This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Here is the Jan. 27 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents. |
At Eclectablog of Michigan, LOLGOP writes—The Kochs are spending $400 million this year to buy themselves another election:
A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness finds that it turns out a tax cut that gives 83 percent of its total benefits to the richest 1 percent with three-quarters of its individual tax cuts going to those earning over $200,000 will help our pals the Koch brothers.
International Business Times reports:
A new analysis has found that political mega-donors Charles and David Koch and/or the business they operate could make between $1 billion and $1.4 billion more money each year, thanks to the tax breaks in legislation passed in December by Republican members of Congress. The two brothers are currently worth a combined $104.4 billion.
In related news, CNBC reports:
The network of advocacy groups tied to billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch pledged to spend close to $400 million on campaign contributions and policy initiatives in the lead-up to the vote in November, a 60 percent jump in spending from the 2016 election cycle, officials said. One of the hallmarks of that effort is a fresh influx of support for the Republican tax plan, with up to $20 million devoted to selling its benefits to voters this year.
Of all the “effects” of the giant tax cuts for those who need them the least, this is the one we need to pay the most attention to because, as Twitter must-follow @JesseCharlesLee notes:
At The Montana Post, Josh Manning writes—Welcome to America’s Authoritarian Future:
When I wrote for generals and policymakers we had a simple phrase for getting information to them quickly in products–Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF). So having wasted that sentence, here is the BLUF for everyone at this key moment in American history:
In the past few days, President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress have taken United States many steps closer to becoming an authoritarian state. Full stop.
The unraveling, rapid fire events since Monday show us a few things. One, Trump is going to do what he says he wants to do. Two, the Republicans in Congress are not only going to allow these acts to happen but they are also going to aid and abet them. Three, Russian President Vladimir Putin played his hand beautifully in creating this political disaster in which we now find ourselves.
Our own Nate Kosted has a post up laying out what happened the past few days and how it eerily similar to the Watergate cover up. The similarity is certainly there but the difference now is that we have a Congress willing to participate because they are just as culpable in the crime too.
Last December I gathered with a group of veterans at a retreat in Pennsylvania where we gamed out potential scenarios for the Trump administration if it turned toward authoritarianism. It was a sober, serious conversation and no one left that retreat feeling especially upbeat. While I have had a few similar moments the past year, today is the most frightened I have been since those few serious days. And it is not just me, it is a lot of smart friendswho have studied how authoritarianism spread in other places.
At Washington Liberals, Don Smith writes—Choose Your Battles Wisely:
I saw a facebook post that was encouraging overturning of I-200 (the voter-approved initiative which prohibits affirmative action and similar racial preferences). I support over-turning I-200 but that’s not my highest priority. My highest priorities are economic inequality and environmental justice.
As I commented on the post, many people think the bill is of mixed benefit, all things considered. Specifically, overturning I-200 risks alienating some voters who progressives need on other issues. I know a Chinese lady who voted for Trump because, she said, her son was at a disadvantage getting into an Ivy League school because of affirmative action. I don’t think she is a racist.
Do we fight about identity politics? Or do we fight about economic and environmental justice? Or both?
Our resources and political capital are limited. So, yes, I support overturning I-200. Given a choice between spending political capital on that bill and spending it on other issues, what’s the best choice?
We have legalized marijuana and gay marriage — which are good to have. But Washington State have the most regressive tax system in the nation, and I want our legislators to tackle that issue, which is a foundation for so much more that we want: education, public transit, an adequate social safety net, housing, environmental stewardship, and guaranteed health care for all.
At The Left Hook of San Jose, California, a staffer writes—Pierluigi Oliverio Called Out for Sexual Harassment:
Ouch. That’s the automatic reaction to this hard-hitting video about the sexual harassment case against Pierluigi Oliverio, who is now running for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors:
Pierluigi has already raised the maximum amount of funds for his campaign, but one has to wonder whether some of his contributors will want their money back.
At Blue in the Bluegrass of Kentucky, Yellow Dog writes—The Rights We've Been Waiting 80 Years For:
These are the human rights FDR wanted to enshrine in our Constitution eight decades ago. The repugs beat him back then, and have been beating the American people into the ground ever since.
These rights are not radical. They are basic human rights available and affordable to hundreds of millions of people in civilized nations around the globe.
But we're not civilized. We're corporate drones and peasants in a capitalistic, kleptocratic plutocracy. Because the obscenely rich have stolen every dime to ensure we never have the strength to demand our rights.
Noah at Down with Tyranny:
At Juanita Jean’s of Texas, Juanita Jean Herownself writes—Oh Blake, You Ducky Devil You:
Remember when South Texas Congressslob Blake Farenthold promised to repay the $84,000 of taxpayer money he used to payoff a woman he had sexually harassed?
That was on December 3rd and he promised to repay it within a week.
I hope you haven’t been holding your breath or tapping your fingers on the breakfast table waiting for Blake to write a check.
U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold has backed off his pledge to pay back a taxpayer-funded sexual harassment settlement.
A member of his communications staff says, on the advice of counsel, Farenthold is “waiting to see what changes the House makes to the Congressional Accountability Act before repaying the funds.”
No, no, uh uh, no. Whatever changes they do make, Blake still owes you and me $84,000. Nothing is gonna change that except for a check for $84,000 with Blake’s signature on it.
Now here’s the fun part. It ain’t like he can’t afford it. He’s worth $6.6 million smackeronis.
Write a damn check, Blake.
At Appalachian Voices, Erin Savage writes—5 graphs explain coal in Trump’s first year:
One year into the Trump Administration, the coal industry that the president promised to revive has shown some muted signs of life. Nationwide, coal production ticked up last year for the first time since 2014, and the sector added 1,035 jobs — an increase of 1.9%. (A Reuters analysis using preliminary data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration put the number at 771 new coal jobs in 2017.) The administration claims this uptick as evidence that their anti-regulatory agenda is having its desired effect.
Unfortunately for Trump and the coal industry, though, 2017 appears to be an outlier in which coal overperformed. The coal industry’s fortunes are tied to market demand, not regulatory actions, and the same factors that have depressed coal demand for the past decade — cheap and abundant natural gas, air quality concerns, and depleted reserves — are as present now as when Trump took office.
Many of the administration’s policy actions in 2017 were aimed at bringing coal jobs back to mining communities. In the name of restoring these jobs, the administration repealed the Stream Protection Rule, initiated repeal of the Clean Power Plan, rescinded a moratorium on new federal coal leases, discontinued a programmatic review of the federal coal leasing system, repealed a rule closing loopholes in federal coal royalties, empaneled a committee of fossil fuel advocates to steer federal mineral royalty policy, announced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, and canceled a National Academy of Sciences study of the health impacts of Mountaintop Removal mining. [...]
Although we share the president’s intention to bring economic prosperity to coal-producing regions, we believe his strategy of de-regulating coal mining and burning is unlikely to produce the forward-looking economic prosperity that coal regions need. The economic headwinds facing the coal industry are the result of competition from less expensive energy sources, depleted coal reserves that are more expensive to mine, growing consumer and business demand for cleaner sources of energy, and a carbon-constrained world. Until the administration is able to solve these problems, doubling down on the economic potential of the coal industry is a poor policy for promoting economic growth.
At Bleeding Heartland of Iowa, desmoinesdem writes—How old is Iowa's electorate?
Probably older than you think.
The median age of Iowa residents is 38 years old, as of 2016. But the median Iowa voter this year will be much older than that. The preponderance of voters over age 50 could influence the outcome of the Democratic race for governor as well as the general election.
For decades, older Americans have voted at higher rates than middle-aged people, who in turn have voted at higher rates than young adults. The pattern holds for presidential elections but is more pronounced in midterm years, when turnout drops off significantly among younger voters.
The numbers in this table come from the statewide statistical report on the last midterm.
About 64 percent of Iowans who voted in the last midterm were at least 50 years old. Only about one-sixth were under 35.
At Better Georgia, Shelby Steuart writes—Education czar eyes Atlanta for next round of school “turnaround” projects:
A year and a half ago, Better Georgia and a coalition of teachers, parents and advocates fought hard to stop Gov. Nathan Deal from taking local control away from our public schools and handing them over to his handpicked, unelected education czar.
Thanks to a lot of hard work by the coalition, voters overwhelmingly rejected Deal’s school takeover measure at the polls in 2016, marking a huge win for pro-public education Georgians.
But instead of listening to what Georgians actually want, Deal decided to slither around voters last year. He underhandedly implemented the policy through legislation called The First Priority Act. The First Priority Act allows the “education czar” to take schools away from school district control if they haven’t improved three years after being identified as low performing.
Chief Turnaround Officer Eric Thomas, the so-called education czar, chose his first round of schools back in December. Although he said he was “invited,” he was met with protesters.
Thomas is now about to pick his second round of schools for eventual takeover. Since nearly half of the 104 schools whose performance was rated low enough for Thomas to come in are in metro Atlanta, it’s likely that’s where he’s headed next.
At The Bayou Brief of Louisiana, Lamar White, Jr. writes—The most shameless man in Louisiana politics:
Now, he is facing seven felony counts, including two for perjury and five for malfeasance in office; the case is scheduled to go to trial in late February.
In a state that has always suffered from a surplus of corrupt politicians, the story of Brian Pope stands out as extraordinarily shameless and, at times, both comically and dangerously inept.
Sure, other politicians have been more corrupt. After all, former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin is currently sitting in a jail cell in Oakdale, at the same federal prison once home to former governor Edwin Edwards and, until recently, former congressman William Jefferson.
But Brian Pope is somehow more brazen and yet not nearly as sophisticated.
Chances are that if you’re not from Acadiana, you’ve probably never heard of him, and if you are from Acadiana, you’re probably tired of hearing about him.
At Show Me Progress of Missouri, WillyKay writes—
So our notably priggish Attorney General Josh Hawley thinks that the sexual revolution (read, liberated women) gave us human trafficking and prostitution:
“The sexual revolution has led to exploitation of women on a scale that we would never have imagined, never have imagined,” Hawley told the crowd. “We must … deliver a message to our culture that the false gospel of ‘anything goes’ ends in this road of slavery. It ends in the slavery and the exploitation of the most vulnerable among us. It ends in the slavery and exploitation of young women.”
I’ve got two points to make abut this remarkably revealing statement:
First, it’s not surprising. Hawley is part of that segment of the Evangelical right-wing that adopted the strategy justifying misogyny and repression of women as something that they’re doing for the little woman’s own good. You know – like all the TRAP laws that are ostensibly meant to protect women, but which end up imposing burdensome requirements that make it increasingly difficult to obtain reproductive care? You’ve surely heard wingers tell you that abortion has to be banned because it causes cancer and endangers the mental health of women – otherwise known as junk science used to serve the repressive conservative agenda.
In this case, Hawley is selling the message that women need to be protected from too much freedom since, given male nature, I guess, it only encourages men to treat them poorly. Fortunately, #MeToo is showing that women can, if they stick together, deal with male objectification – which itself greatly predates the sexual revolution – on their own; we don’t need the Hawleys of the world to protect us by reinstating the crippling repression that typified so much of the female experience before the 1960s.
Second, as Senator Claire McCaskill and umpty-ump other folks have already remarked, when they were finally able to stop laughing at Hawley’s touching naivete, prostitution and what we now call “trafficking” – which my grandmother (born 1883) called “white slavery” – predates the sexual revolution by a good number of years – like forever. In Victorian London, estimates of the number of women engaged in prostitution ranged between 50,000 to 80,000. And, given the dire condition of much of the Victorian working class it’s not too hard to understand why. Where there’s poverty and powerlessness, there will be prostitution, often lots of prostitution.
What Hawley is overlooking in his effort to explain the burgeoning sex market is the role that poverty – and, yes, the traditional subordination of women – play in rendering women vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
At Blogging Blue of Wisconsin, Ed Heinzelman writes—Senator Ron Johnson Embarrasses Wisconsin On The Big Stage…AGAIN!
Many of us realized that Republican Senator Ron Johnson was in over his head during the primary during his first campaign for US Senate. A full blown product of the Tea Party explosion, anti-science denier of climate change and an opponent of affordable health care for Americans…Senator ‘Sun Spots’ Johnson went totally off the rails on the media including NPR this morning with his wackiest position to date.
He expounded on a supposed conspiracy theory that there is a secret society in the FBI opposed to the Trump regime. It was bad enough that he was holding court on this loony position he actually started yelling at the NPR interviewer. And part of his rant? “…the Clinton emails!”
The worst thing here is Senator Johnson’s denigration of the FBI…another attempt to discredit the FBI no matter his denial in this interview. Like fake news of the GOP defenders of the president say it often enough, they apparently hope any charges coming from the Mueller investigation will be regarded as fake, or at least biased and politically motivated, as well.
Here is a link to the NPR interview. You can read the transcript or listen to him rant…pick your poison.
Later today the Washington Post, CBS, CNN and other outlets reported that Senator Johnson walked his statements back. Unfortunately we have five more years before we get another swing at him.