Deal or No Deal?

That indeed, is the question of the day. President Biden and Speaker of the House, McCarthy, have each presented their case to their respective parties. If the two parties agree on the Debt Ceiling Bill once written, there will be no default and they will raise the Federal debt ceiling limit for two years, negating the need to do this wrangling all over again in a year.

As reported in the New York Times: “It is an important step forward that reduces spending while protecting critical programs for working people and growing the economy for everyone,” Mr. Biden said. “And the agreement protects my and congressional Democrats’ key priorities and legislative accomplishments. The agreement represents a compromise, which means not everyone gets what they want.”

Speaker McCarthy now has to sell the deal to his disgruntled caucus and explain why they will not get everything they wanted, but that the Democrats won’t either. That is the adult concept known as a compromise and is something his hard-liners have said they will not do.

On the other side, Progressive Democrats are not happy that the agreements will hold spending at last year’s levels and may hold back some initiatives they hold dear on the social safety net and the environment.

It seems there will be some minor changes in the SNAP payments age/work requirements, a repurposing of unused COVID funds and a roll-back of some allocations promised to the FBI (which were mis-characterized by the right). Since the written bill is not released as of this writing, I do not have further details.

McCarthy said he plans to bring it to the House for a vote by Wednesday, May 31^st. It will then go to the Senate, and then to the White House, should it pass both Houses of Congress. That remains a big if. So, hold onto your hats, get your scorecards ready, and wait.

Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen said on Friday that the government will run out of money by June 5th, which is a week from tomorrow. I certainly hope that those in Congress will accept these deals. Somehow, we have gotten away from the days where give and take in legislative decisions was a given, the normal flow of a workday. Too often, partisan rhetoric has presented itself as discussion when it is posturing without listening to those on the other side.

Until this increase in the debt ceiling is signed, the country’s finances are in some type of limbo. Seniors will not know if their Social Security checks will arrive on time, government employees will be unsure if they can go to work or if the Federal government will pay them when they do. Government vendors will wonder if this discussion will delay the processing of their invoices.

The Stock Market might have a sell-off as businesses try to avoid a recession and devaluing of their assets. The United States might see a drop in its credit rating as our allies watch in dismay. The country should not be facing this state of affairs. The debt ceiling should have been routinely raised as a matter of ordinary business, just as it was three times under the former president.

But, no, there are some conservatives in Congress who think we elected them to tear down the government instead of to make it function more efficiently. They are standing with the MAGA folks who are supporting the default wing of the party. The Republican Party chair, Ronna Daniels, has also spoken in favor of default, saying that to do so would help her party. Way to support your country, Ronna!

This is being written on Sunday evening, so the waiting will continue. I hope that all of our legislators will put the needs of our country above those of their party and support raising the debt limit.

In other news, reports continue to suggest that Special Counsel, Jack Smith, is close to indicting the former president on issues related to the Mar-a-Lago classified documents. In reporting from the Washington Post this week, Smith has testimony from employees there that DJT directed a type of dress rehearsal about moving these documents aside, even before the subpoena for them was first issued. This could lead to a charge of obstruction of justice. Others have said he shared some of the classified materials with casual visitors, which could lead to an espionage charge. But on the recent CNN Town Hall, the former president did not deny this action, but deflected the question, saying he could share them as he had the right and continued to insist the papers were his to do with as he chose.

In related news, this past week Stuart Rhodes, the leader of the Proud Boys, who has been convicted of sedition and other charges in relation to actions on January 6^th, was sentenced to eighteen years in Federal Prison. His deputy received a sentence of twelve years. Although Rhodes did not enter the Capitol, his communications showed leadership of those who did and intent to overthrow a legal, elected government. He was defiant in court and called for the re-election of DJT. Of course, the former president has now stated he plans to pardon the January 6^th insurrectionists when he is elected.

In other news, this week saw the first anniversary of the school massacre at Uvalde Texas. The legislature there has not banned assault rifles, and a bill to raise the age to purchase such weapons failed despite intense lobbying by Uvalde families and others.

The right wing of the Republican party also struck back at claims about the Allen TX Shopping Mall shooting recently. Despite law enforcement showing the torso of the shooter, smeared with swastikas, and published rantings with on-line postings in white supremacist sites, many claimed he could not be a white supremacist since he had a Hispanic background. (This ignores the reality that white supremacists can be of varied backgrounds and that many Hispanics identify as white.) They also claimed that when a person of South Asian descent rammed into the White House Guard House and fence with a U-Haul truck, while displaying a Nazi flag, and stated he wanted to kill the president. Too close to home, guys?

This has been a kinda messy week, hasn’t it? (DeSantis next week, cause his launch was whacky!)

In news regarding Ukraine, the city of Bakhmut has been reduced to rubble by the Russians Wagner Army whose leader is fighting with Putin and his generals about supplies. Some say that over 100,000 Russian soldiers have died in this war so far; total casualties are unknown. Civilian casualties are not adequately counted because of captures, civilian movements, kidnappings, and mass graves.

The leader of Belarus, Mr. Lukashenko, was hospitalized for treatment of poisoning after a recent meeting with Putin; he remains in critical condition. The population of Belarus does not support Putin’s war and Lukashenko refused to send troops. Is this Putin’s revenge? Shouldn’t average Russians be tired of having their president's enemies being pushed out of windows, shot in the streets, and poisoned? Or is it their leaders do not make them aware of these atrocities? Has Putin finally overstepped? One can hope that this immoral man who cloaks himself in the trappings, but not the morality of religion, is someday brought to justice in a world court.

And, finally, today, in Turkey, in a runoff, strong-man Erdogan was re-elected; another blow against democracy as he prepares for a third term after twenty years in office. His opponent was not allowed to have a presence on state-run media and used social media; not a fair fight. Erdogan also escaped the blame for shoddy apartment construction and lack of oversight, which led to excess deaths in the recent horrific earthquakes in Turkey.

“Til next week-Peace!

The Debt-Will Sanity Prevail?

President Biden is cutting short his long-planned G-7 meeting in Japan to return home to take part in talks on raising the national debt limit. Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, whose party created this unnecessary crisis, postured instead when he spoke about the Presidents’ trip, claiming that he should have stayed at home and taken care of the nation’s problems. This showed, yet again, the Republican Party’s short-sightedness and lack of understanding of America’s role in the global sphere.

Financial markets are already concerned about the possibility of a default despite the Presidents’ assurances that this will not happen. The far-right Republicans in Congress are cheering for default to happen. Some will not care if a depression results, with the credit rating of the nation, threatened and interest rates going up. They do not think it will hurt them but believe that Americans will blame the President instead

The Speaker knows he will need Democratic votes to get anything passed and has to walk a tight line to stay in office as his caucus cares little about defaults and a lot about deficits. They seem incapable of understanding that raising the debt ceiling just allows the government to pay for expenses already incurred and approved by a previous Congress. But why agree when you think you can hold the Democratic Administration hostage with demands to penalize the least able in our society?

President Biden presented his budget to the House earlier in the year and expected that he would negotiate with McCarthy over their differences. He has said that he will not do so over the debt ceiling. McCarthy has refused to present his budget but came up with a debt relief bill that stands no chance of passing the Senate. Indeed, now some members of his caucus are saying they will not allow the debt ceiling to be raised until their bill with its draconian cuts aimed at seniors, Medicaid recipients, students, and veterans is passed in the Senate.

In an unprecedented move, they also propose restricting Presidential rules and executive regulations: “This proposal is a step in the right direction toward restoring fiscal responsibility. It also puts limits on federal bureaucrats and the regulatory state by implementing the REINS Act, which requires a congressional vote for all new major rules and regulations.”

Going back to owning the libs and blaming the left, Congressman Goode of VA, one of those who opposed McCarthy, has said he now supports the speaker but believes the Democrats will sign their bill (the Limit Save Grow Act) to prevent a default. I would not bet on this!

This is truly a do-nothing Congress. The Republican members do not care to understand that this should be a formality. The debt limit was routinely raised three times under the former President (who boosted the total debt owed by trillions with his tax cuts for the wealthy.) Then, when necessary Federal spending during the pandemic raised the debt more, Republicans supported their President, as did Democrats, because this was in the national interest.

Now that we again have a divided government, it appears that Republicans can no longer think of the national interest but have been small and petty. They wish to compel the states to raise the age for work requirements for those on Medicaid, even though many who are on this program are already working- but at low-paying jobs with no benefits. The bill encourages states to slash benefits to their currently covered groups and make stricter eligibility for SNAP or food benefits, many of which help older adults and children. Some recipients may be chronically ill or disabled or have small children and have no way to pay for caregivers or daycare, so they can take on a job. The benefits in some Southern states are so truncated that single men and women without dependents, practically are excluded and need not bother to apply even if they have medical conditions that could qualify them in many other states. They propose cutting funds to hospitals that have a disproportionate share of poor patients and are in areas such as urban centers that provide service to residents, many of which are people of color and are sicker than those who have good access to health care.

Their proposals include attacking the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), yet again, even as enrollment showed that millions of people are now the beneficiaries of this much-needed healthcare legislation. What is their message to possible uninsured Americans–either die or incur such medical debt that you will spend your remaining days paying off medical bills?

The Republicans like to claim they support Veterans. However, the proposal which tries to hold the budget at 2022 levels includes a 22% cut in overall benefits for veterans. Although the Republicans claimed they would not touch spending for Medicare, Social Security, and the Military, holding at the previous levels does not take into consideration any increases in costs because of inflation or other costs of living, such as routine contractual raises for Federal employees. Cost of living increases such as in Social Security, which are also tied to the cost of living, would increase costs there. So, while they may claim that there are no cuts to Medicare or Social Security in their budget, by not factoring in the normal increases, they are decreasing benefits. Some economists think that to balance the budget in ten years without touching certain programs, most of the government would have to be shut down; that is, most of the governmental agencies that help run this country. Do Americans really want that?

They are also trying to roll back funding for legislation passed for some of President Biden’s signature programs on climate protection, funds for electric cars, and other measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

This must be the “Nero effect”- continuing to burn fossil fuels while the earth heats up! Way to go folks–touting irresponsible leadership all the way!

Following along with the whacky Jim Jordan and his sub-Committee on The Weaponization of Government, the radical right wants to roll back the monies in last year’s legislation that gave the Internal Revenue Service more money to hire internal staff, not agents, as he claims, but clerical staff to reduce the backlog of troublesome tax returns. Jordan claims the Democrats want more middle-class people to get tax audits. The Democrats have actually proposed that more people in the top bracket, who often pay little in taxes, considering their wealth, should get audited more frequently.

The Law-and-Order Party is also talking about defunding the FBI and the hearings this week that attempted to feature “whistle-blowers” were shown instead to be the opposite. Their so-called secret witnesses were people let go by the FBI after actions that made them lose their clearances and thus, their employment. It came to light that they were also recipients of funds after the FBI fired them from Kash Patel, a well-known flunky of the former president. So, Jordans’ big hearing and his explosive witnesses were debunked as they spoke. Jordan, in a disregard for House rules, refused to share his investigations with the Democrats on the Committee, claiming that his whistleblowers did not want to be outed prematurely.

Despite all of their rhetoric, the Republicans are finding out to their surprise, that there are not a lot of places to cut and still keep the government running. Perhaps they are trying to go back to the Reagan era when some bureaucrats wanted to defund government programs right and left and: Grover Norquist, who founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 at the urging of President Reagan, declared in 2001: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

The continued thrust by Republicans to reduce taxes was ultimately to then not have enough money to support the Social Safety net that Americans have depended on for years. Workers paid into Social Security and Medicare funds for most of their working years. It is so very petty of Republicans to turn around and call these funds welfare; these are monies that the workers have earned and that the government has saved in trust for them. That is why they are called entitlements. Maybe the one-percenters don’t need these funds to retire, but most Americans do.

Many elected officials in the Senate are millionaires, but few in the House are that rich. I believe they must have older relatives who rely on government programs and wonder how they can be so negative about them when these still affect their own families.

So, will the teams find any breakthroughs? Will returning unspent COVID dollars to the Treasury be enough of a balm to soothe the savage souls on the right? Or will they demand blood money still and hostage scalps from the left? When did we become such a nation that cares little for our brothers and sisters, but sees only the roar of the dollar?

Will the Democrats on the left have their countering demands as they try to protect their constituents? How will the White House and the President get these issues resolved in ten short days as a bill to raise the debt ceiling must pass both Houses of Congress by June first?

Keep your fingers crossed that some sanity will prevail and we shall avoid default.

“Til next week -Peace!

The Jury Believed Carroll

Last week, a Federal jury (six men and three women) found that the former president sexually molested writer E. Jean Carroll and publicly defamed her when he called her a liar and fabricator when she wrote about an incident. For this behavior, they found him civilly liable for monetary damages that totaled over five million dollars. The jury did not find that he raped her, as she claimed.

During the trial, DJT’s lawyer attacked the claimant, saying she made this encounter up. He said that if it really happened, she would have screamed. She stated she was too shocked and hysterical to scream. Her defense presented two women to whom she reported the behavior within minutes of it happening. One woman told her to go to the police; the other one said to not call them as it would be a “he said, she said” issue and he was famous and had money. The abusive encounter happened in the late 1990s well before the outrages seen in the “Me Too Movement”. DJT’s attorney berated her for not remembering the exact date; neither she nor her friends marked it on their calendar! Ms. Carroll, now 79 years old, has been trying to get her day in court for years. When the former president was in office, she was told that even though he defamed her after her 2017 book came out, she could not sue a sitting president. When he repeated the remarks after he left the White House, she sued again. She also explained that her generation often viewed rape as a failure on the woman’s part. They were the silent generation and just picked themselves up and carried on. Recent changes in New York law allowed her to sue, despite limits on civil suits in place earlier. Other women testified he had molested them in public places; one woman sat next to him on a plane and changed her seat to get away from him.

Under pre-trial deposition, the former president (who did not show up at the trial, even though he said he would do so) claimed to have never met Carroll, and when shown a photo of him with her, identified her as his former wife, Marla. He also said that neither Carroll nor her attorney was his type. He defended his behavior on the infamous Access Hollywood “grabbing” tape, saying that such behavior had endured for centuries, unfortunately, or fortunately.

The day after the jury announced the verdict, CNN held a Town Hall in New Hampshire before a crowd of supposedly undecided voters. That was not true; this was a MAGA crowd. Reporters noted many who had been in crowds elsewhere. The former president was in rare form. He told stolen election lies, made many false claims about the Biden administration, defended the January 6^th insurrectionists, and again called Carroll a whack job, claimed again that he had never met her. He even said that were he to be re-elected, he would pardon many who have been convicted of assaulting officers and damaging the Capitol.

He also said that he had the right to take any documents he wished out of the White House and made false statements about the search at Mar-a-Lago. He did not directly answer the moderator's questions about whether he had shown any of the documents to others. When she asked him questions he did not like, he called her nasty. He said the Republicans should allow the financial default if President Biden would not agree to their demands, even though the debt ceiling had been raised three times when he was president. His administration drove the debt ceiling higher than any modern presidency. He verbally ran over the reporter, shouting her down when she tried to correct his statements or intervene in a monologue.

CNN was highly criticized for this program and its format. Other news people said that there should have been a better-screened audience and the program should have been taped, not live, to allow for fact-checking. CNN gave him an open platform to spew his drivel, basically almost without correction. The viewing audience count for the show was low, so perhaps not much harm was done. Some pundits claimed that his doubling down on election issues, Jan 6^th, and the Secret and Confidential documents, gave the Justice Department more evidence to use against him. One can only hope that this was so!

Most women who are raped or molested do not speak up as E. Jean Carroll has done. But maybe, with this civil suit and other criminal convictions for the “Me Too” complaints, people will start listening more to women. They will not have to blame themselves or give in to the statements saying their dress was too short or too tight as if that permitted the assault. All of us should thank Carroll for her tenacity and her bravery. Since he has said he will appeal, as is his right, I hope she lives long enough to collect her money.

Today, as I write, Mother’s Day is winding down. Mothers across the country have been feted, and gifted with flowers, brunches, or cookouts. As a mother, I have enjoyed this day. In America, this is often the cultural experience. Throughout the world, this day may be very different.

One of my friends posted a video on Facebook that showed Asian mothers working under incredible circumstances, carrying their babies in slings on their bodies, or safely strapping their baby to a pole while working in rice paddies, carrying crops in huge baskets, running machinery, etc. I found it very sad.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/542477014768056/?s=single_unit

I have little doubt that the women in this video have few options; they must work to survive and care for their infants and perhaps others in their households. They may not have a special day where they are celebrated.

So, while I agree it is great to celebrate mothers, I also believe that it is important to allow them to be individuals and not be shoved into the “Mom” stereotype. Many career women today find themselves struggling with the Super Mom stereotype. They could be part of the sandwich generation, carrying for young children, working, and also caring for aged parents.

During the pandemic, when daycare facilities closed, frequently the woman left her job or switched to remote work to care for her children. But, as the video showed, poor women who worked in the fields did not have that option. Service workers whose jobs required that they work in a certain place, providing care or preparing food, did not have this option, either.

So, who cared for their children? Just wondering here. America has little in the way of daycare safety nets. On rare occasions, corporate offices provide daycare on-site, so mothers or fathers can take time from their workday and see their children. Organized licensed daycare is quite expensive, so people who work service jobs have to make do. They may have grandmothers or aunties caring for their children, or they may trade with neighbors or ask boyfriends or the child’s father to provide care. They may do all of this to care for their children. This is not always in the best interest of the child.

So why am I looking at mothers and children? Mothers provide most of the care for children. If a mother decides that she cannot afford to take care of another child, she should have access to adequate healthcare to provide for her needs. She should have access to contraception if that is her choice. She should have access to abortion or sterilization if that is her choice. Society has not done a very good job of convincing men that sterilization and contraception are their shared responsibility. Just this week, there were reports from Texas of a man who killed his girlfriend after she returned from having an out-of-state abortion. This was her right. We must not treat women as objects, baby machines, or property. What if, after she became pregnant, she realized how violent he was and was trying to sever ties; this was her right. What is his right if he was the father? Could a court require her to have a baby that she did not want? Those are sticky questions, not easily answered.

However, in many instances, it is men who are leading the fight to deny abortion services or even contraception as a woman’s choice. By denying bodily choice to women, they are attempting to control them. Denying these rights can keep many women in poverty and deprive many children of adequate food and housing. Too many children divide limited resources more stringently. There are more poor women and poor women of color in the Southern states where abortion is now banned; they will now have to travel long distances to find providers of services for surgical abortions. This is why the struggle for medical abortion medication access is so vital for women living in this area. I hope we can continue this access. Only time and the Supreme Court shall tell.

Happy belated Mother’s Day!

‘Til next week-Peace!

Best Friends?

Do you have some good friends or neighbors? Most people do. They are the folks you invite to parties, go to games with, or know that you can count on if something comes up. If you are sick, maybe they will stop by with some chicken soup or go pick up some groceries for you. If you are an ailing Mom at home with kids, maybe they would take your kids to their house for a few hours or take them to soccer practice if your spouse was away.

However, it seems to me that they would not buy you tires for your car, give you a valuable historical Bible, pay your relative’s school tuition worth thousands and thousands of dollars, or renovate your family home. While they might invite you on a vacation, if they were great friends, they would probably expect you to pay your way, if you were the average person.

They say that the rich are different from you and me. They claim to live by their own rules and sometimes believe that most rules do not apply to them. Pro Publica has reported for several weeks about people doing favors for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginnie. Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, described by commentator David Brooks as a nice man, claims to be friendly with Justice Thomas, who says he is his good friend, even though he did not know him before being selected to the Bench.

Crow treated Thomas and his wife to trips to various Pacific islands, flying them on his private plane and sailing them on his yacht. They also traveled around the Baltics, and the Greek Islands, and vacationed at his Adirondack estate and elsewhere each year. Crow claims that he never asked Thomas to rule to support any issues that came before the court. However, his business is in real estate, and his interests lie with conservative causes, many of which have come before the court over the last several years. Crow is a member of the Club for Growth–an antitax group and supports the Hoover Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, both major conservative Think Tanks. He estimated he has given over ten million documented dollars to Republican causes over the years and more where reporting was not required.

In a portrait prominently displayed at Crows Adirondack estate, Thomas can be seen chatting with Leonard Leo, the founder of the Federalist Society and a major anti-abortion zealot. Crow regularly had major Republican donors and corporate leaders in attendance when Thomas was on his annual vacation, although they claim issues before the court were never discussed.

It was recently revealed that Leo funneled thousands of dollars to Ginnie Thomas through a foundation he controlled and used Kelly Conways’ polling company to hide the payments. Crowe also contributed to Ginnie’s Tea Party groups, as noted below.

According to Pro Publica (noted above):

“Crow met Thomas after he became a justice. The pair have become genuine friends, according to people who know both men. Over the years, some details of Crow’s relationship with the Thomases have emerged. In 2011, The New York Times reported on Crow’s generosity toward the justice. That same year, Politico revealed that Crow had given half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, which also paid her a $120,000 salary. But the full scale of Crow’s benefactions has never been revealed.”

As I mentioned, I am in favor of people having friends. I am not in a position of influence, nor do I get paid $285,000 by the Federal Government to make important decisions based on our Constitution as Justice Thomas is. I am not friendly with Corporate CEOs who have certain views on how they or their businesses should be regulated by the government. But, I recognize that, were I to be in that position, it might be difficult to rule against my friends, no matter how hard I tried to say I was not influenced by social contacts who had not lobbied me.

But, one of the major issues with this information is that Justice Thomas did not report many of these trips or gifts on his financial disclosure forms. He did not report that Crow financed a statue of a favorite teacher whom Thomas had as a child and Thomas dedicated while on a trip financed by Crow. He did not report that Crow purchased and renovated his family home, where Thomas’ mother still lives, and bought adjoining land for a buffer. This week, news reports revealed that tuition worth over 100,000 dollars at private schools over several years for Thomas’ adopted grand nephew was paid by Crow. These funds, too, were not disclosed by Thomas. Are you, like me, wondering just what did Thomas pay for in his daily expenses?

Do you have people, even good friends, who volunteer to help take care of your mother or adopted child? I know I could have used help with my kids’ college tuition, how about you?

The Supreme Court claims the Justices know the ethics rules and follow them. But, here’s the rub-the rest of us do not know what those rules are, so how can we, as a society, police them? Judges in the lower courts have written codes of Ethics and can be impeached if they do not adhere to them. Much has been made of the fact that years ago Justice Abe Fortas stepped down from the Court after questions were raised about work he had done for a private citizen, even though he had never cashed the check for $20,000 he received. It was thought then and should be the practice now, that Justices should be held to the highest standard.

I remember questions were raised when Justice Scalia died while hunting at a private ranch. Reports indicated the ranch was a favorite of the rich and famous who enjoyed hunting for quail and other game. Justices have long traveled to resorts for speeches at law conferences or symposiums with expenses paid by sponsors. They usually reported on these trips with their financial disclosures. I believe it is important for Justices to go out and be heard and also have the opportunity to listen to opinions from regular folks.

Recently Justice Alito complained the public should not criticize the Court. While sitting in his ivory tower and making rulings such as Dobbs, he still wonders? That certainly reinforces the reality of the distance the Court has from the public. When he was being interviewed by the Senate for his position on the Court, he stated Roe was settled law; that it was precedent. And now he wonders why many women no longer trust the court? Senator Durbin recently asked Chief Justice Roberts to testify before his Senate Judicial Committee on Judicial Ethics. He declined the invitation. All members of the Court signed a letter that supported his response.

As reported by NPR-“Since 1991 the justices have followed financial disclosure requirements on gifts, outside earned income, outside employment, etc. These reports are supposed to disclose, among other things, the justices' non-governmental income, investments, gifts, and reimbursements from third parties. Roberts noted that the Judicial Conference has, just this year, tightened some of the disclosure requirements, for instance requiring disclosure of free airplane trips and other gifts from friends that in the past have been exempted.”

On the issue of recusal, the letter noted they left it to the individual Justice to make that decision. Recently Justices Gorsuch and Jackson have indicated that they were involved in lower court decisions on issues that came before the court, so would recuse themselves. Justice Thomas did not recuse himself on issues that the former President had before the Court, even though his wife Ginnie was actively supporting his reelection and efforts to deny the election results.

It should seem obvious to the Chief Justice and others on the Court that it has been their rulings that have distanced the Court from the people at large. The blatant disregard by Justice Thomas for the limited ethics policies in place begs for some kind of established mechanism to be settled to police gifts and other means of influence. The justices complain that their security is threatened and that listing their travel may jeopardize their safety. I think that if they list the travel after a trip is taken, then it should be safe enough to list it annually. If they travel to the same places each year, that might be an issue, but they could handle it.

I used to hold the Court in high esteem. I recognize justices are human and humans can err. However, they have become so political in decisions in recent years that they are being scrutinized more closely. Because of their prominent positions, they receive high salaries, less than if they were in law practices, but substantial nonetheless. They each should live by the highest standards and not allow billionaires to supplement their lifestyles, even if they are “good friends”. They need to produce a written code of ethics so the public can determine if it is being followed.

“Til next week-Peace!!

The News Roundup!

The news lately seems to spin by at warp speed.

Last week, the monumental news was that Fox News company settled the lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems for 850 + million dollars. Although it was far less than what had been requested, they still settled for a significant sum. This week, the Network fired the most popular host on its evening opinion/news programs, Tucker Carlson. News reports note that not only is he being sued by a former program associate for sexist and misogynist speech and actions, but he also made some crude and inappropriate remarks about company officials in emails. The company emails, which were publicized by Dominion, with some portions redacted, played an important role in the lawsuit. The NY Times reported the board got to see the unredacted portions after the settlement and felt that continuing to have a host with this history was untenable. He received notice of his firing last weekend, between shows, so he did not have airway access to give his view.

I never watched Tucker, but I have read about him. He is a multimillionaire and will not be impoverished by losing his job. His family inheritance from the Swanson Frozen food business ensured that he would have a lifelong, steady source of income. He ran his show from a studio in far-off Maine where he could be safe from all the threatening entities he railed against nightly. During the former administration, he often served as a trumpet for DJT and his policies, giving the former president an unquestioned presence on his shows. He produced a fake documentary about January 6^th, where he claimed the insurrectionists were just tourists visiting the nation's Capitol. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave him the raw Capitol Police footage from that day (without approval from the police) so that Carlson could continue to select footage and promote his propaganda.

Over time, his show supported Russians in Ukraine, oligarchs, and authoritarians and claimed that immigrants, Antifa, and Black militants were coming for his viewers in their neighborhoods, maybe even their beds. He often spoke about the great replacement theory, which he claimed meant that Democrats supported the illegal immigration of black and brown people to promote the displacement of the majority white population. By continuing to speak these lies, he promoted racial disunity, and disillusionment with the American Dream and advocated for autocracy.

Some pundits suggested Carlson has enough money to start a news outlet of his own, run for office or join an established outfit such as News Max. He may just bide his time and see how the Republican race is going and decide if to weigh in. He could wait to see what happens with all the legal actions in the future for DJT. To my knowledge, he has not made public comments about his firing or the suit by his former assistant.

There are many, including me, who will not miss him and his contempt for democracy and who hope that he just fades away, although we are not holding our breath waiting for that to happen. His TV slot might well be filled by someone equally bad, but one who does not yet have a following. Rupert Murdoch may be 92, but he is still a Conservative who has meddled in the politics and news of three different nations (his native Australia, the UK, and now America) for most of his life, much to their collective dismay.

In other news, President Biden, to little surprise, announced the beginning of the 2024 Biden-Harris campaign this week. His theme combined the continued fight for Democracy and the Soul of America with finishing up the job his team has started. He can tout his infrastructure bill, the chips legislation, and the prescription drug plan changes, for Insulin and other prescription drugs and other legislation and executive orders. He can point out the administration's support for abortion services and Mifepristone access. He cannot say that he has solved the immigration issue. His leadership in Ukraine has been outstanding. Currently, he is working with a recalcitrant House that produced a draconian budget, with severe cuts to domestic and foreign spending. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank, described the cuts here: Biden stated the debt ceiling is not an issue for bargaining; the budget can be.

This proposal is the Republican plan to hold raising the debt ceiling hostage to budget agreements. However, Senate Leader, Chuck Schumer, called this plan dead on arrival in the Senate, so a stalemate seems looming. Sadly, there appear to be few statesmen on the Republican side who could step up and bring order to this posturing and chaos. Politicians, administration officials, from this and other eras, Treasury officials, and others cannot seem to convince the poorly informed members that the budget and the deficit are separate. One deals with past spending and paying bills already incurred, while the other looks at proposed future spending. The latter is a negotiated matter; the former should be a routine approval and not tied to politics. Minority Leader McConnell has returned from rehab following his injury but states he is staying out of the discussions this time. Under the former president, Congress raised the debt ceiling three times without all of this nonsense.

Meanwhile, the Treasury is moving money around and buying time for the eventual decisions on this issue. Our Allies, including Ukraine, do not know what to expect about financial agreements already made. Will we keep them? The Stock Market also is concerned about a 'never happening', a default by the United States on its financial obligations. Someone has to blink here.

Although a recent poll shows Americans think Biden, at age 80, is too old for the office, his potential opponent at 76 is not so young, either, and seems to be less fit. People have increasingly viewed DeSantis as thin-skinned and lacking people skills, making him not a viable candidate in the eyes of many, even though he is much younger. The President has used Vice-President Kamala Harris to advocate for the administration on the issues of women and minority rights and sent her to foreign capitals and international meetings as a spokesperson, so she is gaining credence on both domestic and international matters.

The investigations into the criminal and civil violations by the former president continue. The DOJ January 6^th investigation heard testimony for several hours from former VP Mike Pence, even though his former boss tried to halt it. Pence, himself, tried to make questioning about his duties in certifying the election off-limits, and partially succeeded in that matter. Some think that special prosecutor Jack Smith is getting ever closer to indictments. Meanwhile, Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis notified local law enforcement that she expects to release indictments that might cause unrest in the upcoming July to September Grand Jury session. There have been concerns about her previous announcement that an indictment was imminent in January. However, an attorney for the illegal special electors in Georgia may have had some issues with communication with her clients and potential conflicts. These concerns may have delayed court proceedings.

Congressman Jim Jordan got a little mileage with his hearing on Staten Island, so he has returned to Washington, where he is trying to compel a former prosecutor in Alvin Bragg's office to testify to his committee. He is also attempting to determine just what information the office has that could make DJT's actions felonies. The attorneys should get most of that information under discovery, but maybe Jordan doesn't understand that.

The civil trial from a claim by writer E. Jean Carroll that the former president raped her back in the 90s is ongoing this week without him in attendance so far. When, after the "Me too" movement, she wrote a book about her experience; he called her a liar. But because he was still in office, Attorney General (and private fixer) Bill Barr ruled he was immune from being sued for his remarks. But after he left office, both he and one of his sons repeatedly called her statements false. When I listened to reports of the incident from the court hearing, it again struck me how it is the woman who comes forth with such claims that is put on trial instead of the perpetrator. She was 52 when this happened and is now 79 years old. I find she is quite courageous to come forward.

Also, in the news this week was the report that entertainer and activist Harry Belafonte died at 96. He was active during the era of the marches with Dr. King and others for voting rights and got many Hollywood stars involved. He paid bail money for jailed marchers and donated much of his wealth to the issues of civil rights. He was passionate and tried to make America a better country for all. I was lucky enough to have seen him twice in performance as a singer and still applaud his talent and leadership.

‘Til next week-Peace!