps, has lived with the fear that she may one day end up in someone’s crossfire. For gun control proponents, that’s exactly the kind of voice they need in order to restore some emotion that may have faded over time. Let’s hope it results in legislation that actually works for a majority of people.

STORY #3: Oh, right . . .

Wasn’t it just last week that we were hailing the progress of comprehensive immigration reform legislation? It’s still on, just so everyone knows, but with the background check bill dominating the news cycle, the “Gang of Eight” behind the forthcoming bill may wait until next week to unveil their proposal.  You should be especially happy about this because this is the first time in what feels like forever that two bipartisan bills have been jockeying for attention.

Disposal Day #168: They’ll think about it tomorrow

STORY #1: It begins at home

In the past week there have been some positive signs of bipartisanship in the Senate. The “Gang of Eight” tasked with comprehensive immigration reform is making considerable progress; Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Joe Manchin (R-WV) haven’t been quite as successful with gun control, and will probably be even less successful when they release their final draft (which may also go for the Gang), but they’re plugging away. About debt, however, there’s been either no action at all or no action anyone is willing to discuss. You can tell because only these guys have been talking about tax expenditures lately.

Of all the deductions and loopholes in the entire tax code, the charitable deduction is by far the most politically tricky. How dare they make it harder for people to give to the less fortunate? Surely there are other deductions to roll back, the revenue generated thereby making rolling this one back unnecessary! There aren’t many special interests who wouldn’t use that exact reasoning to justify keeping their favorite expenditures; we shouldn’t be afraid to discuss losing any of them. I happen to believe a good charity will rake in donations regardless of how much donors get back in April.

STORY #2: Oh, crap

The same problems are at hand among cancer clinics across the U.S. Already turning away patients after seeing their federal funding fall victim to the sequester, they’re ready for an all-out lobbying assault to get it back, with 50 congressional offices agreeing to help. Worse yet, they’ve got their sights set on the White House, which has “the power to save” those clinics.

I’d like to say the silver lining in all of this is that it may push Congress to work on a debt deal that would not only make the sequester go away, but ensure that it will never again be an issue. But the sequester itself was supposed to do that, as were the multiple instances of nearly hitting the debt ceiling, followed by a last-minute bill to raise it. If the interest groups were to band together and point that out, we may have a spark. Or they’ll be ignored until the Dow loses 500 and then we’ll have a spark. Take your pick.

STORY #3: And yet . . .

Kudos to various Obama administration officials for giving up parts of their salary, however pathetically small those parts are. As for the Senate, who passed by voice vote a non-binding measure encouraging them to donate 20 percent of their salaries to charity or return it to the U.S. Treasury? Only five of them are doing it. Scroll down that link a bit for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) opposition to subjecting congressional salaries to sequestration. If you didn’t already want to punch her over something, you will today.

Disposal Day #167: Big gay news

STORY #1: A prognostication

I’m simultaneously thrilled and mildly irritated that same-sex marriage (SSM) is prompting so much interest in the U.S. judicial system; paying attention is a good idea even when the issue at hand is less sexy than this. But I’ll let it slide. So far, the pundits are predicting that proponents of SSM won’t get everything they want, and that states will still be free to define marriage on their own terms. I personally consider it no government’s right, but ultimately the Supreme Court will decide that.

There is still a good chance that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be struck down, getting the federal government out of the armchair dictionary business. That would still be a massive victory. Don’t be too upset if they don’t go further than that – unless it’s for the reason a number of justices have brought up, that it’s “too soon” to rule broadly on SSM. Public support for the idea is as high as it’s ever been. One-fifth of the states have legalized it on their own, with no apparent impact on the institution of marriage other than to make it more accessible. What else are they waiting for?

STORY #2: No love, Tony Perkins

For the majority of Americans, if Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council decides to “disown” you over SSM, you’re probably doing it right. That’s his implicit threat to Chief Justice John Roberts should he vote against DOMA and for other pro-SSM positions. I’m just going to let his predecessor, Gary Bauer, handle this one:

I hope to the extent he feels a debt to anyone or anything, it would be to the Constitution.

Of course, he’s still ready to strip Roberts of his conservative card if necessary. But at least he got that right. By the way, partisan judicial elections need to die.

Meanwhile, Republicans are utterly confused about what to do: Sacrifice their evangelical base, along with their early votes and financial largesse, or sacrifice everything else? Again, Perkins speaks up, this time talking about the possibility of a third party. Please, oh, please let that happen. It would be hysterical. They’d go down in history as “those idiots who created a new party because they didn’t want gay people to get married.” I can’t wait!

STORY #3: Surrender

Even Rush Limbaugh admitted that social conservatives have lost on this one! And so did Bill O’Reilly (who, by the way, has historically been on the side of keeping government out of the bedroom, but also proudly brands himself as a “traditionalist”)! I suspect that Sean Hannity will be next, given his “epiphany” on immigration reform right after the 2012 election. None of this is a big deal in the grand scheme of the SSM debate, but it’s certainly fun to watch.

Disposal Day #166: Hakalah

(Hakalah is a Hebrew word meaning “relief,” used here because President Obama didn’t screw up his first presidential visit to Israel.)

STORY #1: Chaverim (friends)

If Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu truly dislike each other, as the media keeps insisting, they’ve done a pretty good job of not letting it show through. Obama even called Netanyahu “my friend Bibi,” which, after this, made my roll my eyes. As for the words that matter, Obama did a good job reiterating the existing U.S. perspective on a two-state solution, settlement construction and Iran, which was really all he had to do.

Surely to the delight of Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who would like to see him “play favorites” between Israel and Palestine, Obama reserved particular bile for Hamas, although not just because of how they affect the daily lives of Israelis – case in point, a pair of rocket attacks that injured nobody, but still damaged a home in the town of Sderot. Whatever you may think of their motivation, firing rockets into Israel does nothing to help Palestine. Obama may not have said anything to change that. But at least he set the limits for what he’d tolerate.

STORY #2: Chutzpah (boldness)

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) – who is not Jewish; Gentile politicians who try to be more pro-Israel than thou piss me off – has put forward a bill that would require the U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. At the moment, the U.S. embassy, along with many other embassies, is located in Tel Aviv. This isn’t the first time Congress has attempted this; legislation passed in 1995 allows the president to delay this move indefinitely for security reasons, which each president since then has done. So Heller is on a schmendrick‘s errand.

Under the current border situation, it’s proper to have foreign embassies in the political capital of Israel and not the economic capital. Had Jerusalem been placed under international administration in 1947, to which Israel actually agreed, we might be calling Tel Aviv the political capital and Haifa the economic one. (Common saying: “Haifa works, Jerusalem prays, Tel Aviv plays.”) Until Palestine gives up on East Jerusalem as its capital, the status quo will remain.

STORY #3: Ta’im (tasty)

Official Israeli social media accounts have of course been atwitter (tee hee) with updates of Obama and Netanyahu’s palling around. They even shared the menu for the dinner at Netanyahu’s Jerusalem residence, prepared by famous chef Shalom Kodesh. Unfortunately, Palestinian chefs weren’t fond of it and decided to counter with a completely non-Israeli menu for Obama’s dinner with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. I’ve never heard of young wheat soup, so I can only assume they succeeded.

Disposal Day #165: The choice of your dad’s generation

STORY #1: Is “fusionist” a word?

It is. Anyway, this week is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where America’s most prominent and ideologically intractable right-wingers gather to pick bugs out of each other’s hair. Unlike the Republican Party, which just learned a few months ago that they need many people to support them in order to get anything done, CPAC – run by the American Conservative Union (ACU) – has no trouble alienating people who don’t line up with them completely. Well, they think so.

It’s gotten so bad that Govs. Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Bob McDonnell (R-VA) missed out on invitations for supporting some non-conservative ideas on the job, while former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and – good Lord – Donald Trump are both featured speakers. At this rate, the former two will represent modern American conservatism while the latter two will represent political insanity. CPAC can either adapt to that reality, or wither away to nothing. Personally, I vote for the withering. Which is why I will never be invited to CPAC.

STORY #2: Bottled up

The theme of this year’s CPAC is “The Next Generation of Conservatives.” You might think Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) hero’s welcome would be a sign of that, especially given his burgeoning leadership role on immigration reform. But listen to the actual speech. (One Direction for his theme music? Really?) He referenced the water bottle thing! Delightful. One thing he didn’t reference: immigration reform.

The speech, much like his “response” to President Obama’s State of the Union, was essentially a catalog of Stuff Conservatives Like – exceptionalism, “hard-working taxpayers,” ending “the breakdown of the family,” not “retreating from the world” – with assurances that it was perfectly natural to have these feelings. Except when it comes to younger voters who are already stock Republicans, none of what he said was designed to appeal to said “next generation.” That task was taken up by a senator with a lot less love behind him.

STORY #3: Feel the lurve

I am, of course, talking about Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who provided the libertarian relief. But don’t expect him to get too far with that, what with the likes of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) accusing him of filibustering over drones for the sake of “impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.” Hey now, John, those impressionable libertarian kids are your party’s safest bet, aside from pro-Keystone XL unionists. And they don’t like even the slightest possibility of the government using drones on their soil. If Paul is the only guy in the Senate to speak for them, Republicans will have more reason to fear a different kind of insurgency.