Sometimes they say the strangest things

[I wrote this several days ago, but kept postponing it as bigger news broke each day.   So it may be a little stale.]

1.  One of Trump's lawyers, John Dowd, says that he himself authored Trump's email which some have interpreted as evidence of obstruction of justice [implying that Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI earlier than he has acknowledged.]  But Dowd went further and declared that "The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under the Constitution and has every right to express his view of any case."   The sounds ominously like Richard Nixon's "When the president does it, it's not a crime."   Team Trump is in dangerous territory when echoes of Nixon are the natural response to what they claim.

2.  Billy Bush, -- the former TV host who was Trump's enabler (and eager audience) on the Hollywood Access tape -- has said about that tape:   "Of course he (Trump) said it."   He was referring to Trump's recent attempt to claim that it's not really his voice, suggesting it was a doctored tape.    But his prime witness has now said, oh course it was him.   Bush has more than a little reason to be pissed:   he lost his job over  just listening (and giggling) to Trump's bragging  -- while Trump, the grabber, got elected president.

3.  Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told the Des Moines Register why he favors getting rid of the estate tax.  "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies."    Indignant responses have been swift, especially from people who say they spend every penny on rent, groceries, and medical bills.   It's not the first time Grassley has been tone deaf, but this may be his worst.  In effect, he's saying:  People are poor because they're lazy and self-indulgent and just want someone to take care of them.

4.  The Alabama Republicans are in a dilemma.   Since they were unable to get Moore to drop out of the race for senator, and since write-in candidates usually lose, what to do?   In a recent article in the conservative publication The Federalist, Tully Borland suggests electing Moore and then supporting the Senate in not seating him.  As to the objection some might have for "voting for a sex offender," he says:  "All voting is voting for the lesser of two evils."   He frames the choice between "a child molester" or a "baby killer," referring to Doug Jones' strong pro-choice position.   Another writer for The Federalist, Hans Fiene, objected to Borland's point;  instead, he says, "The lesser of two evils is still evil. . . . [and] his name is on the ballot because we put it there," and we should take responsibility for it.   Yes, and what about all the other reasons that Moore is unfit for the position (see ShrinkRap, Dec 4).

5.  In Donald Trump, Jr. testimony before the House Intelligence Committee this week, he acknowledge that he had talked with his father about the June 9th meeting in Trump Tower with the Russian group.   But he declined to say what was said, based on his bizarre claim of "lawyer-client" privilege -- despite the fact that neither he nor his father is an attorney.   But, you see, they had a lawyer listening in to the conversation.   Numerous legal experts have said this is ludicrous.   To me, such evasion is an admission that one or both of them would be in serious legal jeopardy if the content became known.

Ralph

Since I wrote the above, Roy Moore has dug his hole a little deeper.   A comment he made back in September has resurfaced, and it has sparked a storm on social media.  When asked when he thought America was last great, Moore chose the period in our history that included slavery.  As reported by the LA Times in September, Moore said:  “I think it was great at the time when families were united.  Even though we had slavery, they cared for one another. ... Our families were strong, our country had a direction,”

FAMILIES  WERE  UNITED?    United?  Like the ones left behind in Africa when one family member was kidnapped and shipped to America on a slave ship?   Or the ones that might appear together in the US on a slave auction block -- and then be separated as bidders bought some of the family and not others, often separating parent from child, husband from wife?

OUR  COUNTRY  HAD  A  DIRECTION?    Until 13 states seceded and our country fought a bloody civil war . . . over slavery.

If this man gets elected;   and if the Senate agrees to let him in -- then he should be required to take a course on US History and study the Constitution . . .  and then pass an exam on both.                                    

Something to heed -- and worry about.

Roger Cohen, writing in the New York Times about the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, had this worrisome, important point we should heed:

"The destruction in the distinction between
truth and falsehood

is the foundation of dictatorship."

Jerusalem decision was more political than diplomatic

The New York Times says that, for Trump, "the status of Jerusalem was always more a political imperative than a diplomatic dilemma."'  Trump spent much of his first year courting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and some of the Gulf States.   Now it was time to keep the promise he had made to his Jeiwish supporters.

When we speak of Trump's base, we usually mean the angry, working class white people and evangelical Christians.   But Trump had specifically made a campaign promise to the powerful American-Israel lobby -- and, particularly to casino billionaire and supporter of Israel, Sheldon Adelson, who had given $20 million to a Trump political action committee, as well as another $1.5 million to the RNC organizing committee.   Adelson has stayed in touch, always reminding Trump of his promise.

Thursday, one day after the announcement, Trump got his reward:   a full page ad in the New York Times, proclaiming in big letters:

"President Trump:  You Promised.  You Delivered." 

"Thank you for courageously recognizing Jerisalem

as Israel's Eternal Capital"

"Mr. President, history will honor you as one of

Israel's greatest friends.

It's signed:  "Republican Jewish Coalition."

Trump has exchanged the possibility of Middle East peace for one day of glory for himself, plus guaranteed financing for his 2020 campaign . . .  if he's still around to run.

Ralph

Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital = "an act of diplomatic arson"

On Wednesday afternoon, President Trump formally announced:  "It is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," thus reversing seven decades of U.S. policy and going against the pleading advice and dire predictions of world leaders from Arab countries (Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey. etc.), as well as leaders of France, Britain, China, the European Union, Pope Francis, and other of our close allies.  Tue U.N. expressed grave concern.   Only Israel -- and billionaire and Israel supporter, Sheldon Adelson -- have praised the move.

But Trump said that past approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had not moved the peace process forward.  "This is a long overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement."   He also indicated that the process of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would begin.

To contextualize Trump's action, I quote at length from the excellent article by Jonathan Freedand, a columnist for The Quardian.  He published this prior to Trump's formal announcement but with the understanding that it was coming.

*     *     *     *     *  

"Not content with taking the US to the brink of nuclear conflict with North Korea, Donald Trump is now set to apply his strategy of international vandalism to perhaps the most sensitive geopolitical hotspot in the world.  With a speech [in which he is] expected to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and reaffirm a pledge to move the US embassy to the city, he is walking into a bone-dry forest with a naked flame.

"For the status of Jerusalem is the most intractable issue in what is often described as the world's most intractable conflict.  It is the issue that has foiled multiple efforts at peacemaking over several decades.  Both Israelis and Palestinians insist that Jerusalem must be the capital of their states, present and future, and that that status is non-negotiable.

"Bur it's not just important to them.  The Old City of Jerusalem contains the holiest site in Judaism and the third holiest mosque in Islam, to say nothing of its enormous significance to Christians, meaning that even the slightest move there is felt by billions.   It is a place where diplomats have learned to tread with extreme care.   There is a reason why no US administration, no matter how pro-Israel, has changed its policy toward the city in the nearly 70 years since Israel's founding.

"But here comes Trump, oblivious to precedent and indeed history -- even in a place where history is a matter of life and death -- stomping through this delicate thicket, trampling over every sensitivity.   The risk is obvious, with every Arab government -- including those loyal to Washington -- now issuing sharp warnings on the perils of this move, almost all of them using the same word:  'dangerous'.

"Let us be clear.   Most advocates of an eventual two-state solution believe the only way to resolve the Jerusalem issue is for it to serve as the capital of both states:  East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  Then, and only then, would be the right moment to start moving embassies and issuing statements of recognition.  Until that day, any act that pre-empts an agreement between the two parties on the city's future is reckless and needlessly incendiary.

"How incendiary?   Recall that the second intifada -- which turned into a bloody two or more years of death for Israelis at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers, and death for Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli military -- started after a 45 minutes visit in late 2000 by the then leader of the Israeli opposition, Ariel Sharon, to the place that represents the nuclear core of this most radioactive conflict, the site Muslims call the Haram al-Sharif and Jews call the Temple Mount.  Bear that in mind when you hear the Palestinian ambassador to London say that Trump's move amounts to 'declaring war on 1.5 billion Muslims'.

"Why is Trump doing it?   Perhaps he wants to show that he's honouring his campaign pledges:  now, along with his tax cut for the rich and his travel ban from mainly Muslim countries, he can tick the box marked Jerusalem.  He said he would do it, and now he's doing it, and to hell with the consequences.  That's a style of politics his base -- including those Christian evangelicals hawkish on Israel -- seem to like.

"The rest of the world will draw some comfort from the fact that no immediate move of the embassy is imminent;  that it may not even happen before Trump's term expires in January 2021.  Perhaps this will be like Trump's break from the Paris accords on climate change -- more symbolic than concrete.

"But that is to forget that in the Israel-Palestine conflict, symbols matter.  Which is why other world leaders, and senior US politicians, need to close ranks in saying this act is wrong and does not speak for them.   They need to signal that a saner policy might prevail once Trump has gone.  The trouble is that by then, given the way violence in that region can spread and escalate, it might be too late."

*     *     *     *     *

Yes.  Now, what will he break next?    "Bull in a china shop" is not the right metaphor for Donald Trump.   It's more like a child having a continuous tantrum -- just lashing out and destroying everything, just because the grown-ups tell you not to do it.

Ralph

PS:  On the other hand, a later article on Vox.com -- while decrying Trump's action and saying he "touched the third rail of Israeli-Palestinian conflict" -- also said that Trump's announcement could have been worse.   First, he did not, as he might have, speak of an "undivided" Jerusalem.  Second, he did call for keeping the status quo for now, and his rhetoric was more restrained than usual.  Third, he left open the possibility for a two state solution with West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as the capitals for Israel and Palestine, respectively.   But that's not much comfort when most commentators are using metaphors of this setting off fires and explosions and violent protests. 

Mueller and Trump both cross a red line

Some time back, in response to a question to Trump as to whether there was a red line that Mueller might cross that would lead to his firing, Trump agreed that it could be going into his and his family's financial history.  According to a report by Reuters, Mueller has begun to do just that.

Mueller has asked Deutsche Bank for information on accounts held by the Trump family.   Because Trump is considered such a poor loan risk -- after six bankruptcies and a reputation for not paying what he owes contractors -- no bank in New York has been willing to lend him money for years.  None, that is, other than Deutsche Bank, a German bank that has a branch in New York.

On Tuesday afternoon, Trump ignored reporters' questions about this.   His personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, released a statement saying they had confirmed with the bank that there had been "no subpoena" for financial records.   That does not rule out what was reported:   that Mueller had "asked" the bank for information on the accounts.

However, the reporter for Bloomberg News who broke the story was interviewed by MSNBC's Ari Melber.  He reaffirmed his story, saying that he had a source who works in Deutsche Bank who said they had received a subpoena.  Reuters news service and others had also said that the back was actually quite willing to cooperate and welcomed the official order to produce records on the Trumps.   Lacking a subpoena from congressional committees, they had had to deny their request for the same thing earlier.

*     *     *

The red line that Trump seems to have crossed on Tuesday was his decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize it as the capital of Israel.   According to a report by Reuter's news:

"U.S. endorsement of Israel's claim to all of Jerusalem as its capital would reverse long-standing U.S. policy that the city's status must be decided in negotiations with the Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.   The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, home to sites holy to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions.

"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi Arabia's King Salman, who all received phone calls from Trump, joined a mounting chorus of voices warning that unilateral U.S. steps on Jerusalem would derail a fledgling U.S.-led peace effort and unleash turmoil in the region."

Israel already claimed Jerusalem proper, and they captured the Palestinian East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.   It's fate has been a subject of bitter contention ever since.   Reuter's reports that the European Union, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League -- as well as some career officers in the U.S. State Department -- all have warned that such U.S. action would have serious repercussions across the region.  So did France's president Macron.

One of Trump's campaign promises was that he would move the embassy to Jerusalem, which would satisfy the Israeli's and the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S.  Officials had hoped that Trump would settle for the less drastic announcement of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital but delaying the embassy move for at least another six months.

Knowing that Trump's decisions often are either just impulsive or are made for some other effect, one has to wonder if these two red-line crossings are related.   I don't mean to imply a substantive link -- just that, with Trump increasingly enraged over the Mueller investigation and his inability to squash it, perhaps he was unable to restrain his impulsiveness on this question.

In the end, his motivation doesn't really matter.    The important thing is that it's one more example of Trump dismantling policy and tossing a match into a gasoline can.   In the case of Israel's capital and our embassy, he just reversed the U.S. policy of seven decades duration.  It has now become as dependable as sunset:   If there is anything that Barack Obama did or stood for, Trump will try to undo it, oppose it, or destroy it.

This one could really blow up any Middle East peace efforts for some time.   An Arab-Israeli lawmaker sent out a statement calling Trump "a pyromaniac who could set the region on fire with his madness.  It proves that the US can't be the sponsor of negotiations."  The US consulate in Jerusalem warned its employees and all American citizens to be prepared for violent protests and possible attacks.

Poor Jared.  Leading the Middle East peace effort was perhaps his most cherished project in the ridiculously extensive portfolio assigned to him by his father-in-law.   Just last week he gave an optimistic report to a group of Arab leaders about the prospects for his peace plan actually working.  Trump just blew that one up.

Ralph

The astonishing hypocrisy of Republicans on budget deficits -- Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein, co-founder of Vox.com, is one of my favorite truth-tellers.   He's known, not for hyping sensational news, but for carefully explaining major stories, their backgrounds, and what to expect going forward.    Hence the importance of his comments on the Senate budget bill, as well as Republicans' general approach to legislating these days.    Here are some excerpts:

"There is a long-running, almost metaphysical, argument about the GOP's deficit hawkery.   One school of thought holds that it has always been pure cynicism.   Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts without offsets and paid for neither Medicare Part D nor the Iraq War.    When they began decrying the deficit and debt during President Obama's administration, under this theory, it was nothing but opportunistic political attacks, and it was obvious they would be abandoned as soon as Republicans regained power.

"The response many Republicans gave was that the party had lost its way under George W. Bush, but it had recognized its mistakes and rediscovered its fiscally conservative soul.   The Tea Party and its relentless campaign of primary challenges was proof the Republican Party had changed, and would stay changed.

"The House and Senate passage of the GOP tax bills shows the cynics had it right."

Klein goes on to illustrate conservatives' obeisance -- during the Obama era -- to the mantra of debt horror.   He quotes from a 2011 Paul Ryan speech, proclaiming, "The facts are very, very clear.   The United States is headed towards a debt crisis."  And yet . . . . [back to Klein's article]:

"Today, Paul Ryan is the speaker of the House of Representatives , , , , shepherding forward a tax bill that is expected to add more than a trillion [with a T] dollars to the national debt in the first 10 years and, if their tax cuts are extended as they hope, far more after that.  They are doing so despite years of arguing that the national debt is the most severe problem facing the United States, despite running for reelection promising balanced budgets and fiscal restraint.

"'The hypocrisy is astounding,' says Marc Goldwein, policy director at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. . . .  The nihilism extends to process too.   Republicans complained bitterly during the Obama administration that Democrats weren't holding enough hearings, that they weren't leaving sufficient time to read final bill text, that they were passing important legislation on party-line votes, that they were using the budget reconciliation process improperly.

"Now they are passing sweeping tax reform through the budget reconciliation process with no hearings, no effort at bipartisan compromise, and bill text that was not made public until hours before the final vote.   In a darkly comic twist, changes were handwritten into legislation in the final hours."

[A video was tweeted out by Democratic Senator Jon Tester holding his copy of the 479 page bill, which he said he had received just 25 minutes before the scheduled vote on the bill.   And then he showed a page with margins filled with handwritten, sometimes unreadable changes in the margins.]   Back to Klein:

"There is no framework under which these moves appear principled, no explanation under which the cynicism abates.    Some Republicans have tried to argue that the tax bill will pay for itself through increased economic growth;  but there is not a single economic analysis that agrees;  the Joint Committee on Taxation, for instance, says the law will add a trillion dollars to the deficit even accounting for economic growth.

"Perhaps that is why even Paul Ryan sounds embarrassed making these claims.  'I'm telling you that's what I believe will happen;  I'm not going to tell you I'm sure,' he said."

*     *     *

I'll summarize the rest of Klein's article, generally on the theme of "Nihilism begets nihilism," and "hypocrisy begets hypocrisy."   In short, Democrats got loudly chastised by Republicans for the growing deficit, which had largely resulted from Bush's unpaid-for Medicare Rx drug plan, for the Iraq war, and for the economic recession that Bush left for Obama to handle.

In spite of that, Democrats worked extra hard to find ways to pay for the Affordable Care Act, even to being criticized especially for the parts that were put in to make it work and largely pay for itself, rather than just running up the deficit as the Republicans did . . . . and are now about to repeat.

So Klein wonders what the Democrats will do when they come back into power?   Will they say we were fools to play by the rules when our opponents don't -- and adopt Republican ways with the budget?

Here's the other thing that Klein did not focus on but I will.   It's as sure as death and taxes that Republicans are already planning to use the expanding deficit and debt -- that they are causing -- by insisting they have to cut entitlement spending,  And then there goes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- as well as much else in the social safety net.   Some of it is already in these tax bills they're passing.

Ralph

"The Unbearable Hypocrisy of Moore's Religious Rhetoric" -- Rev. William Barber

The Reverend William Barber is the leader of the "Moral Mondays" protests in North Carolina.  He is a Protestant Minister, the head of the N.C. chapter of the NAACP and chair of the national NAACP's legislative Political Action Committee.  He contributed his thoughts on Roy Moore's religious hypocrisy to NBC News.

He begins with a review of the accusations of sexual misconduct against Moore and the fact that Moore's core supporters continue to support him.  And he continues:

"This is not Christianity.  Rather, it is an extreme Republican religionism that stands by party and regressive policy no matter what.  It's not the gospel of Christ, but a gospel of greed.  It is the religion of racism and lies, not the religion of redemption and love. . . . 

"This man, who wants to be Alabama's next Senator, wants to repeal Obamacare, making health care inaccessible for millions . . .  He has said Islam is a 'false religion,' [that] homosexual conduct 'should be illegal,' and [would] curtail equal protection under the law for gay and transgender people.  Moore supports a tax plan that would hurt the poor and working poor.

"In short, Moore's political agenda presents a credible threat to millions of vulnerable people in America.  Yet Moore claims to be the moral and Christian candidate, using religion as U.S. slave masters did before him to justify actions which fly in the face of Christ's teachings.  Like segregtionists, Moore imagines the struggle for equality in America as a story of loss [he is being 'persecuted;'  courts took prayer out of schools;  implies that 'new rights' for LGBT people takes something away from good Americans, and 'voting rights' lets illegals vote.]

[Barber continues]  "As one who survived abuse by a stranger in my own childhood, I feel deep empathy for the women who have come forward to name and confront their abuser.  At the same time, my soul grieves as a Christian minister for people who are fed such a distorted view of Christianity and racism that they are willing to support Moore no matter what. . . .  But I am deeply troubled by Moore's determination to wrap his own painful policies and pain-causing ways in the theological claim of being like Christ.

"There is nothing Christian about the policies Moore has supported.  They are as immoral as the terrible abuse he so vehemently denies.  While he wants to compare his plight to the suffering of Jesus, there is no biblical basis for policies that hurt poor people and children.

"As well as he knows the Bible, Roy Moore never quotes from the more than 2,000 verses that exhort us to care for the poor, the sick, and the stranger in our midst.  He has apparently overlooked the prophet Isaiah, who said to men like Moore in his own day:  'Doom to you who legislate evil, who make laws that . . .  make misery for the poor, that rob the destitute of their dignity, exploiting defenseless widows, taking advantage of homeless children' (Is.10:1-4).

"National Republican leaders who claim the moral high ground while renouncing Moore now are like the Republicans who spoke out against white supremacy after Charlottesville, condemning the 'hate' but never repenting of white nationalist policy.   Their moral outrage rings hollow because it renounces Moore based on his personal patterns but says nothing about the disturbing pattern of his policy agenda.

"What is happening right now in Alabama matters for the soul of the nation.  Anyone who has any influence must help blacks, progressive whites, and Latinos;  gay and straight;  Christians, Muslims, Jews, and all who want to move our country forward to get out and vote.  This is no time to retreat or remain idle.  We must stand up for truth in the public square and reclaim our political and faith traditions which have been hijacked."

*     *     *     *     *

The important thing is that there are ample reasons to vote against Roy Moore.   Take your pick.

His record as public servant, where he was twice removed from the bench for defying federal court orders specifically targeting his own defiant behavior.   Then there is the matter of the allegations and how you believe or not these women's stories.  You could vote against him simply because of his policies that would actually hurt the people in his state, which is one of the highest ones in terms of need for federal assistance.

And then there is this:  Does it worry you, people of Alabama, to have one of your two U.S. Senators be a man who outwardly portrays himself as a patriot -- while at the same time making it very clear that he would put his own religious beliefs above the Constitution?  He has said as much.   His highest allegence is to the Word of God as contained in the Holy Bible -- and as interpreted by Roy Moore himself.   I have no problem with that on his own time;   but as a senator, he would have to swear to uphold the U.S.Constitution -- and it's separation of church and state.

I submit that Roy Moore is unfit to serve the people of Alabama as their senator;  and, if I were a voter in that state, I would find it an easy choice.    Roy Moore is not fit to serve in the United States Senate.   Even without the women's charges.    Take one fact:   The Judiciary Review Board twice found him unfit to continue serving his elected term as judge.

If he is unfit to serve as a judge in Alabama, how can he be fit to serve as a United States senator?

Ralph

Flynn is not the big fish in Mueller investigation

Any federal investigator will tell you that, when they make a plea bargain to get a cooperating witness -- as Michael Flynn now is -- they don't do it to catch a smaller fish.   It's only done to catch a bigger fish.  And the only bigger fish are Jared Kushner, VP Michael Pence, and Donald Trump himself.

It is just not believable that Trump could have simply given Kushner broad orders -- like "fix it" and "don't tell me how you do it" -- and then had the self-discipline to stick to that distancing.   He's not capable of it, nor would he believe in the need for it.

So expect Donald Trump to be the ultimate target.

Senate squeaks tax bilk through

In the rush to pass tax reform -- actually the rush to pass almost ANY  major piece of legislation before Trump's first year in office ends -- the Senate used the same tactics it did in trying to pass health care reform.  Craft a bill in secret, hold zero hearings, spring the final version on senators without time to study it -- or even read it in this case -- and force a vote through before the nonpartisan scoring groups can analyze its effect.   The difference is that this time they succeeded in passing it, 51 to 49.

No Democrats voted for what is the most sweeping tax system reform in decades, in contrast to the last tax reform being a largely bipartisan and overwhelmingly positive bill.  Even as the bill is not completely understood -- even by those voting on it -- the public opposes it by strong margins.   This is also a contrast to prior tax reforms.

Why?   Because people know enough to realize that, despite Republicans lies, that this is not good for them.    It is based on pie in the sky expectations of economic growth to make up for the huge tax cuts, mostly to the wealthy.    Scoring analyses by nonpartisan groups -- even without the final version -- all say that it is essentially a transfer of wealth from the middle and working class people to the upper levels of wealthy people.    They should name it the Reverse Robin Hood Tax Reform Bill.   Take from the poor and give it to the rich.

One deception that became apparent in the final day:   Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has been painting a rosy picture, declaring that cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy will essentially pay for itself by the phenomenal growth that will stimulate.   And he said he had hundreds of people "working around the clock" on the numbers, which would be revealed before the vote on the bill.   In the end, he never put out any such report.

The first assumption was that the numbers didn't add up to show what he had promised.   Buy then there were leaks from some of these "worker bees," who said they had never been tasked with crunching numbers for a so-called "dynamic scoring" of the bill, where you take into account the effect of anticipated growth on the long-range effects.   Nobody was doing that; they were working on something entirely different from the tax plan.    So Mnuchin simply was lying.

It's a travesty of legislative process.   But Republicans have apparently sold their soul.   The push had been two-fold:    (1)  Big donors were demanding the big tax cuts and threatening to cut off campaign money if they didn't get it;  and (2) Trump was demanding that they pass something, and he didn't much care what;  he just had to have a piece of legislation by the end of his first year.

But you know who has the last say in this?    Voters.   And the 2018 election is coming in less than a year.  Every single member of the House will have to face voters, as will a number of the senators.    And then 2020 isn't too far off after that, when the presidency will be up to the voters.

Ralph

NOTE:    Only the next day after I posted this did I notice that my headline called it a "tax bilk."    My conscious intent was to write "tax bill."   But I decided to let it stand -- because "bilk" exprsses my real feelings about the tax bill.