Questions for Democrats From Me and The Times

To get an Op-Ed piece published in The New York Times you have to give the paper a three-business-day window to review your submission. The Times says it will contact you if they plan to use it. Otherwise, you’re free to publish it anywhere else it might be deemed worthy.

Last Friday night I emailed to The Times 10 questions that should be asked of each Democratic presidential hopeful during next week’s debates. Apparently, great minds think alike, because The Times had been working on a similarly themed idea which it unveiled Wednesday. The Times formulated 18 questions to which 21 candidates provided video responses (https://nyti.ms/2NbBe1Z). 

Having not heard back from The Times by Wednesday night, herewith are my questions (since expanded to a dozen): 

1. Will you support the eventual Democratic party nominee and not run a third party candidacy?

2. What will be your first five executive orders upon taking office?

3. Given what we now know about Donald Trump’s activities before and after the 2016 election, would you support a criminal prosecution of Donald Trump?

4. What action by the Trump administration has most enraged you and how would you counteract it?

5. If the Senate remains in Republican control, how would you counter Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stranglehold on legislative affairs moving forward?

6. What steps would you take to improve our trade position vis-a-vis China?

7. How would you stem the flow of undocumented immigrants across our southern border?

8. Which country or entity or concept is America’s number one enemy today and in the future?

9. Should the Palestinians have their own state or should they become citizens of Israel and other Middle Eastern states where they reside?

10. What is your position on the impact and viability of technology companies, banks and investment houses that have grown “too big to fail.” Should they be broken up or more intensely regulated? 

11. Are some Afro-Americans entitled to reparations? How would you define reparations?

12. What steps would you take to improve health care?

For those who chose not to click on the link to The Times feature, here’s a list of its questions (added benefit: each question is linked to the candidate responses). You decide whose queries, mine or The Times, were more incisive. 

1. In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?

2. Would your focus be improving the Affordable Care Act or replacing it with single payer?

3. Do you think it’s possible for the next president to stop climate change?

4. Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights?

5. Who is your hero, and why?

6. Would there be American troops in Afghanistan at the end of your first term?

7. How many hours of sleep do you get a night?

8. Do you think illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States?

9. Where would you go on your first international trip as president?

10. Describe the last time you were embarrassed. Why?

11. Do you think President Trump has committed crimes in office?

12. Do you support or oppose the death penalty?

13. Should tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google be broken up?

14. Are you open to expanding the size of the Supreme Court?

15. When did your family first arrive in the United States, and how?

16. What is your comfort food on the campaign trail?

17. What do you do to relax?

18. Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?

Tuesday's Vote: A Choice Between Democracy and Greed

The latest employment numbers show a vibrant economy, a continuation of the return from recession inherited from the Republicans initiated by Barack Obama. Jobs increased by 250,000 last month. 

So, as we approach midterm election day Tuesday, what will it be people: Your wallet or your way of life? Your 401k or your democracy? Your bank account or your country?

Think carefully. Think long term. Just as tigers don’t lose their stripes, leopards retain their spots, Republicans stay true to their core beliefs: In their hearts they oppose Social Security, any form of welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (especially its pre-existing condition coverage benefit), civil rights, worker rights, unions, voting rights, public housing programs and an assortment of other programs that provide comfort to average Americans and the land, sea and air we inhabit. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has evil intentions for social service programs. He is not shy about stating his plan, should Republicans maintain their majorities in the Senate and House, to strip away some Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits. Why? To pay for the GOP tax plan that has skyrocketed the national debt while lavishing huge savings on the rich but providing paltry amounts to the middle class and working class. It has been such a disaster that Donald Trump has been forced to promise a 10% middle class tax cut.

Of course, Trump also acknowledged that he often does not tell the truth. He lies, in other words, to push his plans forward, to gain an advantage from a gullible public. For anyone who heard or read his admission, the operative question is, how could you trust him? Even when promising the tax relief Trump undercut his truth by saying Congress would act on the proposal in early November, never realizing that Congress would be on recess until after November 6. Only a fool would believe Republicans would follow through on Trump’s middle class handout. 

Surprise, surprise, surprise. No, this is not a paean to Gomer Pyle. Rather it is a sarcastic commentary on a recent report asserting the Trump tax reform bill benefitted White people more than Blacks and Hispanics. Of course, some might denigrate the report since it came from a liberal think tank. 

But seriously, even conservatives should not be surprised by the elemental truth that tax relief has been more lopsided for rich white Americans than for lower and middle class minorities.

Nobody relishes paying taxes, though my father used to say he wouldn’t mind if he owed the IRS $100,000 as that would mean he earned a heck of a lot of money that year. 

We need some perspective when it comes to taxes. Without them, roads wouldn’t be built or maintained. Public water systems and waste treatment plants would not function. Food and medicine safety would not be monitored. Public safety and our military would disappear. Ah, socialism at its best. 

The grand experiment of doing away with many taxes and government services proved to be a disaster in Kansas. Striking the right balance of taxes and services is the holy grail of politics. 

Which brings us to the elections Tuesday.  

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton of Britain had it right when he coined the phrase in the late 1800s. Republicans currently have near absolute power in Washington. Rather than draining the swamp, as he promised, Trump has installed acolytes who are corrupting the government, even as he and his family milk  their tenure for undisclosed profits. 

The Founders of our country foresaw the need for checks and balances so that absolute power could be restrained. It is in our electoral power to install a check on Trumpism. 

Positive economic news is a powerful incentive to vote Republican. But that is a short term view. A true patriot considers the health and welfare of his/her country and all its citizens and residents, not their personal bank roll, before casting a vote. A deliberate voter discounts the fear-mongering spouted by those who seek to retain their absolute power.  

It is imperative that everyone vote like your future depended on it, vote like your children’s future depended on it, vote like your grandchildren’s future depended on it. 

With that in mind, here’s a word from our guiding mantra:

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Vote VOTE vote vOte voTe votE 

Supreme Court Aside, Why Do Evangelicals and Republicans Stay Silent on Trump?

Ever the showman Donald Trump is expected to reveal Monday night his next conservative, court-packing nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is his constitutional imperative to select a nominee; it is within his rights and privilege to choose a jurist he believes will decide the law based on the values and principles he espouses. Forget for a moment that Trump waffles on principles and displays no values, especially as they relate to family. 

I don’t agree with them, but I can understand why evangelicals support Trump. He promised them a conservative federal court. He is delivering on that promise, thanks in no small measure to Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist strategy to deny a hearing to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. 

Support, however, does not mandate blind, unswerving allegiance. It does not prohibit conscientious objection to policies that are aberrant to their Christian faith. They should not have to twist Scripture inside out to justify abhorrent behavior. 

The Catholic church, after all, is just as dedicated to the abolition of abortions, yet its leadership, all the way up to the pope, has been intensely vocal in criticism of Trump’s behavior towards migrant families. 

So I am puzzled by the silence flowing from an evangelical community that is accustomed to hearing fire and brimstone penalties to anyone who acts contrary to god’s and Jesus’ admonitions.  

Let me reiterate: While I do not condone one-issue voters, I recognize their right to follow their narrow public consciousness. I have too many friends who voted Trump because they perceived his support of Israel stronger than the alternative, reinforced by his shift of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 

They remain friends. We try not to talk politics, as I cannot condone their silence, and that of millions who I do not personally know but who profess to be god-fearing, in the wake of Trump’s flagrant abuses and miscalculations. Those millions include elected Republican officials. 

Where is the outcry, the condemnation, or at least an expressed revulsion at a zero-tolerance policy that ripped children from their parents? Should they not be repulsed by the ineptitude of their government not being able to expeditiously reunite families?

Even Democrats acknowledge industry is weighted down by too many regulations. But where is the sense of outrage from Republicans over the revocation of laws that protect our water, land and air quality? 

Do rank and file Republicans, along with Independents and Democrats who voted for Trump, not see that the tax bill provides meager relief to the vast majority of Americans while rewarding the wealthy and corporations with riches beyond their expectations? 

As other countries respond to Trump’s tariffs by targeting products from states he won, why are they silent when their livelihood is at stake? It’s not “America right or wrong” time when it is painfully obvious to all but Trump that winning a tariffs war is not easy.

Do they not see Trump was snookered by the North Koreans, that his boast that we could sleep more easily now because Kim Jong-un agreed to denuclearize was as empty as his claim to educate the gullible and desperate at Trump University? 

And what about our stature in the world? Do they not understand that “America First” runs counter to the principles and leadership embodied by the United States after World War II? That it was that global, communal ethos embodied by NATO and the Marshall Plan that enabled Western European civilization to reconstruct itself after the war’s devastation, that it forged successful economic and political recoveries in Japan and South Korea after two devastating conflicts? 

How do they square Trump’s campaign rhetoric that he is a big builder who will draw up a huge infrastructure investment list with the reality he not only has not initiated a building program but he also has stymied perhaps the most important project, construction of a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River critically needed to support the Northeast which represents more than 10% of the nation’s economy?

Despite Trump’s repeated efforts to hamper it, the Affordable Care Act remains popular. How can they justify a disregard for the health needs of millions? Isn’t caring and concern for the sick part of their religious creed? How can they remain silent when the Trump administration, in support of infant formula manufacturers, disregards scientific data that breast milk is better than baby formula, and compounds the heresy by blackmailing other countries to follow its dictates at the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly? How humiliating that Russia—Russia!—had to save the day for truth and science! (https://nyti.ms/2J0WJuV)

And speaking of Russia, how can evangelicals and ordinary Republicans acquiesce to the bromance Trump has with Vladimir Putin? Democrats are not demanding an invalidation of the 2016 presidential election. They are demanding admission that Russia interfered with it. They are demanding Trump instruct appropriate federal agencies insure it doesn’t happen again. To date Trump has not. 

With all that Trump has accomplished in undermining the values and doctrines of America, Republicans have steadfastly stood behind him. It is foolish to presume they will abandon him in the 2020 election. 

The only way to unseat him will be if enough citizens who failed to vote in 2016 realize their voices can and must be counted to avoid a decades-long descent into despair. 

In 2016, roughly 100 million eligible voters stayed home. 

No Confidence in Senate Vote on Obamacare

I have no confidence Republicans will do the right and honest thing. 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to begin the process of holding a Senate vote to repeal and replace, or just repeal, Obamacare Tuesday even though it is expected he lacks the necessary votes for passage of either option. 

I don’t believe Republican senators will not undo the Affordable Care Act. Maybe not in the current iteration of either bill put forward by McConnell. But sooner or later, enough pressured-and-scared-of-an-ultra-right-primary-foe GOP senators will choose re-election tenure over the good of the country. They will parse out false and misleading statements explaining their vote, but it will be pure political survival rather than their constituents’ health, welfare and longevity that will motivate their vote. 

Why do I take such a cynical viewpoint? Because when confronted time and again by the incompetency, mendacity, outright fabrications (lies) and debasement of our national heritage and standing among nations by Donald Trump and his family, Republican legislators in the Senate and House may have spoken out against him but when voting time came they backed him.

On Sunday’s Face the Nation, according to The New York Times, John Dickerson “bluntly asked Mr. (Anthony) Scaramucci (Trump’s newly appointed communications director) if Mr. Trump would get what he wanted in repealing and replacing President Barack Obama’s signature health legislation.

“‘I don’t know if he’s going to get what he wants next week, but he’s going to get what he wants eventually, because this guy always gets what he wants,’ Mr. Scaramucci said. “O.K.?”’ 

In pressuring senators Monday to follow through on their seven year pledge to dismantle Obamacare, Trump—flanked by a score or more of healthy-looking, almost all white people he said could not obtain affordable coverage under Obamacare—argued that the law has been a job killer. 

Perhaps. No doubt there have been instances where small businesses were affected. But no one died because they were forced to obtain health insurance coverage. 

Yet, if upwards of 20 million people lose coverage should the law be repealed, as forecast by the Congressional Budget Office, tens of thousands will die because they would not be able to afford medical care or the prescription drugs they need to sustain life. 

It’s another example of Republicans putting financial considerations—especially the huge tax relief targeted for the super wealthy in the bill—above the safety and welfare needs of the American public. 

It’s another example of the mean-spirited manner in which Trump has formulated his administration. The very people who have benefited from Obamacare and who paradoxically voted for Trump would be most affected by its repeal. 

Beauregard Sessions Cares More for His Honor Than for Info on Russian Election Interference

The news business being what it is, the attempted assassination of Republican congressmen Wednesday morning in Alexandria, VA, pre-empted the horrific, deadly London apartment house fire as the lead story throughout the day. Both events co-opted our attention from the more important ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections and the Trump administration’s seeming lack of interest in safeguarding our national heritage.

Perhaps the most damning piece of testimony from Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee was his admission that he knows nothing more about Russian activity “than what he has read in the (news)paper.”

Asked by Senator Angus King (I-Maine) asked if he believed Russians interfered with the election, Sessions said, “It appears so. The intelligence community seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Senator King, I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper. I’ve never received any detailed briefing on how hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign.”

Sessions went on to acknowledge he never asked for or attended a briefing from the intelligence community or read a report of their findings. 

Is it possible that our standards for public officials have dropped so low that our top law enforcement officer cares not a whit about actions that could destroy our democratic ideals? And that Trumpettes, masquerading as U.S. senators, coddling favor with their egotistical, autocratic chief, do not show any inkling of consternation or anxiety about the assault on our most cherished right as citizens?

His voice dripping with righteous indignation, Sessions defended his honor against any suggestion he colluded with Russians or knew of any such activity by Trump campaign associates. If dueling were legal, you could easily picture Beauregard—that really is his middle name,  his full name being Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III— slapping the side of Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) face with his glove and demanding satisfaction for his persistent, some might say impolite and impolitic, questioning. 

Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) had hoped his colleagues “would focus their questions today on the Russia investigation,” but he might have been equally well-advised to ask Sessions to be similarly focused, as the attorney general revealed little interest in uncovering the veracity of Russian interference in the 2016 elections or even the widely reported contacts by campaign officials with Russians. That incredulous position prompted comedian Stephen Colbert to say Tuesday night Sessions “really seems to know nothing, which explains why he was the first senator to endorse Trump.”

As political theater the hearing provided some fireworks and little by way of information as Sessions invoked a premature claim of executive privilege on behalf of Trump, an odd practice as executive privilege, which can only be invoked by a president, usually must be cited prior to testimony before Congress. As Trump did not make such a claim, Sessions refused to answer questions just in case Trump would at a later date seek executive privilege. 

What the hearing did provide, however, was the complicity of Republican senators in the administration’s efforts to reject the validity of the allegations that the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians and that former FBI director James Comey was fired because he aggressively pursued an investigation into such activity. GOP senators failed to seek the reasons behind Comey’s dismissal, why Sessions would not answer questions about conversations with Trump, and why he had not immersed himself in the details of the intelligence reports.

The hearing also provided another example of Republican antipathy toward female senators, particularly if they are Democrats. For the second time in a week Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was interrupted, admonished, during her questioning of a witness. Earlier this year Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was cut off on the Senate floor when she tried to read a letter from Coretta Scott King. And let’s not forget that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) chose a group of 13 men–not one woman—to draw up a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. 

More Help for Lester Holt: A New Set of Questions for the First Clinton-Trump Debate

Less than a week until the first presidential debate. The pressure must be excruciating on … Lester Holt of NBC News, the first moderator. Two weeks ago I suggested questions Holt should ask both candidates. 

They were almost exclusively designed to elicit differences between Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s policy positions. It wouldn’t necessarily make for good television, but it would be educational (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2016/09/policy-questions-for-first-clinton.html).

But TV, if anything, is about ratings and keeping an audience engaged. So here’s a different list of questions I believe Holt should ask of them individually and sometimes together (you’ll notice I have more questions for Trump because, in my humble opinion, he has more explaining to do). 

Trump and Clinton:  What is the greatest threat facing the United States?

T: What information changed your mind about President Obama’s birth in the United States? When did this information reach you?

C: What made you think the public did not have a right to know about your recent pneumonia?

T: Why do you feel the public does not have the right to see your tax returns as all presidential candidates, and many seeking lower offices and judicial positions, have released them over the last four decades?

T: You have called Hillary Clinton crooked. Can you point to any examples of crooked behavior?

T: You have called for paid family leave. Do you already provide it in your own companies, and if not, why not? Also, you have promised paid family leave but Republicans in Congress have not supported such a measure. How can the public expect you to fulfill that promise?

C: If Republicans maintain control of one or both houses of Congress how will you be able to get your platform passed?

C: Why should the American public trust you when time and again you have not been totally forthcoming when explaining your email server and your recent illness?

T: You have called Secretary Clinton “lyin’ Hillary,” yet time and again independent fact checkers have labeled more of your statements as untrue by a wide margin even though you have promised never to lie to the American public. Why should they believe you?

T: Almost all reputable scientists believe sea levels are rising due to climate change. Your property, Mar-a-Lago, sits on the beach in Palm Beach, Fla. Do you believe in the forecasts by the scientists and if not what evidence have you to the contrary? 

C and T: What can be done to stop sleeper cell terrorists, many of whom would be natural or naturalized citizens, from attacking Americans on our homeland? 

T: You have said “to the victor go the spoils,” that we should have taken Iraqi oil and left troops in Iraq to guard the oil wells and that to combat terrorism we should torture suspects and kill the families of terrorists, all violations of international law. Is that the standard you want to set for the United States?

C: The Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments and citizens. Why should we believe you have not been influenced or would not be influenced by such funding?

T: Why do you believe right wing and racist fringe organizations have expressed support for your campaign?

T: Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than American citizens. What would you do to reduce crime in America?

C: What went wrong in Iraq, Libya and Syria under your watch as secretary of state and why should we believe you would handle future crises differently and better?

T: You have said your response to threats against NATO allies would be dependent on their financial support of our troops. Is that a prudent plan in dealing with Russia?

C: Time and again you advocate a cautious, measured response to events and the status quo in government. Yet the American public appears interested in decisive leadership that would break up the status quo, which you seem reluctant to provide. Why should they expect you to be an agent of change?

T and C: Which three presidents or world leaders, living or dead, do you admire and why?

T: Our greatest economic gains over the last 40 years occurred under Democratic administrations that advocated and passed higher taxes on the wealthy, while lower taxes under Republican administrations did not produce the promised gains for the middle and working classes. Please explain why your tax strategy would reverse this reality?

C: As a senator you voted for the Iraq war. As secretary of state you advocated involvement in Libya and Syria. What is your standard for military intervention by the United States?

T: You recently said if Irani planes or boats interfere with our ships we should shoot them. Are you willing to risk a war over such provocations?

T and C: Almost all of our domestic terror attacks have been perpetrated by lone wolves. Is there any way to prevent such attacks?

C and T: How would you change the Affordable Care Act? Would you reduce or eliminate benefits that the ACA  provided?

C: Do you endorse a path to legalization for illegal immigrants? Would they earn the right to vote?

T: Clarify your position on who and when deportations of illegal immigrants would occur. What is your position on dreamers, the children of undocumented aliens who were brought here as children?

C: A Clinton administration to many would seem to be a continuation of the Obama administration. What would be different?

T and C: After you are sworn in what executive actions would you take within your first week in office?

The Re-Selling of a Would-Be President

Donald Trump generally has nothing good to say about George W. Bush, but his campaign has adopted an important strategy that helped propel W. into the White House. Just as Bush, rather than Al Gore, became the guy you wanted to sit down and have a beer with, Trump is recasting himself as an everyman who, despite his alleged billions of dollars of net worth, is a typical American who chows down KFC and McDonald’s like everyone else, who lets Jimmy Fallon muss up his hair, who seeks the comfort and approval of Dr. Oz to “reveal” his medical history. No doubt next we will be treated to seeing him read The Pet Goat to schoolchildren (as Bush was doing when informed of the 9/11 terror attacks).

He’s remaking himself into a lovable, huggable Teddy bear. 

The birther controversy? 

Who me? It was Hillary and her campaign back in 2008 that started it, he’s saying now, an allegation deemed false by independent fact checkers. 

(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/ 

and http://theweek.com/speedreads/649186/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-start-birther-movement)

Trump is taking credit for ending any doubts Barack Obama was born in the United States. Though he reluctantly admitted the truth Friday morning, the damage from his five year campaign to delegitimize the president remains. 

According to Public Policy Polling, 59% of those who said they viewed Trump favorably think Obama was not born in the United States. In addition, two-thirds of such voters believe Obama is a Muslim (http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim#sthash.5sMlFugI.dpuf).

Trump is also refashioning his campaign positions to make them more appealing to non core constituency voters. He has, for example, appeared to soften on mass expulsion of all illegal immigrants the moment he gets sworn into office as well as proposing paid maternal child care. 

Of course, when you’re running for president, unlike when you’re engaged in a primary contest and must cater to hard core party voters, it is standard procedure to promise the world. Only a naive voter would expect all campaign promises to be kept.

But there is one way to measure the probability of some promise fulfillment. If a president comes into office with his or her party in the majority in the House and Senate there’s a good chance at least some of those promises will become law. That’s how the Affordable Care Act came into being, though it did not have all the features Obama had promised.

Hillary Clinton will need huuuge coattails to flip Congress Democratic in November. Her prospects of signing legislation for anything on her wish list are dim. She will be confined to be the resister-in-chief, pushing back against repeated attempts by a GOP Congress to roll back progressive legislation or executive actions of the past eight years. (She’ll also have to combat right wing determination to impeach her.)

Trump, on the other hand, may work with a GOP Congress to reverse much of what has been put in place, including Obamacare.

But the softer side of Trump may be more problematic for a President Trump. As currently constituted Congress has few Republicans who would go along with such progressive legislation. They would see paid maternity leave and other social welfare benefits as Trump-the-businessman has—as burdens on corporate profits.

Thus Trump would preside over a regressive administration, backed up, no doubt, by a more conservative bent on the Supreme Court and lower federal panels once he starts appointing judges.

To get to that pinnacle of ratings status—the presidency, or said another way, the entertainer-in-chief—Trump is trotting out all the theatrics he can. His supporters are rabid fans who care little about truth and integrity. They’ve been so conditioned by all the so-called “reality TV” shows.

So there’s nothing unexpected in recent polls that show Trumpsters more enthusiastic for their candidate than are Hillary’s supporters. It’s human nature for more people to complain than to compliment. 

Nonetheless, Clinton’s campaign must rev up the excitement quotient and, more importantly, the fear factor. Every day it must be pointed out what is at stake, not just for the Oval Office but also in Congress. 

Specifically, but not exclusively, at stake are:

• the prestige and standing of the United States as first among nations
• the balance of the Supreme Court as a progressive bulwark
• reform to Obamacare that does not strip it of meaningful affordable healthcare for all
• funding for Planned Parenthood
• a woman’s right to choose
• minimum wage increases
• safeguards against employment discrimination
• safeguards against food and drug abuses
• safeguards to worker safety 
• environmental protection including an acknowledgment that climate change is real
• business oversight legislation
• voting rights enforcement 
• the continued belief in National Parks 
• Wall Street oversight
• a thoughtful, reasoned foreign policy

Policy Questions for First Clinton-Trump Debate

The first Clinton-Trump presidential debate is September 26, a scant three weeks away. There are lots of gotcha questions that could be asked and I am sure the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC, is under extreme pressure to come up some of those on embarrassing topics such as Donald Trump’s attack on Mexicans and Hillary Clinton’s email server shenanigans. Let’s hope he doesn’t fall for the bait but rather chooses subjects that will illuminate the policy differences between the candidates. 

With that in mind, here are questions I would recommend to him, questions to be asked of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so that they might provide substantive answers with limited opportunities to dodge with generalities or obfuscations or hyperbolic attacks on their opponent.

1. How specifically would you change the Affordable Care Act? Which provisions would you keep and which would you jettison?

2. Would you continue federal funding of Planned Parenthood and why?

3. Would you continue funding overseas programs that include birth control measures?

4. Would you continue federal support of stem cell research?

5. Do you support a woman’s right to choose? Should Roe v Wade be overturned, leaving to individual states to decide the right to an abortion? Should anyone who participates in an abortion, be they patient or medical professional, be subject to prosecution if abortion is declared illegal?

6. Should clergy be permitted to advocate politically from their pulpits?

7. Do you support or want to overturn the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court?

8. Do you favor a federal minimum wage and, if so, at what level?

9. Given the low interest rate on borrowings do you favor increasing the federal debt to fund infrastructure spending projects?

10. What test, if any, would you have in determining your response to any aggression against a NATO ally or against Japan, Korea or The Philippines?

11. Are there any government departments or agencies you would close down? Are there any new ones you would create?

12. What would happen to undocumented immigrants during your administration?

13. How would you restore confidence and good relations between the police and minority communities?

14. Should there be any limitations on the type of weapons ordinary citizens may possess, and, if so, how would you implement such restrictions?

15. What specific changes would you make to NAFTA and the proposed TPP?

16. What is America’s role during humanitarian crises in foreign lands? Under what circumstances would you engage our military during these crises? 

17. What is your position on American support, both financial and philosophical, for the United Nations?

18. Explain your position on the Iran nuclear deal and how your administration would handle relations with Iran?

19. Do you believe in global warming? Scientists have charted the rise in sea levels? What steps should we take, if any, to protect our shorelines?

20. Do we need to raise the age eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Should we means-test for Social Security and Medicare benefits?

21. What guidelines would you impose on legal access to immigration?

22. Does the United States have any interests in helping solve the refugee problem from Africa and the Middle East?

23. How confident are you that the election will be a fair one, and do you have any evidence of past voter fraud that would lead you to believe the results would be rigged?

24. Are Americans better off today than they were when President Obama took office in January 2009?

25. To balance the budget and reduce the deficit, program cuts would have to be enacted and tax loopholes would have to be closed. Please provide specific areas that would be affected under your next budget?

26. What role would alternative energy programs play within your administration?

27. What is your position on equal pay for women?

28. Should Americans 18 and older be required to perform some form of public service, be it in the military or some other program that benefits us all, such as the WPA programs of the New Deal?

Hillary Time, A Correction and More Debate Thoughts

It’s almost time Tuesday night for the beginning of two weeks worth of Hillary Time. Here’s what I’d like to see from Hillary Rodham Clinton during the first Democratic Party presidential debate and as the key witness in the interminable Select House Benghazi Investigation committee hearing next week.

During the debate, Hillary—by the way, I am as guilty as other sexist commentators who refer to her by first name instead of her surname as opposed to using her family name as is usually done for male candidates, except, of course, when referring to The Donald—anyway, Hillary needs to be assertive and engaging. She needs to clarify her differences with Bernie Sanders without antagonizing his supporters. She must explain how she would accomplish more than Barack Obama did when working (or should I say trying to work) with a Republican controlled Senate and House. 

I have nothing against Sanders except the belief that he is unelectable (as are the three other announced candidates: Lincoln Chafee, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb—you’ll notice I did not provide any description of their past titles. If you don’t know what offices they held you can understand why I am skeptical about their chances. I’m not going to spend the time mulling over Joe Biden’s entry/non entry into the race. Back to Bernie—can you imagine what the Republicans would do with his self-confessed claim of being a Democratic Socialist? No amount of explaining the concept would mitigate the extreme slurs that would be imprinted on the electorate’s psyche. Shades of Willie Horton, for those old enough to know the reference.). 

That said, here are some questions I hope to see asked and answered during the debate: 

*Given the very real prospect that both houses of Congress will be controlled by Republicans in 2017-18, what specifically do you feel you can accomplish legislatively?

*How would you balance income inequality given the GOP congress?

*Will you run on the Obama record?

*What changes, if any, would you like to see in the Affordable Care Act?

*What specific piece of enacted legislation are you most proud of having been the primary sponsor?

*Specifically asked of Hillary—Given polling data, how will you build trust with the American people?

*Many of the questions I posed after the second Republican debate would be applicable, so here’s a link to that post: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2015/09/questions-for-next-debate.html

Time to Testify: Next week Hillary cannot allow the select committee to manhandle her. She must not equivocate and must not allow committee members to interrupt her testimony. 

Recent news events have made it obvious the committee is political hackery to the extreme. Hillary should take a page from history and vigorously defend herself the same way Joseph Welch, chief counsel for the U.S. Army, rebutted Senator Joseph McCarthy’s assault on the integrity of the Army and the suspicion it, and his law office, had been infiltrated by Communists.

“Have you no sense of decency,” Welch’s acerbic rebuke of McCarthy, entered the lexicon of American politics. 

If the committee hearing devolves into a one-sided inquisition, Hillary should sternly state her unwillingness to participate any further and walk out, even if the committee threatens to hold her in contempt.  

How ironic that the congressman who exposed the political intent of the select committee, to undermine Hillary’s candidacy, shares the Wisconsin senator’s last name—McCarthy!

Correction Time: I was tripped up in my religious reporting. Pope Francis gave Kim Davis a rosary, not simply a crucifix. A rosary encompasses a cross which dangles at the end of beads.

More Debate Thoughts: And now more words about The Great Debate—was Chase Utley guilty of an illegal slide that broke the leg of NY Mets shortstop Ruben Tejada? 

First, a confession: I’m a NY Yankees fan. I don’t like the Mets. My bias notwithstanding, I believe Utley played old fashioned hardball, the type played by Pete Rose, Frank Robinson, Ty Cobb, Jackie Robinson. 

They played to win, not injure. It’s unfortunate Tejada sustained a season-ending injury. Let’s keep the play in perspective. The most often printed baseball picture for many years was a shortstop or second baseman leaping to avoid a baserunner’s slide meant to plant him in the left field bleachers if a double play relay throw could be averted. 

Utley did his job. Major League Baseball should let the players police themselves. Utley plays second base. He will have to watch out every time he cover the base, especially when it’s a Met barreling down on him. 

Supreme Court May Well Decide Next President. Again

History may be poised to repeat itself. For the second time in the last five presidential elections, the U.S. Supreme Court may well decide who will sit in the Oval Office.

The Court has accepted for review another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The question before it—does the law permit federal government subsidies to the needy in states that do not have their own health exchange programs. In those states the federal government has stepped in to provide subsidies (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-new-challenge-to-health-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0). 

If the Supremes declare the subsidies to be illegal, Obamacare may tumble down from lack of sufficient funding. It also would mean millions would lose health care coverage. It’s pretty certain the four justices who voted against Obamacare two years ago would do so again, meaning Chief Justice John Roberts would be the deciding judge. Again.

If Roberts blocks the subsidies and the ACA ultimately succumbs to a Republican-led attack, universal health care once more would become a key campaign issue in 2016. As they have championed it for decades, Democrats, most prominently their presidential candidate, would benefit from such an outcome. 

Given a June 2015 court decision, Republicans would have just over a year to forge an acceptable alternative to a law that has extended health coverage to more Americans than at any other time in our history. That’s unlikely to transpire given the venomous reaction many conservatives have to such a program.

A negative decision and Republican antipathy toward a replacement ACA might also provide incentive to voters to elect more Democrats to the Senate and even possibly return the Dems to the majority in the House. 

It’s an intriguing state of affairs. Having injected itself into state election law in Florida and chosen George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000, the Supreme Court may wind up influencing who gets elected to the White House in 2016. 

Ah, I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Democratic leadership meetings as they discuss what would be better for the party, and the country, come next June.

The President and I Went to Costco Today

President Obama spent part of his day-after-State-of-the-Union-speech in a Costco store. So did I. I was shopping for food and general merchandise. The president was shopping for public approval for his pitch to hike the minimum wage and close the opportunity gap in America. But in a more distant, more important, sense, he was shopping for votes to secure his legacy.

Though he outlined half a dozen areas where he said he would take executive action if Congress did not act as he wished, 2014 will be remembered more for the impact the president will have on the elections next November than anything else.

Simply put, Obama must electioneer hard and long for Democratic Senate and House candidates to avoid facing Republican majorities during the last two years of his second term. If he fails, he will become the “veto president” as Republicans try over and over to undo any and all of the progressive legislation passed in the last five years, especially the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. He also must support state candidates so more “blue” governors and state representatives and senators are elected.

Obama is surprisingly aloof for a politician who has achieved the highest office in the land. He does not mix well with his former peers. His disinterest in hitting the hustings in 2010 led to a GOP majority in the House and, more disastrously, to Republican victories in many state legislatures and governorships. In turn, that led to realignment of many congressional and state districts into safe, gerrymandered Republican territories, safe, that is, until the next census in 2020 mandates a new reapportionment of legislative seats. 

It might be impossible for Democrats to retake control of Congress until 2022. Keeping their majority in the Senate, therefore, becomes a priority, for Obama and any Democrat who hopes to inherit his chair in the Oval Office in 2017. So Hillary, Andrew, Joe and anyone else who has White House aspirations, now’s the time to really crave the type of chicken served at all those political dinners across the country. 

Aside from being aloof, Obama has also shown a tendency to have limited concentration on any one key issue, with the possible exception of sending drones or Navy Seal teams to excise terrorists. But if he is to be believed, that his presidency will be judged by how well he manages to place the country on a journey toward economic equality, he, and Michele, must hit the road, together and separately, to stump for Democrats. For it’s his legacy that is at stake.

If it's broken fix it ... If it's Not broken ...

Update on Gilda’s injured wrist: It’s not broken. She appreciates everyone’s concern and has been following the doctor’s advice to wear a brace to keep her wrist locked while it heals. She jettisoned the brace Monday, except while sleeping. We’re hoping there are no setbacks.

Speaking of setbacks, one of my archly conservative friends sent me this note with the text for my first Christmas card of this year: 

“I love Christmas lights! They remind me of...

‘the people who voted for Obama...’

They all hang together; half of them don't work,

and the ones that do, aren't all that bright!”

It made me chuckle and somewhat relieved that it wasn’t more vituperative against President Obama and the health care fiasco. Of course, my relief was short lived as another email arrived within minutes from him proclaiming one of the Affordable Care Act navigators in eastern Kansas had a history of financial problems and an outstanding arrest warrant, not the type of person you’d want to have access to personal information from Obamacare applicants.

I’m too beaten down to check the veracity of the claim, which cited local newspapers. Let’s face it—the rollout has been a big joke. It hasn’t killed anyone, like the weapons of mass destruction lie, or the failure to protect New Orleans residents during Hurricane Katrina, but the cumulative effect might well damage the underpinning of the social contract progressives believe exists between a government and its citizens. 

I believe the problems will eventually (who knows how long “eventually” truly means) be fixed. Most complex legislation undergoes a shakedown period. Congress often smoothes out the wrinkles in new laws. But this Congress, and here I’m referring to the Republicans, hardly seems open to resolving any inadequacies in Obamacare short of scrapping the whole enterprise, and that is ridiculous. 

Ok, the rollout is a bust. Fodder for GOP grievance. But no one can honestly argue the coverage provided is bad or not necessary. Bottom line is that millions of Americans will have health insurance they didn't have before. It might be a rough ride during the rollout period but let's hope that a year from now the snafus will be nothing more than cocktail party conversation, a prelude to many an addendum about a health problem resolved because a friend or family member who previously would not have had insurance is now alive and solvent, not destitute nor bankrupt, or worse, dead.

Time to Party Up, Support Obamacare and Feed the Hungry

Today marks the end of the latest cycle of robo calls and, at least in my case, coming home to a porch littered with multiple copies of campaign literature beseeching me to vote for Noam Bramson for county executive of Westchester. Interestingly, nowhere on the flyers does it indicate Bramson’s party affiliation. Am I supposed to know the absence of any red color on the flyer means Bramson is a Democrat through and through? 

Why is it that almost all election literature, particularly those annoying road signs, and all radio and television ads fail to identify a candidate’s political party? It’s a real bugaboo of mine. Candidates should be proud of their party endorsement. It should be mandatory to include on all campaign material.

Simply Put, We Can't Start Over Again: No self-respecting Democrat can be happy with the launch of the Affordable Care Act. The Obamacare rollout is making it difficult to watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. The humor in the foul-up of the launch is painful to watch. At least no one is dying because of the screw-up. No country is being bombed back to the Stone Age or into the arms of al-Qaeda.

The only reason I’m not in favor of scrapping the program and beginning anew is that Republicans would never cooperate in drafting a more workable and still comprehensive bill that would care for tens of millions of Americans who need medical coverage. That’s a given, given the reluctance of numerous GOP-controlled state governments to enter into the federal program. They have refused to expand Medicaid eligibility. They have placed stumbling blocks before the navigators who are supposed to help citizens sign up for Obamacare. They have continually tried to defund enactment of the law. 

So we’re stuck with what we have. It’s not perfect. But it’s better than the “you’re-on-your-own” Republican plan for medical coverage.

How’s He Doing? Based on a Saturday Night Live skit three days ago, it turns out I have much in common with Afro-Americans. In a skit entitled “How’s He Doing,” black performers repeatedly affirmed their allegiance to President Obama despite missteps with Obamacare and the National Security Agency wiretapping scandal, as well as hypothetical questions about his possible conversion to another religion and his choice of an all white all-star basketball team to play with him against a Russian team assembled by Vladimir Putin. 

The tone of the skit was set when the host of the faux talk show asked, was there any time in the last month when you wished you would have voted for Mitt Romney? Uncontrollable laughter was the response. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI0ib11evdU

Did you eat well today? Yesterday? The day before? Millions of your fellow citizens did not. On top of their hunger they had to swallow a sizable cut in the food stamp assistance program with Republicans threatening even deeper more emaciating reductions.

Waiting to oust GOP congressmen is impractical. We need to act individually to reap a collective response to hunger in America. Do at least what I do every month. Donate food to your local food bank. Don't just send a check, though money is always welcome. Don't just drop off groceries at your church or synagogue once a year. Go to Costco or some other low-cost provider and buy food for the hungry. $50 a month, or more if you can afford it. Take the food yourself to the food bank. Talk with the volunteers. Educate yourself to the needs of your neighbors. It will wind up being among your most worthy activities of the month.

Exciting Day

Too Much CSI? Experienced a little excitement in the ‘hood this morning. Around noon our neighbors’ housekeeper rang the door bell. Seems she couldn’t unlock their front door as she’s been doing for 35 years. The lock was a-kilter, angled 45 degrees to the left as if someone had tried to jimmy it. The cylinder wouldn’t accept her key. What’s more, their golden retriever was barking in a strange way, and when she went around back she discovered the sliding glass patio door was ajar.

After checking out all her details, I advised we call the police. Neither of us desired to enter the house to discover anything untoward. We’ve all seen too many TV crime shows. They weren’t going to find my fingerprints in that house. 

We waited 15 minutes for a patrol car to arrive. After hearing our story, the policewoman called for backup. This was getting real interesting. 

We waited another 15 minutes for the second squad car to arrive. As we cooled our heels in the backyard, the officers entered the house, searched all the rooms, looking under the beds and in the closets, even in the crawl space in the basement. No bodies found, nothing tossed about, they declared the house safe to enter.  

CNN’s Worst Nightmare: In case you missed it, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning issued a ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the so-called Obamacare. 

Want to know who missed it? Or more precisely, who got it wrong? CNN. And Fox News.

At 10:09:03, CNN sent out a “Breaking News” email alert with the following message: “The Supreme Court has struck down the individual mandate for health care—the legislation that requires all to have health insurance.”

All that planning for the biggest story of the year to date and CNN, which has billed itself as “the most trusted name in news,” got it WRONG.  It took nine full minutes before CNN corrected itself. And then it compounded the error by making another mistake, this time not saying the Medicaid extension provision had been declared unconstitutional: “Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law, including the individual mandate that requires all to have health insurance.” 

(My thanks to Casey for sending me these email alerts.)

Not to be outdone, Fox News also reported the individual mandate had been declared unconstitutional. 

Interestingly, as I was watching special CBS News coverage of the decision from 10 to 10:30 am, I wondered how NBC News and ABC News were handling the story. NBC, turned out, was airing a segment of The Today Show on swimming pools, while Rachael Ray was in the kitchen on ABC (sorry, I didn’t linger long enough to discover what she was cooking).  

I guess the news business just ain’t what it used to be.

And neither will women’s tennis, if a no-grunting rule is implemented. There’s no agreement on the civility and gentility of players grunting when stroking a ball, but the Women’s Tennis Association  “plans to launch an initiative in conjunction with the International Tennis Federation and the Grand Slam Committee—timetable to be determined—to teach young players breathing techniques to avoid grunting and to eventually adopt a rule against noises deemed too loud, with the help of a decibel meter to be designed for use by chair umpires,” ESPN reported.

Women grunting has been around at least since 1962, but those who feel it is unseemly can’t wait for a new generation of players who are silent on the court. I hadn’t given it much thought till now, but I don’t agree with those who believe some sports, like tennis and golf, demand absolute quiet from fans when a serve or shot is taken. 

Are golfers and tennis players lower forms of athletes than basketball players, baseball players, and football players that they need total silence to focus all of their concentration on the serve or shot at hand? After all, taking a free throw with the game on the line is one of the more tension-filled moments of a basketball game, as is lining up a game-deciding field goal, or pitching a baseball with the bases loaded, yet we don’t expect fans to sit placidly as the action unfolds. Let’s stop coddling these so-called “athletes” who stare down talkers. Let them learn to zone out the noise, be it from the stands or from their opponents across the net. 

Grunting may not be feminine, but if that’s what it takes for some women to play hard and win, let them do it. 

Taxing Times

April 15. Taxes due. Well, this year because April 15 falls on a Sunday you have an extra day to file. Lots of people gnash their teeth at the idea of forking over money to the government, be it federal, state or municipal. I kind of take my father’s approach. He used to say he wouldn’t mind paying $100,000 in taxes as it would mean he’d have had a very good business year.

Of course, not everyone agrees with how government collects and spends our monies. One of the more tongue-in-cheek commentaries on the “fairness” of our federal tax system comes from Al Lewis who writes a column for the Wall Street Journal that appears every Sunday with our copy of the Westchester Journal News. Here’s a link to his thoughts, “Time to Pay Up, Chump”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304356604577340051572237414.html?KEYWORDS=Al+Lewis


Florida Bound: Now that George Zimmerman has been arrested and charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Trayvon Martin, will that be enough to quell the rage and outrage of this seemingly senseless killing, or will a conviction be the only thing that can cool racial tempers?

Trayvon’s mother said the family just wanted Zimmerman arrested so he could stand trial. Sybrina Fulton even said on television she thought the shooting was “an accident,” though she later refined her comments to mean the encounter between Trayvon and Zimmerman was accidental but became a case of the Neighborhood Watch captain profiling her black teenage son before killing him.

We have yet to hear Zimmerman’s account of the tragedy but I’d be truly surprised if he is convicted. He might not even have his case decided by a jury. A judge may well throw out the case based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground defense statute which allows deadly force if threatened. Dave Ross, a CBS News radio commentator, provided several examples last Thursday of first-degree murder charges dismissed by judges, including one where the alleged murderer, Michael Monahan, was 20 feet from his victims, yet claimed he felt threatened. Arrest, said Ross, doesn’t necessarily lead to trial. You can listen to Ross’s short commentary, "Will It Go to a Jury," by following this link: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/audio/888-dave-ross/

By the way, in case you’re wondering what the Stand Your Ground law says, here’s a salient portion of it: “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

The National Rifle Association casts the debate on the death of Trayvon Martin as a gun issue, a right to bear arms issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/nra-criticizes-trayvon-martin-media-coverage.html?_r=1). But would it have made a difference if Zimmerman had knifed Trayvon to death? The issue is Stand Your Ground, not gun control. Dave Ross gave an example of Greyston Garcia who used a knife after chasing a thief and then being attacked by the perpetrator. Apparently, pursuing someone and then being threatened is sufficient legal grounds in Florida to have a judge invoke a Stand Your Ground dismissal.

All of this brings out my dark humor side. Friday night over dinner with friends, I couldn’t stop talking about asking anyone I dislike or just want to tease if they would like to go to Florida with me. I’d knock them off in some secluded spot and claim a Stand Your Ground defense after placing a knife or gun in their hand. Actually, as Monahan's case revealed, those threatening you don't even have to be armed. Or close by. The sordid deed doesn’t have to take place in Florida. About two dozen states have similar Stand Your Ground statutes. Of course, I was only joking during dinner (aided by a large glass of chilled vodka). The real effect of all these laws is that one should never lose one’s temper anymore. You can never tell whether the person to whom you are directing your anger feels threatened and takes the ultimate defense, straight to your heart.


Mister Roberts: While we’re on the subject of judges, here’s an interesting fact. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation encountered problems with the Supreme Court, and he considered “packing” it with more judges favorable to his thinking, the swing justice on many of the cases was Owen Roberts. Many of the decisions rested on interpretations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. How fascinating that the current Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts (no relation) must decide if the Commerce Clause gave Congress authority to pass the Affordable Care Act.


Charity Work: Is it time to start a charity for Levi Johnston? We’ll call it Condoms for Levi. If you haven’t heard, the former boyfriend of Bristol Palin has impregnated another girl, though this one’s mother probably won’t be running for higher office. http://m.nypost.com/p/pagesix/levi_johnston_pills_girlfriend_pregnancy_n19w4FVk1Zz95zAbYOWxIP


For the Birds: Some people have dogs to clean up leftovers. I have birds. Leftover Passover matzo and really hallucious-tasting Crispy O’s (a Passover kosher version of Cheerios) will become bird food now that the holiday is over. In case you haven’t figured it out, hallucious is a Yiddishism for vile or atrocious. But birds being the scavengers they are, I have no doubt they will eat away, as long as they don’t break their beaks on the hard as rock Crispy O’s.