bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’

TIME FOR SOME PRESIDENTIAL REFORMS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on May 23, 2024 at 12:36 am

The upcoming 2024 Presidential election has raised serious issues which demand addressing. 

Unfortunately, it’s too late to apply such remedies to this election. But they could be in place by the time the 2028 election occurs. 

Reform #1: Institute mandatory FBI background investigations on all declared Presidential candidates.

Donald Trump’s trial for hush money payments to porn “star” Stormy Daniels has highlighted an issue that should have been addressed long ago: Americans don’t know as much about their candidates for President as they think they do. 

  • As the trial testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker has revealed: In August, 2015, he met with Trump at Trump Tower and offered to use the Enquirer to catch and kill any allegations of extramarital affairs against Trump.
  • Later he personally facilitated a $150,000 payment to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal to keep her affair with Trump hushed up.
  • This came in addition to Trump’s paying $130,000 in hush money to Daniels to ensure his 2006 tryst with her didn’t emerge during the campaign.

Stormy Daniels claims she had 'generic' sex with Trump in 2006: He now faces charges over hush money | Daily Mail Online

Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels

  • Similarly, in 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy successfully ran for President while concealing his affliction with Addison’s Disease—an insufficiency of the Adrenal glands that can prove fatal.

Thus, all future candidates for President should be required to submit to full FBI background investigations at least one year before election time—with the results released before the election. Any candidate refusing to participate should be barred from competing.

You’re not allowed to become an FBI agent or Cabinet Secretary without passing a background investigation. You shouldn’t be allowed to become President without one, either.

Reform #2: No Presidential candidate can be over 70 at the time s/he leaves office. 

The Federal Aviation Administration mandates that commercial airlines cannot employ pilots after they reach the age of 65.

FBI agents have a mandatory retirement age of 57.

Commissioned officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps must retire by 64.

Yet Donald Trump is 77 and will turn 78 on June 14. Joseph Biden is 81 and will turn 82 on November 20.

If Trump wins, he will be 82 in 2028, his last year in office (assuming he doesn’t stage another—and successful—coup attempt). If Biden wins re-election, in 2028 he will be 86 (assuming he’s still alive by then).

Funeral of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (photo by Boris Yurchenko, 1982). : r/MarxistCulture

Funeral for Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev – 1982

The Presidency is notorious for prematurely ageing its occupants: “The typical president ages two years for every year they are in office,” said Dr. Michael Roizen. He used presidential medical records from the 1920s through today to reach this conclusion.

The United States Presidency is becoming a mirror-image of the former Soviet Union:

  • In 1982, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev died at age 75.
  • He was succeeded by Yuri Andropov—who died, in 1984, at age 69.
  • He, in turn, was followed by Konstantin Chernenko—who died in 1985 at age 73.

Finally, the Politburo—tired of replacing the General Secretary every two years—elected 54-year-old Mikhail Gorbachev, who lived to leave office six years later at age 60.

In the United States, having two geriatric Presidential candidates has become comic fodder for late-night TV hosts. Yet voters fear that neither candidate can handle the strains of another four years as President—or even survive a full term.

Reform #3: Abolish the honorific title of “Mr. President” for ex-Presidents.

This used to be offered as a tribute to a former President for having won the support of the majority of Americans.

But Donald Trump has corrupted this phrase, as he has so much else in American life. Since losing the 2020 Presidential election, he has continued to insist that he is the legitimate President of the United States, and Joseph Biden is a usurper.

When his fanatical followers refer to him as “President Trump,” that is what they mean—thus trying to de-legitimize Biden’s Presidency and elevate Trump as the rightful victor.

The 2005 Stolen Valor Act makes it a federal misdemeanor for anyone to falsely claim to have received any U.S. military decoration or medal—such as the Medal of Honor or Purple Heart. Violating the law can lead to fines, up to a year in prison, or both.

Thus, Congress should mandate that only the current holder of the Presidency has the legal right to call himself “Mr. President”—and that right ends when he no longer occupies the White House. 

Reform #4: Require millionaire ex-Presidents to pay for Secret Service protection. 

Every ex-President since Dwight D. Eisenhower—even Jimmy Carter—has been a millionaire.

Assigning a platoon of elite Secret Service agents to watch over every ex-President 24/7 is a huge expense.

The case of Ronald Reagan is instructive: At a cost to the government of $10 million annually, Reagan—while living in a 7,200 square-foot mansion overlooking Beverly Hills—received lifetime Secret Service protection from 40 fulltime agents.

What does the U.S. Secret Service do? - Quora

United States Secret Service

It’s also an unnecessary expense. There has never been an attack on an ex-President in all of American history. 

Still, if the powers-that-be consider this essential, then millionaire ex-Presidents should be required to pay for their protection—just as moguls and Hollywood celebrities do.

As the situation now exists, the government is simply providing welfare for the rich. Whereas the poor face strict limits on how high their income can be and still receive welfare.

PREVENTING THE NEXT SHUTDOWN: PART FIVE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on October 6, 2023 at 12:11 am

Republicans are already gearing up for their next extortionate threat: Do what we want or we’ll shut down the Federal Government.  

Among the consequences:

“If you don’t send out Social Security checks, I would hate to think about the credit meeting at S&P and Moody’s the next morning,” said Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

“If you’re not paying millions and millions and millions of people that range in age from 65 on up, money you promised them, you’re not a AAA” credit rating.

But this does not have to happen.

REMEDY 2: THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD INDICT FOR EXTORTION THOSE HOLDING THE GOVERNMENT HOSTAGE.

President Joseph Biden could order the Justice Department to invoke the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Passed by Congress in 1970, as Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968, its goal was to destroy the Mafia.  

The United States Department of Justice

RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys.  Among those crimes: Extortion

Extortion is defined as “a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.” 

And if President Biden believed that RICO was not sufficient to deal with Republicans’ extortion attempts, he could rely on the USA Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9/11.

In Section 802, the Act defines domestic terrorism. Among the behavior defined as criminal:

“Activities that…appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [and]…occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

The remedies for punishing such criminal behavior were now legally in place. President Biden needs only to direct the Justice Department to apply them.

PROBLEM: This would require a Democratic President and Justice Department to act courageously—which would be a rarity for either.

Example: 147 Republican Congressional members voted to invalidate the Electoral College vote count of the 2020 Presidential election. To this date, not one has been indicted for treason.

REMEDY 3: PRESIDENT BIDEN SHOULD ATTACK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

Numerous Republicans have taken “campaign contributions”—i.e., bribes—from Russian oligarchs linked to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

One Russian oligarch—Len Blavatnik—has given millions of dollars to top Republican leaders such as Senators Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Marco Rubio (Florida) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

Putin’s monies have been well-spent: About 90 House Republicans—out of a total of 213—attended Volodymyr Zelensky’s address to Congress on December 21, according to CQ Roll Call. Some who did spent much of the speech on their phones. 

Many Republicans—such as former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who in 2021 received about $255,000 from Blavatnik—have openly threatened to end all funding for Ukraine’s heroic struggle against Russian aggression.

Kevin McCarthy, official photo, 116th Congress.jpg

Kevin McCarthy

Even some “Reagan Republicans”—such as James Kirchick, a conservative foreign correspondent and author—have openly denounced this treason.

Thus, the White House could ignite an internal conflict within the Right by pitting Republicans against each other.

PROBLEM: Democrats rarely find the courage to attack their enemies as traitors, even when the treason is manifest—as it was when Donald Trump was elected President with the support of Vladimir Putin.

REMEDY 4: CITIZENS WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN DRASTICALLY HARMED BY REPUBLICAN POLICIES COULD CHOOSE “THE HEYDRICH SOLUTION.”

Reinhard Heydrich was second-in-command of the dreaded Schutzstaffel, or Protective Squads, better known as the SS. Among his his multitude of crimes Designing “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question,” resulting in the slaughter of six million men, women and children.

In 1941 he was appointed “Reich Protector” of Czechoslovakia, which Nazi Germany had absorbed in 1938. The Czechs were growing restive under brutal Nazi rule, and Heydrich’s mission was to stamp out that unrest.

Reinhard Heydrich

The Czech government-in-exile, headquartered in London, decided to assassinate Heydrich.

Two British-trained Czech commandos—Jan Kubis and Joseph Gabcik—parachuted into Prague—where they got unexpected help from Heydrich himself.

Supremely arrogant, like today’s Republican leaders, he traveled the same route every day from home to his downtown office, refusing to be escorted by armed guards. He claimed that no one would dare attack him.

He was wrong.

On May 27, 1942, Kubis and Gabcik waited at a hairpin turn in the road always taken by Heydrich. When Heydrich’s Mercedes slowed down, Gabcik raised his machinegun–which jammed. Rising in his seat, Heydrich aimed his revolver at Gabcik—as Kubis lobbed a hand grenade at the car.

The explosion drove steel and leather fragments of the car’s upholstery into Heydrich’s diaphragm, spleen and lung.

Adolf Hitler dispatched doctors from Berlin to save the Reich Protector. But infection set in, and on June 4, 1942, Heydrich died at age 38.   

ADVISORY: While this remedy is not suggested, it remains an extremely real possibility. Those who have lost access to food, housing and/or medical care for themselves or loved ones under “screw-the-poor” Republican policies could easily decide to follow the advice of Winston Churchill.

When England seemed threatened with a German invasion in 1940, his daughter-in-law, Pamela, asked: “But, Papa, what can I do?”

Replied Churchill: “You can always get a carving knife from the kitchen and take one of the bastards with you.”

PREVENTING THE NEXT REPUBLICAN SHUTDOWN: PART FOUR (OF FIVE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on October 5, 2023 at 12:10 am

One reason why a handful of House Republicans threatened to shut down the Federal Government by October 1: Calling themselves “budget deficit hawks,” they demanded huge cuts in non-military spending.    

Among the programs these cuts would have devastated: Food safety, education, law enforcement, housing, public health, Head Start and child care, Meals on Wheels.

Their attitude toward budget deficits had been vastly different while Donald Trump was President.

On August 2, 2019, Trump signed into law a two-year budget deal that raised spending by $320 billion over existing spending caps set in a 2011 law—and boosted military and domestic spending.

The bill also lifted the debt ceiling, which is the legal limit on the amount of debt the federal government can have.

The bill threatened to push the budget deficit to more than $1 trillion in 2019 for only the second time since the Great Recession of 2007-2008 and add $1.7 trillion to the federal debt over a decade.

Official White House presidential portrait. Head shot of Trump smiling in front of the U.S. flag, wearing a dark blue suit jacket with American flag lapel pin, white shirt, and light blue necktie.

Donald Trump

By January, 2021, the national debt had risen by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s four years in office. It amounted to about $23,500 in new federal debt for every person in the country. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) praised the Republicans’ massive contribution to the national debt.

Now, with a Democratic President  in office, Republicans—invoking the my-way-or-else “negotiating” strategy of Adolf Hitler—were threatening to plunge the United States into financial ruin unless their extortion demands were met.

The casualties of a government shutdown would include: 

  • Seven million vulnerable mothers and children would stop receiving monies for food under the Women and Children (WIC) program.
  • All active-duty military personnel and law enforcement officers would be forced to work without pay until appropriated funds became available. 
  • If additional catastrophes occurred, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund could be depleted, thus complicating new emergency response efforts. 
  • Critical research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s would stall because the National Institutes of Health would be forced to delay new clinical trials.
  • Air traffic controllers and Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) officers would be forced to work without pay. The added stress they would face from being unable to meet rent and food payments could dangerously affect their job performance.
  • Most EPA-led inspections at hazardous waste sites as well as drinking water and chemical facilities would stop. 
  • The Food and Drug Administration would be forced to delay food safety inspections for a wide variety of products across the country. 

Here’s what Republicans demanded in return for not shutting down the government:

  • Severe cuts would be made to Social Security by increasing the age of future retirees.
  • Disabled Americans on Medicare would be forced to wait longer to receive benefits.
  • Medicare would be turned into a voucher system—which would remove the guarantee for seniors to have access to affordable medical care.
  • Taxes would be cut for the wealthy and corporations.
  • More requirements would be imposed on the poor trying to obtain social services.
  • “Regulatory reforms that increase economic growth” (i.e. allowing corporations to ignore laws protecting employees, customers and/or the environment) would become law.
  • Further funding to defend Ukraine against continuing aggression by Russia would end.

Image result for Extortion

By a last-minute compromise between House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Democrats, this latest Republican extortion attempt was averted.

But current funding will expire on November 17. And then the country will face yet another date with financial disaster.

Fortunately, there are several ways to permanently address these exercises in political criminality.

REMEDY 1: LEGALLY REQUIRE CONGRESS TO STAY IN SESSION UNTIL A BUDGET COMPROMISE IS REACHED.

The federal government’s fiscal year ends every September 30. Before this deadline, Congress must write and pass the budget for the next fiscal year. If a budget agreement is not reached in time, funding for federal agencies lapse and the government shuts down. 

Yet with the shutdown deadline looming, on July 29, the House and Senate broke for their annual August recess. The Senate remained in recess until September 5; the House remained in recess until September 12.  

Congress had to enact all 12 appropriations bills or pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the federal government funded and avoid a shutdown on October 1.

NEEDED: A law requiring Congress to remain in session until a budget compromise is reached. Any Congressional member who leaves before this occurs would be immediately discharged and never allowed to return. 

PROBLEM: This would require Congressional members to impose restrictions on themselves—which they are unwilling to do.

REMEDY 2: THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD INDICT FOR EXTORTION THOSE HOLDING THE GOVERNMENT HOSTAGE.

President Joseph Biden could order the Justice Department to invoke the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Passed by Congress in 1970, as Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968, its goal was to destroy the Mafia.  But in United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981), the Supreme Court held that RICO applied as well to legitimate enterprises being operated in a criminal manner. 

After Turkette,  RICO could also be used against corporations, political protest groups, labor unions and loosely knit-groups of people.

RICO opens with a series of definitions of “racketeering activity” which can be prosecuted by Justice Department attorneys.

These activities include a Republican favorite: Extortion.

PREVENTING THE NEXT REPUBLICAN SHUTDOWN: PART THREE (OF FIVE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on October 4, 2023 at 12:15 am

Republicans have repeatedly utilized the same my-way-or-else “negotiating” strategy as Nazi Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.     

And Democrats—out of cowardice or an ignorance of history—have repeatedly refused to publicly make this comparison.

By studying Adolf Hitler’s mindset and “negotiating” methods, we can learn much about the mindset and “negotiating” style of today’s Republican party.

Robert Payne, author of the bestselling biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), described Hitler’s “negotiating” style thus: 

“Although Hitler prized his own talents as a negotiator, a man always capable of striking a good bargain, he was totally lacking in finesse. 

“He was incapable of bargaining. He was like a man who goes up to a fruit peddler and threatens to blow his brains out if he does not sell his applies at the lowest possible price.” 

Republicans have repeatedly threatened to shut down the government unless their constantly escalating demands are met. 

A shutdown occurs when Congress fails to approve funding for federal agencies.

In November, 1995, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, carried out his threat to shut down the government. Gingrich unwisely admitted that he did so because President Bill Clinton had put him in the back of Air Force One during a recent trip to Israel.

The shutdown proved a disaster for Republicans. Clinton was handily re-elected in 1996 and Gingrich suddenly resigned from Congress in 1998. 

Still, the Republicans continued their policy of my-way-or-else.

In April, 2011, the United States government almost shut down over Republican demands about subsidized pap smears.

During a late-night White House meeting with President Barack Obama and key Congressional leaders, Republican House Speaker John Boehner made this threat: His conference would not approve funding for the government if any money were allowed to flow to Planned Parenthood through Title X legislation.

Facing an April 8 deadline, negotiators worked day and night to strike a compromise—and finally reached one.

Three months later—on July 9—Republican extortionists again threatened the Nation with financial ruin and international disgrace unless their demands were met. 

18,813 Handprint Stock Photos and Images - 123RF

Symbol of the Mafia “Black Hand”

This time, Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to massively cut social programs for the elderly, poor and disabled.

And while Republicans demanded that the disadvantaged tighten their belts, they rejected any raising of taxes on their foremost constituency—the wealthiest 1%.

To raise taxes on the wealthy, they insisted, would be a “jobs-killer.” It would “discourage” corporate CEOs from creating tens of thousands of jobs they supposedly wanted to create. 

President Obama had offered to make historic cuts in the federal government and the social safety net—on which millions of Americans depend for their most basic needs.

But House Speaker John Boehner rejected that offer. He could not agree to the tax increases that Democrats wanted to impose on the wealthiest 1% as part of the bargain.

As the calendar moved ever closer to the fateful date of August 2, Republican leaders continued to insist: Any deal that includes taxes “can’t pass the House.”

One senior Republican said talks would go right up to—and maybe beyond—the brink of default.

“I think we’ll be here in August,” said Republican Representative Pete Sessions, of Texas. “We are not going to leave town until a proper deal gets done.” 

President Obama had previously insisted on extending the debt ceiling through 2012. But in mid-July, he simply asked congressional leaders to review three options with their members:

  1. The “Grand Bargain” choice—favored by Obama—would cut deficits by about $4 trillion, including spending cuts and new tax revenues.
  2. A medium-range plan would aim to reduce the deficit by about $2 trillion.
  3. The smallest option would cut between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion, without increased tax revenue or any Medicare and Medicaid cuts.

And the Republican response?

Said Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: “Quite frankly, [Republican] members of Congress are getting tired of what the president won’t do and what the president wants.”

Noted political analyst Chris Matthews summed up the sheer criminality of what happened within the House of Representatives.

Chris Matthews

Speaking on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” on July 28—five days before Congress reached its August 2 deadline to raise the debt-ceiling—Matthews noted: 

“The first people to bow to the demands of those threatening to blow up the economy were the Republicans in the House, the leaders. The leaders did what the followers told them to do: meet the demands, hold up the country to get their way.

“Those followers didn’t win the Senate, or the Presidency, just the House. But by using the House they were able to hold up the entire United States government. They threatened to blow things up economically and it worked.

“They said they were willing to do that—just to get their way—not by persuasion, not by politics, not by democratic government, but by threatening the destruction of the country’s finances.

“Right. So what’s next? The power grid? Will they next time threaten to close down the country’s electricity and communications systems?”

With the United States teetering on the brink of national bankruptcy, President Obama caved in to Republican demands.

PREVENTING THE NEXT REPUBLICAN SHUTDOWN: PART TWO (OF FIVE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on October 3, 2023 at 12:41 am

In facing off against President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi proved the embodiment of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “lion and the fox.”

Trump couldn’t believe that Pelosi meant it when she politely refused to let him give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives until he reopened the Federal Government.

He dared her to say plainly that she would deny him access. 

So she did—issuing a statement saying that the speech was off until the government reopened. 

Related image

Donald Trump

Pelosi didn’t let herself be drawn into any Twitter slugfests with a semi-literate dictator. She could well afford to sit out the shutdown, since only the Fascistic Right truly believed she was responsible for it. 

And she capitalized on the unexpected help she received from one of Trump’s highest-ranking officials: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Asked on CNBC if he knew that many Federal employees had been reduced to going to food banks, Ross—a billionaire—said yes, but he didn’t understand why.

His suggestion: They could just take out a loan.   

“So the 30 days of pay that some people will be out, there’s no real reason why they shouldn’t be able to get a loan against it, and we’ve seen a number of ads of financial institutions doing that. 

“True, the people might have to pay a little bit of interest. But the idea that it’s ‘paycheck or zero’ is not a really valid idea.” 

Wilbur Ross Official Portrait.jpg

Wilbur Ross

It was a remark worthy of Marie Antoinette’s reported (but inaccurate) dismissal of the miseries of impoverished French citizens: “Let them eat cake.”

And Pelosi didn’t hesitate to point it out:

“Is this the ‘Let them eat cake,’ kind of attitude? Or ‘Call your father for money?’ Or ’This is character-building for you; it’s all going to end up very well—just as long as you don’t get your paychecks?’” 

As CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza saw it: “What Pelosi seems to understand better than past Trump political opponents is that giving ANY ground is a mistake. You have to not only stand firm, but be willing to go beyond all political norms—like canceling the SOTU—to win.” 

And Julian Zelitzer, another CNN political analyst, agreed: “Pelosi did not hesitate to use her political power aggressively. From the start of this process, she has remained steadfast in her insistence that closing the government was not a legitimate way to make demands for new forms of spending. 

“While sometimes Democrats become leery about seeming too partisan and not being civil enough, Pelosi and the Democrats stood their ground. She drew a line in the sand and stuck by it.” 

When Republicans claim that Democrats aren’t being “civil,” they mean: “They’re not doing exactly as we tell them to do.”

And of course Republicans tried to convince voters that Trump had not threatened to shut down the government—and then had done so. Republicans like Texas United States Senator Rafael “Ted” Cruz repeatedly railed against the “Pelosi-Schumer shutdown.”

But the vast majority of voters weren’t having it. They had seen the original broadcast where Trump made his threat. And if they had missed the original, there were plenty of re-broadcasts of that moment on news networks to alert them.

As Pelosi and Democrats held firm, Republicans began getting desperate.

  • They were being depicted in the news as extortionists while 800,000 of their fellow Americans suffered.
  • Those businesses that served them—such as grocery stores and auto repair shops—were being starved of revenue.
  • There was legitimate fear that the entire airline industry might have to shut down for lack of enough air traffic controllers to regulate air traffic. 
  • Worst of all for Republicans, chaos at airports threatened the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of people traveling to and from the upcoming Super Bowl. Most Americans might not know the name of their Senator, but they take their sports fetish seriously.

By January 25, the 35th day of the shutdown, an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% of Americans blamed Trump for the shutdown. His popularity had fallen to a historic low of 37%. And 60% disapproved of how he was handling negotiations to reopen the government. 

So, on that same date, Trump did what his Hispanic-hating base thought was impossible: He caved. 

He walked into the White House Rose Garden and said he would sign a bill to reopen the government for three weeks.

Nancy Pelosi

Trump had said he would not give the State of the Union address on his originally scheduled date of January 29th. But eventually he did.

Unlike Trump, who revels in bragging about how powerful and brilliant he is, Pelosi didn’t have to.

Simply sitting behind him, probably trying hard to suppress a gleeful smile, she nevertheless reminded the audience that she was the one who had taught this failed businessman “the art of the deal.” 

Pelosi turned over the Speakership to Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) in 2023. There was no guarantee that future Speakers would stand so forthrightly against extortion.

PREVENTING THE NEXT REPUBLICAN SHUTDOWN: PART ONE (OF FIVE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on October 2, 2023 at 12:16 am

In the waning hours of September 30, the United States averted the latest Republican shutdown of the Federal Government.

President Joseph Biden signed into law the stopgap bill to avert a government shutdown passed by Congress.

Funding for federal agencies was set to run out at midnight on October 1. 

The Senate passed the measure after the House of Representatives abruptly reversed course earlier in the day and passed a bipartisan bill to extend government funding.

For weeks, no one knew whether a shutdown could be averted.

So the government will remain open—until November 17.

Then the country will be treated to yet another Republican extortion attempt: “Give us what we want or we’ll shut down the government again.”

The last time a government shutdown occurred was in December, 2019, during the Presidency of Donald J. Trump.

As Speaker of the House (2007 – 2011); (2018 – 2023), Nancy Pelosi proved she was equal to the challenge.

On December 11, 2018, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer met with Trump in the Oval Office.

And, true to his love of publicity, Trump made sure the meeting was televised live on TV.

Nancy Pelosi 2012.jpg

Nancy Pelosi

Trump soon moved to the matter he truly cared about: Demanding $5.6 billion to create a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border: “And one way or the other, it’s going to get built. I’d like not to see a government closing, a shutdown. We will see what happens over the next short period of time.”

PELOSI: I think the American people recognize that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is not worth anything, and that you should not have a Trump shutdown. You have the White House—

TRUMP: Did you say Trump—

PELOSI: A Trump shutdown. You have the White House— 

TRUMP: I was going to call it a Pelosi shutdown. 

Chuck Schumer official photo.jpg

Charles Schumer

TRUMP: The wall is a part of border security. You can’t have very good border security without the wall.

PELOSI: That’s simply not true. That is a political promise. 

[By “political promise,” Pelosi meant this was an appeal Trump made to his hardcore base. which he expected to re-elect him.]   

SCHUMER: Twenty times you have called for, “I will shut down the government if I don’t get my wall.” None of us have said—you’ve said it. 

TRUMP: Okay, you want to put that on my—I’ll take it. You know what I’ll say: “Yes, if we don’t get what we want, one way or the other…I will shut down the government. Absolutely.”

Trump, determined to bully Pelosi and Schumer into bending to his will, didn’t realize he had just set himself up for disaster.

Trump shut down the government on December 22. About 380,000 government employees were furloughed and another 420,000 were ordered to work without pay.

And Trump told Congressional leaders the shutdown could last months or even years.

For Trump, “the wall” was absolutely necessary—but not to keep illegal aliens out. They would go over, under or around it.

The real intent of the wall was to keep Trump in—the White House. 

Trump’s fanatical base believed that a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border would stop all illegal immigration. And he knew that if he didn’t build it, they wouldn’t re-elect him.

The effects of the shutdown quickly became evident:  

  • For weeks, hundreds of thousands of government workers missed paychecks.
  • Increasing numbers of employees of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA)—which provides security against airline terrorism—began refusing to come to work, claiming to be sick.
  • At the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) many air traffic controllers called in “sick.” Those who showed up to work without pay grew increasingly frazzled as they feared being evicted for being unable to make rent or house payments. 
  • Due to the shortage of air traffic controllers, many planes weren’t able to land safely at places like New York’s LaGuardia Airport.
  • Many Federal employees—such as FBI agents—were forced to rely on soup kitchens to feed their families.
  • Celebrity chef Jose Andres launched ChefsForFeds, which offered free hot meals for government employees and their families at restaurants across the country. 
  • Many workers tried to bring in money by babysitting or driving for Uber, 

Pelosi, unlike many Democrats, realized this was America’s version of the Munich Conference: Democrats must hold firm against a tyrant’s extortionate demands. Otherwise, every time Trump didn’t get his way, there would be no end to such shutdowns in the future.

From the start, Pelosi insisted that Democrats would not surrender to threats of a government shutdown. And Democrats held firm, refusing to make concessions on the wall.

Second, Pelosi publicly stated that Trump could not make his annual State of the Union speech in the House of Representatives until the government was re-opened.

She politely cited as her reason that the building would not be “secure” owing to the shutdown and the nonpayment of the men and women who would be charged with its protection.

Since both the House and Senate must jointly issue an invitation to the President to make such an address, Pelosi’s veto effectively scotched Trump’s appearance. 

For the publicity-addicted Trump, who revels in pontificating to adoring crowds, this was a major—and unexpected—blow. 

NANCY PELOSI: THE LION AND THE FOX: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on December 29, 2022 at 12:15 am

In facing off against President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi proved the embodiment of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “lion and the fox.”

Trump couldn’t believe that Nancy Pelosi meant it when she politely refused to let him give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives until he reopened the Federal Government.

He dared her to say plainly that she would deny him access. 

THE LION

So she did—issuing a statement saying that the speech was off—until the government reopened. 

Related image

Donald Trump

THE FOX:

Pelosi didn’t let herself be drawn into any Twitter slugfests with a semi-literate dictator. She could well afford to sit out the shutdown, since only the Fascistic Right truly believed she was responsible for it. 

And she capitalized on the unexpected help she received from one of Trump’s highest-ranking officials: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Asked on CNBC if he knew that many Federal employees had been reduced to going to food banks, Ross—a billionaire—said yes, but he didn’t understand why.

His suggestion: They could just take out a loan.   

“So the 30 days of pay that some people will be out, there’s no real reason why they shouldn’t be able to get a loan against it, and we’ve seen a number of ads of financial institutions doing that. 

“True, the people might have to pay a little bit of interest. But the idea that it’s ‘paycheck or zero’ is not a really valid idea.” 

Wilbur Ross Official Portrait.jpg

Wilbur Ross

It was a remark worthy of Marie Antoinette’s reported (but inaccurate) dismissal of the miseries of impoverished French citizens: “Let them eat cake.”

And Pelosi didn’t hesitate to point it out:

“Is this the ‘Let them eat cake,’ kind of attitude? Or ‘Call your father for money?’ Or ’This is character-building for you; it’s all going to end up very well—just as long as you don’t get your paychecks?’” 

As CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza saw it: “What Pelosi seems to understand better than past Trump political opponents is that giving ANY ground is a mistake. You have to not only stand firm, but be willing to go beyond all political norms—like canceling the SOTU—to win.” 

And Julian Zelitzer, another CNN political analyst, agreed: “Pelosi did not hesitate to use her political power aggressively. From the start of this process, she has remained steadfast in her insistence that closing the government was not a legitimate way to make demands for new forms of spending. 

“While sometimes Democrats become leery about seeming too partisan and not being civil enough, Pelosi and the Democrats stood their ground. She drew a line in the sand and stuck by it.” 

When Republicans claim that Democrats aren’t being “civil,” they mean: “They’re not doing exactly as we tell them to do.”

And of course Republicans tried to convince voters that Trump had not threatened to shut down the government—and then had done so. Republicans like Texas United States Senator Rafael “Ted” Cruz repeatedly railed against the “Pelosi-Schumer shutdown.”

But the vast majority of voters weren’t having it. They had seen the original broadcast where Trump made his threat. And if they had missed the original, there were plenty of re-broadcasts of that moment on news networks to alert them.

As Pelosi and Democrats held firm, Republicans began getting desperate.

  • They were being depicted in the news as extortionists while 800,000 of their fellow Americans suffered.
  • Those businesses that served them—such as grocery stores and auto repair shops—were being starved of revenue.
  • There was legitimate fear that the entire airline industry might have to shut down for lack of enough air traffic controllers to regulate air traffic. 
  • Worst of all for Republicans, chaos at airports threatened the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of people traveling to and from the upcoming Super Bowl. Most Americans might not know the name of their Senator, but they take their sports fetish seriously.

By January 25, the 35th day of the shutdown, an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% of Americans blamed Trump for the shutdown. His popularity had fallen to a historic low of 37%. And 60% disapproved of how he was handling negotiations to reopen the government. 

So, on that same date, Trump did what his Hispanic-hating base thought was impossible: He caved. 

He walked into the White House Rose Garden and said he would sign a bill to reopen the government for three weeks.

And, for Pelosi, the sweetest moment was yet to come. 

Nancy Pelosi

True, Trump had said he would not give the State of the Union address on his originally scheduled date of January 29th. But eventually he did.

And when this happened, Pelosi sat directly behind him—along with Vice President Mike Pence—the whole time.

Unlike Trump, who revels in bragging about how powerful and brilliant he is, she didn’t have to.

Simply sitting behind him, probably trying hard to suppress a gleeful smile, she nevertheless reminded the audience that she was the one who had taught this failed businessman “the art of the deal.”

NANCY PELOSI: THE LION AND THE FOX: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on December 28, 2022 at 12:11 am

It’s one of the most famous passages in The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli’s classic work on Realpolitik.

A prince…must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to avoid traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. Those who wish to be only lions do not realize this.”

Portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli by Santi di Tito.jpg

Niccolo Machiavelli

As House Minority Leader (2011 – 2019) and then Speaker of the House (2007 – 2011; 2019 – 2023), Nancy Pelosi proved she was both.

But her greatest contributions to the United States almost certainly came during the last two years of the infamous Trump administration.

THE FOX: 

On December 11, 2018, Pelosi—then House Majority Leader—and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, met with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

And, true to his love of publicity, Trump made sure the meeting was televised live on TV.

Nancy Pelosi 2012.jpg

Nancy Pelosi

Trump soon moved to the matter he truly cared about: Demanding $5.6 billion to create a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border: “And one way or the other, it’s going to get built. I’d like not to see a government closing, a shutdown. We will see what happens over the next short period of time.”

[“One way or the other”—“so doer so”—was a favorite phrase of Adolf Hitler’s, meaning: If he couldn’t bully his opponents into surrendering, he would use violence.]

PELOSI: I think the American people recognize that we must keep government open, that a shutdown is not worth anything, and that you should not have a Trump shutdown. You have the White House—

TRUMP: Did you say Trump—

PELOSI: A Trump shutdown. You have the White House— 

TRUMP: I was going to call it a Pelosi shutdown. 

Chuck Schumer official photo.jpg

Charles Schumer

TRUMP: The wall is a part of border security. You can’t have very good border security without the wall.

PELOSI: That’s simply not true. That is a political promise. 

[By “political promise,” Pelosi meant this was an appeal Trump made to his hardcore base. which he expected to re-elect him.]   

SCHUMER: Twenty times you have called for, “I will shut down the government if I don’t get my wall.” None of us have said—you’ve said it. 

TRUMP: Okay, you want to put that on my—I’ll take it. You know what I’ll say: “Yes, if we don’t get what we want, one way or the other…I will shut down the government. Absolutely.”

Trump, determined to bully Pelosi and Schumer into bending to his will, didn’t realize he had just set himself up for disaster.

Trump shut down the government on December 22. About 380,000 government employees were furloughed and another 420,000 were ordered to work without pay.

And Trump told Congressional leaders the shutdown could last months or even years.

For Trump, “the wall” was absolutely necessary—but not to keep illegal aliens out. They would go over, under or around it.

The real intent of the wall was to keep Trump in—the White House. 

Trump’s fanatical base believed that a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border would stop all illegal immigration. And he knew that if he didn’t build it, they wouldn’t re-elect him.

The effects of the shutdown quickly became evident:  

  • For weeks, hundreds of thousands of government workers missed paychecks.
  • Increasing numbers of employees of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA)—which provides security against airline terrorism—began refusing to come to work, claiming to be sick.
  • At the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) many air traffic controllers called in “sick.” Those who showed up to work without pay grew increasingly frazzled as they feared being evicted for being unable to make rent or house payments. 
  • Due to the shortage of air traffic controllers, many planes weren’t able to land safely at places like New York’s LaGuardia Airport.
  • Many Federal employees—such as FBI agents—were forced to rely on soup kitchens to feed their families.
  • Celebrity chef Jose Andres launched ChefsForFeds, which offered free hot meals for government employees and their families at restaurants across the country. 
  • Many workers tried to bring in money by babysitting or driving for Uber, 

THE LION:

Pelosi, unlike many Democrats, realized this was America’s version of the Munich Conference: Democrats must hold firm against a tyrant’s extortionate demands. Otherwise, every time Trump didn’t get his way, there would be no end to such shutdowns in the future.

From the start, Pelosi insisted that Democrats would not surrender to threats of a government shutdown. And Democrats held firm, refusing to make concessions on the wall.

Second, Pelosi publicly stated that Trump could not make his annual State of the Union speech in the House of Representatives until the government was re-opened.

She politely cited as her reason that the building would not be “secure” owing to the shutdown and the nonpayment of the men and women who would be charged with its protection.

Since both the House and Senate must jointly issue an invitation to the President to make such an address, Pelosi’s veto effectively scotched Trump’s appearance. 

For the publicity-addicted Trump, who revels in pontificating to adoring crowds, this was a major—and unexpected—blow. 

REPUBLICANS: AIR RAGE OVER MASKS ISN’T TERRORISM

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 2, 2022 at 12:18 am

During the first six weeks of 2022, nearly 500 unruly passenger incidents were reported to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

That makes for more than 6,400 since the start of 2021.

About two-thirds of the incidents in 2021 concerned violations of the federal mask mandate. 

On February 16, the FAA said it had referred a total of 80 incidents to the Justice Department to consider criminal prosecution.

Federal Aviation Administration Jobs - Program Support Assistant - March 2022

Airlines may ban an unruly passenger from their own flights, but competition rules mean that information is not shared with other carriers. Which means that a flier who was banned on Delta might board a flight on Southwest.

In September, 2021, the airline industry asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish a Federal “no-fly” passenger list, whose information would be shared with all airlines.

In February, Delta Air Lines renewed the request in a letter to the DOJ.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg suggested to CNN’s Dana Bash last fall that a federal no-fly list for violent airplane passengers “should be on the table.” 

American Airlines Pilot Captain Dennis Tajer explained the dangers facing everyone on board when an “air rage” incident erupts: “The moment something happens in the back of the aircraft, as a captain, my attention goes off of my primary duty and onto the back of the airplane.” 

American Airlines pilot reveals 1,600 who were furloughed 'won't fly again until August' | Daily Mail Online

Dennis Tajer

Tajer, who represents the Allied Pilots Association, wants stricter punishments for air rage.

So who isn’t in favor of a “no-fly” ban?

At least eight “law-and-order” Republican United States Senators.

Their names:

  • Rafael Eduardo “Ted” Cruz (Texas)
  • Mike Lee (Utah)
  • Cynthia M. Lummis (Wyoming)
  • James Lankford (Oklahoma)
  • Marco Rubio (Florida)
  • Kevin Cramer (North Dakota)
  • John Hoeven (North Dakota)
  • Rick Scott (Florida)

All eight are virulent supporters of Donald Trump, who, as President, refused to wear a mask and incited violent action against governors who declared mask mandates.

The reason for their unexpected clemency: It would be unfair to people who break mask mandates. 

In a jointly-signed letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, dated February 14, they stated:

“Your office received a letter from Delta Airlines on February 3, 2022. In that letter, Delta indicated their desire for the U.S, Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a comprehensive “nofly” list.

“This list would would presumably include any airline passenger who has been convicted of any on-board disruption. As a result, those passengers would subsequently be banned from using any commercial air service provider moving forward. We write today to express our strong opposition to the creation of such a list.

“While airlines are currently free to deny service to any individual over past transgressions on their flights, the federal government’s role in denying access to the commercial aviation network has been limited to ensuring that suspected terrorists remain off of domestic flights. 

“According to data from the Federal Aviation Administration, the majority of recent infractions on airplanes has been in relation to the mask mandates from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

“While we strongly condemn any violence toward airline workers, there is significant uncertainty toward the efficacy of this mandate as highlighted by the CEO of Southwest Airlines during a recent Senate Conference, Science and Transportation Committee hearing.” 

N95 and Other Respirators | CDC

N95 mask

There is no uncertainty about the efficacy” of the ability of masks to protect people from COVID-19. Since the virus appeared in 2020, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has repeatedly urged Americans to mask up to protect themselves and others.

“Creating a federal ‘no-fly’ list for unruly passengers who are skeptical of this mandate would seemingly equate them to terrorists who seek to actively take the lives of Americans and perpetrate attacks on the homeland.” 

Being “skeptical” of the need for mask mandates poses no threat to anyone. But refusing to mask up to protect yourself and others from a deadly virus presents a danger to both. And attacking airline employees who are trying to enforce that law presents a clear and present danger to them and passengers.

“The TSA was created in the wake of 9/11 to protect Americans from future horrific attacks, not to regulate human behavior aboard flights.”

In short: It’s OK to protect American airline passengers from Islamic lawbreakers who endanger their lives aboard aircraft. But it’s unfair to protect American airline passengers from American lawbreakers who endanger their lives aboard aircraft.

“The creation of this list by DOJ would result in a severe restriction on the ability of citizens to fully exercise their constitutional right to engage in interstate transportation.”

At the time the Constitution was ratified in 1788, airline travel didn’t exist. In addition, it’s customary to place “severe restrictions” on citizens who break the law. And while Americans have the right to travel between states, they do not have the right to threaten the safety of others while doing so.

Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants, minced no words about the senators’ request: It’s “irresponsible and political brinkmanship that puts our economic security at risk right along with our lives.

“We’ve been punched, kicked, spit on, and sexually assaulted. We urge the FAA, TSA, and DOJ to come together to implement a plan with due process to keep dangerous flyers on the ground.”

NANCY PELOSI: THE LION AND THE FOX: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on February 7, 2019 at 12:07 am

Donald Trump couldn’t believe that Nancy Pelosi meant it when she politely refused to let him give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives until he reopened the Federal Government.

He dared her to say plainly that she would deny him access. 

THE LION

So she did—issuing a statement saying that the speech was off—until the government reopened. 

Soon afterward, Trump agreed that the State of the Union address would have to be postponed.

Related image

Donald Trump

THE FOX:

Pelosi didn’t let herself be drawn into any Twitter slugfests with a semi-literate dictator. She could well afford to sit out the shutdown, since only the Fascistic Right truly believed she was responsible for it. 

And she capitalized on the unexpected help she received from one of Trump’s highest-ranking officials: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Asked on CNBC if he knew that many Federal employees had been reduced to going to food banks, Ross—a billionaire—said yes, but he didn’t understand why.

His suggestion: They could just take out a loan.   

“So the 30 days of pay that some people will be out, there’s no real reason why they shouldn’t be able to get a loan against it, and we’ve seen a number of ads of financial institutions doing that. 

“True, the people might have to pay a little bit of interest. But the idea that it’s ‘paycheck or zero’ is not a really valid idea.” 

Wilbur Ross Official Portrait.jpg

Wilbur Ross

It was a remark worthy of Marie Antoinette’s reported (but inaccurate) dismissal of the miseries of impoverished French citizens: “Let them eat cake.”

And Pelosi didn’t hesitate to point it out:

“Is this the ‘Let them eat cake,’ kind of attitude? Or ‘Call your father for money?’ Or ’This is character-building for you; it’s all going to end up very well—just as long as you don’t get your paychecks?’” 

As CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza saw it: “What Pelosi seems to understand better than past Trump political opponents is that giving ANY ground is a mistake. You have to not only stand firm, but be willing to go beyond all political norms—like canceling the SOTU—to win.” 

And Julian Zelitzer, another CNN political analyst, agreed: “Pelosi did not hesitate to use her political power aggressively. From the start of this process, she has remained steadfast in her insistence that closing the government was not a legitimate way to make demands for new forms of spending. 

“While sometimes Democrats become leery about seeming too partisan and not being civil enough, Pelosi and the Democrats stood their ground. She drew a line in the sand and stuck by it.” 

When Republicans claim that Democrats aren’t being “civil,” they mean: “They’re not doing exactly as we tell them to do.”

And of course Republicans tried to convince voters that Trump had not threatened to shut down the government—and then had done so. Republicans like Texas United States Senator Rafael “Ted” Cruz repeatedly railed against the “Pelosi-Schumer shutdown.”

But the vast majority of voters weren’t having it. They had seen the original broadcast where Trump made his threat. And if they had missed the original, there were plenty of re-broadcasts of that moment on news networks to alert them.

As Pelosi and Democrats held firm, Republicans began getting desperate.

  • They were being depicted in the news as extortionists while 800,000 of their fellow Americans suffered.
  • Those businesses that served them—such as grocery stores and auto repair shops—were being starved of revenue.
  • There was legitimate fear that the entire airline industry might have to shut down for lack of enough air traffic controllers to regulate air traffic. 
  • Worst of all for Republicans, chaos at airports threatened the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of people traveling to and from the upcoming Super Bowl. Most Americans might not know the name of their Senator, but they take their sports fetish seriously.

By January 25, the 35th day of the shutdown, an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% of Americans blamed Trump for the shutdown. His popularity had fallen to a historic low of 37%. And 60% disapproved of how he was handling negotiations to reopen the government. 

So, on that same date, Trump did what his Hispanic-hating base thought was impossible: He caved. 

He walked into the White House Rose Garden and said he would sign a bill to reopen the government for three weeks.

And, for Pelosi, the sweetest moment was yet to come. 

Nancy Pelosi

True, Trump had said he would not give the State of the Union address on his originally scheduled date of January 29th. But eventually he would.

And when this happened, Pelosi would be sitting directly behind him—along with Vice President Mike Pence—the whole time!

Unlike Trump, who revels in bragging about how powerful and brilliant he is, she wouldn’t have to.

Simply sitting behind him, no doubt trying hard to suppress a smile of glee, she would nevertheless remind the audience that she was the one who taught this failed businessman “the art of the deal.”