6.27.21: The Tragedy in Surfside, Infrastructure and Climate Are Part and Parcel

 Amidst the debate on infrastructure, Joshua Johnson explained that there's nothing like tragedy to focus the mind, and when you look at the horrific images from Surfside, FL preventing it from ever happening again. 

Turns out that there was a 2018 report filed that outlined the building's structural deficiences and one would have to conclude that being ocean front for 40 years facing storms and salt water andd erosion played a part in its decline.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to infrastructure and buidling for the future, the United States cuts corners and hasn't invested in a real way in over sixty years, sacrificed at the alter of profit motive. And as Andrea Mitchell explained, the 'pay-fors' for the bipartisan agreement are make believe, citing that the IRS explanation is the 80's version of waste, fraud and abuse which at this time is standard practice. The bottom line is if corporations aren't going to be taxed, it's going on the credit card... and interest rates are likely to increase. Not a good look.

But it's all tied together - the tragedy in Miami Beach, the infrastructure deal and the climate and we have to wrap our collective head around this notion. Without mentioning climate specifically, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) explained that he was happy to see that money is being put aside in the agreement for receding coastlines and river and canal reinforcing. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez said that she wasn't as much stuck on a number as she was as to whether or not the agreement makes a positive tanglible impact on people's lives. And she does make a point that if Senator Cassidy citing his wife calls bridges and roads a woman's problem, then yes, we need to get women baby sitters. You could take that as code that she expects a much larger reconcilliation bill to come along, but the point is that it does seems that eveyone wants to get to 'yes.' 

That's the good news, everyone wants a 'yes' vote on infrastrure. Bad news is that equal voting rights for all Americans is a 'no.' 

The Department of Justice this week announced that it would challenge Georgia's new voting laws that the DOJ says targets minorities to suppress their vote. And here's where Danielle Pletka once again put her foot in her mouth saying that the Republicans don't want to known for voter suppression as much as the Democrats don't want to be known for voter fraud. Frankly, that's a bush league disingenous comparison and she should know better because the fact is that Democrats didn't commit any voter fraud yet Republican statehouses around the county are passing voter suppression bills, purging voter rolls of tens of thousands of voters. So... 

Yamiche Alcindor put it in perspective explaining that when it comes to voting rights, there are going to be various court battles while there is also a legislative tract. Ms. Alcindor also reminded us that these laws are based on the lies told by the former president, which Ms. Pletka said that she could separate out from the bills being passed on the state level. Again, an example of intellectual dishonesty in this column's humble assessment.

Maybe this is the 'Hail Mary' on the part of Republicans as Joshua Johnson described and that this fervor will pass. However, right now it looks like a jump ball in the endzone and who comes down with it, we'll find out.

Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS NewsHour; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Joshua Johnson, NBC News 

6.20.21: We Have Our Own Version of Putin's 'No Happiness in Life'

What was evident from today's balanced discussion of international diplomacy and domestic issues is that as Mr. Todd noted, 'we're in for more politics than Putin' because of the lack of bi-partisanship hence Congress's inability to get anything  big done. However, when you have have Mitch McConnell, do you really need more Putin?

Fiona Hill noted that the United States inability speak with a unified voice on domestic issues spills over internationally as someone like Putin uses that. It's no secret to the world that the Republican party in the United States cannot be relied upon to negotiate in good faith. Allied and advisarial governments alike look at this intransience and know that stability within the United States and with regard to diplomacy predictability has gone out the window.

The United States, the champion of democracy, is rated a flawed one. The discussions today are the cases in point.

On infrastructure, according to Cornell Belcher and the consensus in Washington is that Democrats will not kill a bipartisan deal, they won't like a lot of the concessions to get there, but they'll swallow it. In essence they'll concede to an enhanced version of what Republicans call 'infrastructure' but by Senator Rob Portman's (R-OH) own admission the Republican plan is to borrow the money. In other words, deficit spend with the justification of it being a long-term investment, which by the way, makes no sense. What also didn't make sense was putting a user fee on people who purchase hybrid and electric cars, as the senator suggested. Ah, no... one should get a tax break for purchasing such automobiles. 

And then there's our own version of Putin's 'no happiness in life' in the form of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

A bipartisan group of Senators is negotiating said infrastructure package, which Mr. McConnell will kill because someone that he thinks shouldn't be taxed gets taxed.

A bipartisan police reform bill being negotiated by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), which Mr. McConnell will kill because somewhere in it there will be a weakening of qualified immunity.

A moderate Democrat proposes some major concessions on a Voting Rights bill, but Mr. McConnell will kill it, having already deemed it unnecessary and of course because Stacey Abrams endorsed the compromise.

Speaking of which, to clearly illustrate the above, Republican strategist Brad Todd (no relation) said that Ms. Abrams purposely endorsed the compromise with the clear intent of defeating the notion. The degree of cynicism was unbelievable to the extent that no one on set, in fact, believed it. 

So to answer the question of whether President Biden's meeting with Vladimir Putin was a success of a mistake...

Putin looked small and at time squeamish in interviews, press conferences and photos during the summit. It was necessary for President Biden to set down a marker and tell Putin what's what when it comes to his country's interference of the U.S.'s internal infrastucture and discourse as well as its agression toward allies of the United States, particularly when it comes to cyberattacks. 

We liked how Ms. Hill framed the conversation when it comes to cyberattacks. She cited the example of what happened in Syria when Russian troops tried to decieve American forces by posing as separatists. Russian troops shot at American troops and got some. The Americans embarrassed the Russians because of their own foolishness. Think of that example, when it comes to cyber, she suggested. 

We'll have to wait and see how Mr. Putin reacts in the coming months, but for right now, we don't need more Putin, we have our own champion of 'there's no happiness in life.'

Thank you very little, Mr. McConnell.

Panel: Amna Nawaz, PBS; Ashley Parker, The Washington Post; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist; Brad Todd, Republican Strategist

6.6.21: When Will The United States and the West Decide?

For this week's column, keep in mind what Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and her department's stake is in the Infrastructure package moving through Congress and that Republicans in their counter proposals have not included upgrading the energy transmission grid and improving our cybersecurity infrastructure. 

However, when Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) what the United States needed to do in the face of an increasing number and frequency of cyberattacks, he said that the U.S. needed the ability to be offensive and to have international norms. Blah blah blah... a weak response in our view.

The two most recent high-profile cyberattacks on Colonial Pipelines and JBS meat processing respectively, the perpetrators are based in Russia. So the 'ability' to be offensive should simply be 'go on the offensive.' The United States doesn't sanction rogue firms committing cyberattacks coming from this country and if Russia wants to be considered legitimate. 

Though Senator Roy Blunt's (R-MO) response on a January 6th commission was inadequate with shades of irresponsibility, his statement on Russia was unambiguous that they should be treated as 'virtually a criminal enterprise.' At this point, it is. These cyberattacks are sanctioned by the Putin regime in addition to their state-sponsored cyberattacks and assassinations. 

Senator Warner did mention something we found interesting. He explained that Colonial Pipelines had paid the ransom before notifying anyone that they did so, but that it took five days after that for everything to come back online. Five days of Putin time, in which he knows that for the effect to be felt by U.S. consumers, it needed more time. 

When Putin says that he knows nothing about these cyberattacks and that the protesters of January 6th at The Capitol was individuals with a political point or whatever he said, think about this: In 1989, when Putin was stationed in East Berlin and the West, specifically the United States, shoved Democracy so far up his ass that it was like 40 pounds of JBS beef lodged in his colon to the point he's still experiencing the bitter taste of. 

Our advice would be to keep shoving it up there. 

Ransomware should hit every one of his oligarch buddies' accounts and companies - the United States needs to respond. In each instance, the perpetrators whoever they are should demand $2. 

Yes, two dollars.

It's more difficult to pay two physical dollars than it is to pay 4 million in Bitcoin. It sends a message and to that end, cyber currencies like Bitcoin, Doge, and the rest - they're all bullshit. There is no underlying product or service or backing that sustains the value. It's all based on computer equations giving value to another computer equation that in turn gives value to a virtual piece of nothing so the sustainability on any one of these currencies is not justified. Not to mention that the energy (speaking of) that is required for virtual currency computing is larger than many countries and is a factor in climate change. Don't you feel better now? If some one starts hacking into that system, it would go a long way in cutting cybercrime.

The Washington Post's Anne Gearan reported that the White House considers larger than one nation, Russia, which is true that a slew of these attacks come from Eastern Bloc countries, aligned with Russia. Calls for transparency and international norms that Senator Warner had mentioned are needed, but a much more substantial response to Russia's nefarious activities is warranted and frankly overdue.

As for the United States, Chris Matthews explained that it's the government that is responsible for the offense and that the defense has to be a coordinated effort between the public and private sectors. Given that that has to happen, there have to be minimum standards and requirements for companies. Without it, there can be no coordination.

It's good to see Mr. Matthews back on television giving his perspective, which included that the once Cold War is transitioning into a Cold Cyberwar. It's all about energy. And if that is the case, when is the West going to decide to start sticking it to Mr. Putin again? Hopefully, in ten days when he meets with President Joe Biden.

Panel: Anne Gearan, The Washington Post; Kimberly Atkins Stohr, The Boston Globe; Chris Matthews, author and fmr. "Hardball" host; Lanhee Chen, Stanford University