5.2.21: Yes, The U.S. Can Pay Its Bills, But It Chooses Not To

Chuck Todd lead off today's "Meet The Press" with the famous Ronald Reagan quote in his 1981 inauguration speech, in which he said that government is not the solutions to your problems. Government is the problem. 

Never understood that. If you don't believe in government then why be in government other than to make it ineffective or bring it down? Basically what President Reagan was referring to was that the government taxed it citizens too much and by lowering taxes, less government services and a more pay-your-own-way living. 

Forty years later and the result is the great income disparity that we're seeing today. As families expenses go up and wages remain behind the basic standard of living something like having two jobs becomes the norm to make ends meet. What the pandemic has exposed is the staggering number of Americans who live check to check and the loss of just one can throw a family into turmoil, never mind a year of lost income. 

So it isn't surprising that 55 percent of Americans want government to do more because too many families are having to choose between food and healthcare or adequate housing and expenses - untenable at this point.

As for the Biden Administration proposing $6 trillion in spending, which would recalibrate the U.S. economy, a younger Joe Biden may have been more conservative in his proposals but with what he's seen with experience, the pandemic, the widening inequality of income he going big because this is the best chance to push these reforms through and he knows he has to utilize all his experience for this last opportunity to do so. 

And if you're in favor of government doing for the average American in the form of services and infrastructure, really the only person as president that would be able to get that done at this time is Joe Biden.

In his interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mr. Todd posed the notion that Mr. Sanders may have lost the battle for the presidency but won the war of ideas within the Democratic Party. Without question, many of his policy ideas be them amended to appeal to moderates have become more popular. For example, Senator Sanders proposed free four-year college, but the Biden Administration is pushing for two years of community college. So how much influence has he had, a lot but made palatable by Joe Biden - probably why the get on so well. What's clearer is that Senator Sanders was not the right messenger for these policies because practicality was not on the Senator's side. In the form he proposes, they wouldn't pass amongst Democrats, forget Republicans.

In the dueling interviews with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) respectively, one can not help but feel like a juror in a civil case when it comes to these plans and how to pay for them or to choose not paying for them at all. We're judging the credibility of both witnesses, e.g. their expertise. 

In terms of credibility on monetary policy, let's face it Senator Portman has none in the face of someone who chaired the Federal Reserve and is now the Treasury Secretary so we're more apt to listen to Secretary Yellen who outlined a number of different ways in which these spending proposals can be paid for.

However, as we all know, and Mr. Portman confirmed this, is that Republicans are a big no on anything that put these two words together - raise and taxes. And because everyone knows this, there are two choices: either the Democrats go it alone and pass these bills through reconciliation without Republicans or they scale it back and not pay for it, using deficit spending which even some Democrats support.

There was a quick clip of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) saying that if he heard Democrats described as moderate one more time, he was going to throw up. Fair enough... (We'd buy a ticket to that.) By the same token, hearing that Republicans are fiscally responsible is an ipecac causing projectiles. 

One aspect of note outlined by Secretary Yellen on how to pay for it is to better enforce the existing tax code, cracking down on tax cheats which totals $7 trillion over ten years. The I.R.S. has been cut to the point where there is virtually no enforcement. In other words, there's collection, only receiving. The last significant cut to the I.R.S's budget decimating the agency came during the... wait for it... Trump Administration. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt seemed optimistic that there may be some of these proposals passed in a more piecemeal approach, but the counter proposal has to be serious. Senator Portman said he was skeptical of a bipartisan bill because the Democrats decided to go it alone on the Covid package. But he didn't tell you why and that was because their counter laughably fell short of what was needed.

Perhaps the police reform legislation being negotiated could be the start of some bipartisan progress, but the problem remains with Republicans and until they scrape off the sludge of Trumpism and stop legislating according to alternate reality of grievance, it's going to be really difficult to obtain any progress. As mother's always say to their kids, "We'll see."

And poor Lanhee Chen who once advised Senator Mitt Romney said that Republicans should be talking about fiscal responsibility but he's speaking to or about a Republican party that simply doesn't exist anymore. They've ceded legislative credibility with their signature legislative achievement over the last four years was passing a tax cut, ultimately through reconciliation. And as PBS's Yamiche Alcindor noted, they're not going to go back on that.

So can we pay for it? Yes, we could but we choose not to.

Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; fmr. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO); Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institute, Stanford University

4.25.21: However You Define 'Normal,' It Takes Time to Get Back to It

Paraphrasing one of the several reactions to the George Floyd murder trial displayed at the top of today's program, there's poetry in that it took the breath and life being taken from George Floyd so that the country could effectively breathe and exhale.

The cost for that collective breath has been far too high, for far too long.

The governor of Minnesota got it right this week when he said that this is not a culmination but a beginning, a base, in which to move forward toward justice. Mr. Todd put forward the question of whether or not this is our 'Selma' moment, as Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) was quoted saying about the verdict. As the always most logical voice in the room, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson said that it was too soon to tell, but rhetorically asked, that if this isn't then what is? Historian Keith Mayes from the University of Minnesota was a definitive 'no' citing the fact that we've had six people of color die at the hands of the police since the verdict and that Washington hasn't called for reform in a wide bi-partisan fashion.

The lingering questions:
Where would we be without the video? Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said that she didn't know. None of us do.
If Republicans controlled Congress would we even be discussing police reform legislation? 
And are we as a society at this point even capable of having another 'Selma' moment?

The panel conversation circled around police reform and whether budgets for departments are too high, too low, whether the disparity is too great and how the money should be spent. However, Mr. Todd made the very point that we made in last week's column, to which Malcolm Gladwell expounded upon and left sitting; the point being that when half of the population is armed and you don't know who that is, how do you avoid police using excessive force? He explained, as you can easily imagine, that no other country has this unique problem to the extent that we do here. 

As a society, if we want to reform the police and have their behavior change, the rest of us could take some of the burden from them by having more gun safety. Police reform and gun safety are obviously politically charged issues that usually warrant too many opinions than we want to hear. 

That vaccinations are a politically charged subject is just 'effing' stupid at this point. How many millions have been vaccinated? And even in the case of the Johnson & Johnson single shot vaccine, there should be no issue because the cases of blood clotting have been so rare. Feel better that they are aware of it and making us aware of it. Republicans and states in which the former president won are either flat out refusing to get vaccinated because Trump (doesn't deserve any honorific) isn't the president and the election was stolen or you've been advised by your Evangelical pastor that the virus is a hoax and it's a sin to get it. Or you could be like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and say if you got vaccinated then why should I have to? There's a real leader for you. And it's Republicans that complain about things being shut down, yet refuse to do one thing, the vehicle through which we can fully reopen. When confronted with this kind of pretzel logic, it's difficult to have empathy for the other side's point of view. 

(Aside: Morgan Radford noted that 6 in 10 Republican voters still think there was fraud in the election that enable Mr. Biden to win.)

Despite the aforementioned obstacles, a right-wing echo chamber only in for the check, and Republican held state houses doing their best to limit democracy, President Biden has an overall approval rating amongst all Americans of 53 percent. Normalcy and competency go a long way, don't they? We'll have trouble adjusting back into normal life, however you want to define that, post-covid and some people may never stop wearing masks, being hesitant to be in large groups, et al. 

The same has been the case in the first 100 days of Mr. Biden's presidency. It will take time for the public to adjust to a normal functioning administration with no 'crazy dramas,' as The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan put it. And hopefully as time goes on, the 'crazy' will be seen for what it is and eventually fade. A bit optimistic, but either way it's going to take time to adjust. 

Panel: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Morgan Radford, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Malcolm Gladwell

4.18.21: The Transition is Us in the Midst of Multiple Crises

Princeton University professor, Eddie Glaude, Jr. described the state of police reform as in an interregum, which is normally defined as when the usual state of government functioning is suspended in the face of a crisis. A transition period, if you will. Applied to policing, we may be in that state in terms of thinking about policing in this country, but in the practical sense, sadly, it's business as usual. Police using excessive force continues unabated.

Today's panel weighed in with a multitude of reasons, but there's one aspect that hasn't been clearly stated as to why we are continually seeing videos of police using excessive force and that is perhaps because they are afraid and uncertain, uncertain that the person they're encountering has a gun. 

And it's directly related to mass shootings - 147 since the beginning of the year - defined as 4 or more people shot. It's entirely too easy to get a gun in the United States and if an individual is determined to get one, ultimately it will not be difficult to attain so everyone and anyone can have a gun on them at any given time.  400 million guns in circulation for a population of 332 million... Someone's going to get shot.

Echoing our column from a few weeks ago, until we think about gun safety as a public health issue as Dr. Anthony Fauci described it, these crises of police shooting people and mass shootings will continue with more frequency. And one more thing about the Second Amendment in particular: There is the widely held belief in the United States that owning a gun is a fundamental right of Americans, like free speech, but that simply is not true. One could be in jail and still exercise free speech, but you can not own a gun in jail. That's a simplistic example, but suitable.

And speaking of Dr. Fauci and public health, how is wearing a mask controversial even when you have been vaccinated when it's explained so easily by Dr. Fauci. Paraphrasing, if you're vaccinated you still may contract Covid-19 but not have any symptoms because you're vaccinated. However, if you're not wearing a mask you may give the virus to someone who is not vaccinated and or still susceptible to contracting it. Basically, look out for your neighbor, something not in vogue at the moment it seems, especially on the part of 43% of Republicans who said they will not get vaccinated.  Easily explained in two sentences.

As for the pause of the Johnson & Johnson single shot vaccine, it is concerning that a few individuals have died and suffer from blood clots from getting the shot. This side effect is, frankly, a major concern make no mistake and yes, officials including Dr. Fauci are going to be very cautious in how they discuss this, as he was today because of the possibility of blood clots forming, then traveling quickly to the brain, which kills you. But before you go off the deep end with that notion, keep in mind that this is eight people among 7 million who have received the shot. Would this column take that shot? Yes, if as Dr. Fauci described that they can identify preexisting conditions that complicate the effect on the body and if doctors therefore know how to treat it.

Dr. Fauci said that you're at low risk of contracting the virus when flying if you have been vaccinated and said that it is the risk that you're comfortable with. We would suggest thinking in those same terms when considering getting the J&J vaccine.

As for the spike in cases and increased hospitalizations in Michigan, it's recommended by the CDC (scientists) that parts of the state should shut down. Enter Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D), who Chuck Todd pressed her on previous statements of following science and now not so much. Governor Whitmer explained that she now has fewer tools at her disposal for shutdowns because her Republican-controlled state house sued her over this authority, which the Michigan Supreme Court upheld. Oh, and there also that little thing of a kidnapping and execution plot against the governor over such restrictions. Seems to this column that she is trying to do the right thing in the face of so much wrong. As former Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) said of Mr. Todd, he can be a 'shit.' 

And speaking of shit, this brings us to the newly-formed America First Caucus made up of House Republicans. Contained within their platform are the following:

Seriously?

"Common Respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions?" What the eff does that mean? Infrastructure that reflect European architecture, like buildings... Does that include statues as well? Not to mention that some of those European designs, though beautiful, probably aren't the most environmentally sound, but whatever. Lastly, in decreasing the capital to labor ratio for post-1965 immigrants, which would disproportionately effect the Asian-American community who has predominated in business since 1965 and this statement limits their ability to raise capital even though they are Americans so the effect of this would be putting a group of individuals at t a disadvantage simply based on race. These excerpts can be colloquially explained  inasmuch as in the U.S. White political traditions should dominate, the buildings throughout the country should reflect white America and White America should have an advantage when it comes to wealth. To quote Mr. Boehner once more, "this is the nuttiest thing I've ever seen."

Punchbowl News' Anna Palmer, who broke this story explained that the problem is that this isn't just one individual but a group and it will be difficult for Republican leadership to distance itself from such a caucus. The insight comes from David French who explained that these nativist ideas predominate in Republican-controlled state houses around the country and if national representative from such states denounce the craziness, they are censured, ostracized, and primaried. Maybe this isn't becoming the mainstream, like Mr. Todd suggested, but it's certainly a vocal presence that Republican leadership now has to deal with. We'll just say that the Republican party writ large is in an interregum. 

The question remains that with all these crises going on at once, is the country is a series of interregums or just one giant one? This transition is us in the midst of multiple crises.

Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eddie Glaude, Jr., Princeton University; Anna Palmer, Punchbowl News; David French, The Dispatch

4.11.21: The Pulse of U.S. Foreign Policy is Finally Responsive

It's been overdue that the focus of this column and the media in the U.S. started to turn its attention to foreign policy, especially since for the last four years, we've been focused an incompetent boob in the White House who had no foreign policy, to which to speak.

With a decimated internal bureaucracy and a demoralized State Department, not to mention navigating the Covid environment domestically and with no transition, the Administration leadership has been behind in proactively responding internationally. Leading the rebuilding of the State Department - enter the professionals finally - is Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. The foreign policy pulse of the U.S. is once again responsive.

As America's top diplomat you can imagine his answers in today's interview were firm but light on specifics and more like intention signaling, hence diplomatic. One area in particular where the U.S. is now in a diplomatic full-court press is in Afghanistan, otherwise known as America's longest war where without a diplomatic solution there's no getting out. 

In terms of vaccinations, the Administration's strategy has been sound in so much as it's been rolling out the vaccines in the United States and ensuring enough stock domestically. However, Secretary Blinken also explained that taking a lead in vaccinating the world and helping other countries, it will help us here at home. The ancillary benefit of helping other countries is that it will build good will while serving the United States' own interests. The restoring of trust in U.S. leadership is not to be downplayed.

This is especially true when it comes to Russia and China policy. Before we dive into that there was one subject there wasn't time for which was on the restart of nuclear talks with Iran. The outcome of these initial talks are of course in grave doubt because of distrust on both sides. And let's be frank, if you're the Iranian regime and you negotiate a halt to nuclear weapons production with one administration and the next one withdraws from the agreement, how can you be sure it's not going to happen again? With that question out there, it's better to be at the table talking than to stay standing behind blinding ideological curtains. 

The panel largely agreed that the Biden Administration's policy toward Russia is essentially the same as the prior two administrations, with Pentagon Reporter for The New York Times, Helene Cooper, explaining that the thinking really hasn't changed. Secretary Blinken could only say that the Administration is maintaining its stance on Crimea and that they're watching what's going at the Russian-Ukraine border and troop buildups. PBS's Amna Nawaz noted that since Ukraine is not a NATO member that the United States isn't obligated to defend the country, which is the case but if the Putin regime decides to move into Ukraine then the United States should respond. In a more colloquial way of explaining, the United States, being sick and tired of Russia hacks, influence campaigns, human plants and disinformation, needs to flex its cyber muscle in response. Undoubtedly, some strong Western allies would be on board with a coordinated strategy. 

Putin's iron grip on the Russia people is ever slipping and it's two-fold - the more repression of his own people because of poor domestic performance - personified by opposition leader Alexny Navalny - will erode his power. This is in addition to the flawed thinking that territorial expansion of influence militarily will boost prospects at home.

And speaking of repression, that brings us to China, which when it's diplomats sat down with Secretary Blinken and other top U.S. officials in Alaska earlier this year they were indignant when the U.S. called them out on their treatment of the Uighors population because of the United States own treatment of Native Americans, African Americans and immigrants at its border. Well, there's a tit for tat for you...

But here's the rub... in the United States there is recognition of its dark chapters and the open dialogue with the hope of one day of reconciling with that darkness. Conversely, Uighurs in China have no voice and are treated inhumanely in a governmental systematic way that U.S. Secretary of State Blinken described as genocide. 

Diplomatically, that's very strong language, tough talk if you will and that's how Ms. Cooper described the Pentagon and State Department's talk on China with regard to its increased military naval activity off the coast of Taiwan. But it's just that, only that.. tough talk.

However, in today's interview Secretary Blinken said (and reiterated) that China changing the status quo with regard to Taiwan militarily would be a "serious mistake." He wouldn't go so far as to say that the U.S. would defend Taiwan militarily, but he response left little room for any other interpretation. 

Maybe right now, the United States is only talking tough with China and not really doing anything. However, Secretary Blinken certainly indicated a willingness to also take action to back up those words with regard to Taiwan because we can not help but remember the last administration and its despicably impotent (non-existent) response to China and its repression of Hong Kong. 

Progress is small steps and the U.S. is starting to affirm its footing.

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Ashley Parker, The Washington Post; Amna Nawaz, PBS News Hour; Peter Alexander, NBC News

3.28.21: So Much Death, Violence and Acrimony Over A Single Sentence

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is exactly how it is written in the Constitution - punctuation, capital letters and all. One sentence.

When you think about, it's kind of crazy that so much death, violence and acrimony has occurred in this country over one sentence. 

Scholars and Constitutional lawyers and politicians and everyone in between have made arguments to how exactly apply that one sentence into law. Meanwhile... Shootings... Masses of them... Masses of mass shootings. What could we possibly contribute here?

Well, we look at from a grammatical point of view. Those two clauses within the commas? Because they're separated out by commas was the intent that the two were conditions that could change. Those two clauses could be removed and the one sentence would still make sense. A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed. But what does that even mean? Every definition of 'militia' contains some form of the word 'citizen.' If you were to change the word 'militia' to say, 'citizenry' then things would be more applicable to the 21st century. But the big however here, is that we still have the words well regulated. 

No matter how you hash up that sentence the words 'well regulated' are intended to be essential to the sentence, and well regulated we certainly are not. The subtle bit of 'Frank Luntz-like' strategy of reframing the debate terminology is genuinely helpful - from gun control to gun safety. We definitely need more gun safety because things are out of control. And nowhere in that sentence, especially given the 'well regulated' language, does it give the citizenry the civil right to own a gun.

Judging from their respective interviews, Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), incremental steps are the only way forward on gun safety measures, starting with background checks that 90 percent of Americans support. Other reasonable measures could be instituted such as a waiting period (if only for 2 days) and a permit. How modest is that? Republican strategist Al Cardenas later in the panel discussion called for an even stricter measure on assault rifles. However, any measure that mentions restrictions on assault rifles is DOA for Senate Republicans and Joe Manchin. With incremental measures, Mr. Murphy feels that there are 60 votes in the Senate. We'll see...

Mr. Murphy also feels that this could be an opportunity to quell the outcry for the end of the filibuster as passing gun safety legislation could get 60 votes. You would think that modest proposals could get say 70 votes, but even 60 seems like one is setting an unreasonable goal. It's also worth noting here that Mr. Toomey has it wrong when it comes to the filibuster and race. While the filibuster in and of itself isn't racist, it has been a tool throughout its existence for racist and suppressive purposes. You really can't get around that. But even more disappointing was Mr. Toomey's defense of restrictive voting laws that are designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

More difficult to vote, get a driver's license, a fishing license or marriage license than it is to buy a gun. The least we can do is to require similar in terms of guns. We still wouldn't be well regulated but at least better. 

NBC's Vicky Nguyen gave us the easily digestible, but hard to swallow, fact that while Americans make up 4 percent of the population, we own 44 percent of the worlds guns. When Senator Toomey says we do not have too many guns in circulation - over 400 million at this point - one has to wonder how many is too much for him? A buy back program would also be a reasonable step - get guns off the street and put money in people's pockets. Hmmm...

Even after twenty first graders and 17 high school students were gunned down, followed by 61 people people in Las Vegas followed by another 23 in El Paso all the way up to last week in Atlanta and Boulder, we still can not agree on the meaning of one sentence.

Panel: Vicky Nguyen, NBC News; Heather McGhee, Color of Change; Peter Baker, The New York Times; Al Cardenas, Republican Strategist 

 

 

3.21.21: Through Lines Through the U.S.

When you have Princeton professor of distinction like Eddie Glaude Jr., the head of African Studies, the theme for a column easily comes into focus, and that is of 'through lines.' Mr. Glaude explained that the through line of the hour of this week's "Meet The Press" was the anxiety of the loss of whiteness" in the country. From immigration to the surge in domestic terror threats to voting rights to attacks on Asian Americans, white grievance seems to be fueling this domestic unrest and it's not a stretch to make that conclusion. Interestingly, The Nevada Independent's Jon Rolston (dean of Nevada political reporting) said that his through line was that 'words matter,' a more tempered response to accommodate white viewers.

While Mr. Glaude's explanation may be uncomfortable for some to hear, it's necessary because just as Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan explained, if there is a particular community of people saying that they feel under assault or intimidation then you should stop and listen to them. 

This brings us to the last topic first, the shooting in the Atlanta area that left 8 people dead, six of whom were of Asian descent. The reports, including from the shooter's roommate, say that this 21-year old man had a sex addiction and because of his strict religious upbringing, his guilt was so overwhelming that he went on a murderous spree to eliminate people that temped him. There are so many things in just that sentence that speak of societal ills that it's too much for even a series of columns, however, some have opined in the news media that this was not racially motivated, necessarily. 

Consider perhaps why this young man went to Asian spas... Because he fetishized Asian women and saw them as a means to his personal ends, not as people essentially dehumanizing them. When taking that into account, race certainly plays a role in these killings.

Then there's the elephant in the room of this tragedy, which Senator Rafael Warnock (D-GA) summed up best, that an individual can buy a gun and hours later use it to kill eight people but citizens cannot register and vote on the same day. There's definitely something wrong.

The Senator from Georgia makes a powerful case that there should be a cut-out in the filibuster rule for voting rights because of its fundamental nature to our democracy. It shouldn't even be a partisan issue but it is because of a Republican party that has embraced white grievance politics, embedded deep by the previous president. Voting rights restrictions are being put in place because the Republican party writ large is running out of ideas and isn't bringing more voters to its side so they're going back to trying to disenfranchising minority voters, especially in Georgia. African-Americans have seen their voting rights under attack since the country's inception. We should listen to Senator Warnock.

As for retiring Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), he comes from a tradition that no longer exists and votes like reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, once a no-brainer for a 'yes' vote, is now a cloture vote. He wants to make that 'yes' because he knows it's coming and but he's also smart enough to know that his unblemished election streak (that he indeed referenced) would come to and end for that vote, among others. Nor does he want to have a primary challenger. 

When asked by Chuck Todd if he agreed more with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) or fmr. president George W. Bush on whether the attack on the Capitol was by 'people who love their county' or by 'hostile forces' as the fmr. president described it, Mr. Blount agreed with the former president. His other conundrum is on immigration in which he also agreed with President Bush that it has been over-politicized and a complicated issue. 

Ms. Noonan explained that Congress has found a way every time immigration reform comes up in the last 20 years - more actually - it has found a way to screw it up and hence nothing gets done. And contrary to pundits' discussions about the rhetoric and the messaging from the Biden Administration, the surge at the border was coming from the day the former president wasn't reelected. 

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas explained that the previous administration dismantled many of the policies concerning the border and immigration as a whole. We're willing to give the new administration a little time, but not much. More time is needed because unlike other issues, there is a distinct human factor of course with immigration. The secretary explained that the border is closed and they are expelling single adults and have FEMA working on the crisis of unaccompanied children. What gets no more time is essentially this media blackout. As NBC's Julia Ainsley accurately assessed, this isn't the issue the Administration wants to talk about, but it's the one they're confronted with. 

So if there's a through line for us during today's "Meet The Press" it would be that we have to stop dehumanizing people and give more embrace to the ideal of the melting pot. Idealistic, but that's what you get on the second day of spring.

Panel: Julia Ainsley, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Eddie Glaude, Jr., Princeton University; Jon Ralston, The Nevada Independent

3.14.21: All Republicans Have Left Is 'No'

"It makes absolutely no sense to me that people aren't getting vaccinated because of political reasons," to cite Dr. Fauci today. And yet, eighty-one percent of Republicans who voted for Trump said in a poll that they would not get vaccinated. One must admit that that is a pretzel logic that's difficult to digest, but it's the lingering legacy of the last administration.

Instead of mobilizing constituents in the same of public health, Republican-controlled state houses are enacting laws to restrict voting, weighted toward disenfranchising people of color. Two hundred, sixty new voter-restriction laws in 43 states with Georgia at the epicenter, but the state's Lt. Governor, Geoff Duncan, isn't having it. He called the new voter laws proposed by state Republicans a solution in search of a problem. In addition, Mr. Duncan explained that the laws do not remedy the 'problem,' which Republicans are alleging - voter fraud.  

Void of ideas and the ability to govern, it seems like Republicans are emptying their pockets of any political power currency they have left which is their ability to change voting laws to make it more difficult for people of color (who predominantly support Democrats) from voting.

Stacey Abrams, founder of Fair Fight, described these laws as the most repressive since the Jim Crow era and said that Congress, specifically the Senate, needs to do away with the filibuster for voting laws in light of the House passing HR 1. She also explained that her focus is on our democracy, not just voting rights, because she strongly believes that these newly created laws are undemocratic. In a sense she is correct because the goal of all these laws in essence is to have the minority rule the majority.

However, the Senate isn't going to get rid of the filibuster for that, simply not going to happen. The column has long felt that Democrats always want to go big, which isn't an issue, but they go too big and then the load gets dropped on their foot. With that in mind, what if the Democratically controlled House passed a law that made the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every four years a national holiday? (As it should be.) Instead of the one killer blow, maybe they should try a death-by-1,000-cuts strategy. Make it more difficult for Republicans to say 'no.' And in terms of the filibuster, Senators should be forced to actually do it instead of just threatening. Force them to stand on the Senate floor for 18 hours giving a speech. Some of the octogenarian Senators will think twice.  

To bring it full circle, Dr. Fauci doesn't understand how wearing a mask or taking a vaccine could be political, but for Republicans it has to be all cynical politics - power for the sake of power. With a party bankrupt of ideas as they are, all they is no.

Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino; Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institute; John Heilemann, NBC News

3.7.21: Has Everyone Gone Home A Little Unhappy? Good.

He's a Democrat and he's holding up the bill... How dare he? 

This is where we are that if a Senator, in this case Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who supports the $1.9 trillion Covid Relief bill sees something added late in the process that he doesn't like and calls it out, parts of people's brains begin to melt sending the neocortex into full retreat. 

Take a breath...

This shouldn't be a problem and it isn't. Yes, there is an urgency to passing this bill because employment benefits for millions are going to run out in a week, but Democrats should appreciate having a check like Senator Manchin in their party. Just as he explained today to Chuck Todd, he may not always heed Republican Senators' advice or counsel but he wants to hear what they have to say, Democrats should do the same with Mr. Manchin. Granted, the senator from West Virginia has incredible leverage to have his voice heard called 'the deciding vote' for the Democratic agenda. 

This is a good example of compromise (at least among Democrats) because the bill was passed in the Senate, but some things had to be left out effectively leaving all interlocutors a little disappointed. 

With that mind, not raising the minimum wage is something in which his column disagrees with Senator Manchin Senate and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). We get it that they are trying to thread the needle that raising the minimum wage isn't directly related to Covid relief and the parliamentarian gave them an out if they wanted, but this was a political needle so that conservative donors in their respective states don't come after them for it. Take that as you will.

As we've said in the past, raising the minimum wage will not be as hard on businesses as the rhetoric allows, but what it does do is giving a better baseline to reach and negotiate for better opportunity. The way we see it is that Republicans in Congress take the position that there shouldn't even be a minimum wage as most people make more than $15 an hour... Most people that they know.  Democrats on the other hand that there should be a minimum wage and that wage should be enough so that you're not working 40 hours per week and still living in poverty, as opposed to just the minimum that an employer is obligated to pay a worker. When considering that nuance, you're bound to end up with some 'no' votes. [Aside: as for the aforementioned, Senator Sinema and her 'no' vote on the minimum wage increase, appreciable sass but very poorly timed.]

As for the price tag of this Covid Relief bill - $1.9 trillion - it's an eye-opener for sure and at the top of the program Mr. Todd mentioned that we've thrown $6 trillion at the pandemic in a year, which definitely raises more than an eyebrow. When Danielle Pletka brought up this very fact, we were right on the same page. The cold fact is that there is no moving on from the pandemic unless we spend this money, and the question has to be asked of how the previous $4.1 trillion was spend - it wasn't all direct payments.

Also, it's interesting to note that when it comes to spending, Republicans and Democrats spend the same amounts - the big differences are to whom and the duration of time. Republicans when in power will give a $2 trillion tax cut to the richest one percent over the course of ten years whereas Democrats will give the same amount to the middle class and working poor immediately.

This bill is designed to do two things: 1) get the pandemic under control and get the population vaccinated and 2) create an economic 'reset' for all the millions of Americans who have suffered to make them somewhat whole again.

If you don't think that should be the goal of the government, just remember that one day you woke up and heard that Amazon effectively pays zero in federal income tax, a company that could pretty much fund the direct payments with one quarter's revenue. 

Yeah, that's what we thought - spend the money.

Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Secretary Homeland Security; Jonathan Allen, NBC News

One more thing...
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo... should resign his office immediately. Even if you're a supporter of the governor think about it - the remainder of his current term will not be centered on the greater good of the state and will only serve to distract from governing. The credibility of these women's stories is unequivocal, but even with that aside, Governor Cuomo should not be getting his due process at the expense of the citizens of New York state. A true leader would understand this, the people of the state are more important than one man's political self preservation. (Seriously, who do you think we are? Senate Republicans?)

.

2.28.21: "Protecting People is Protecting the Economy"

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that he had spoken with President Biden this week and we wonder if he gave him that very simple, yet effective messaging nugget that he put forth on today's program, which was "Protecting people is protecting the economy." Great messaging if you're trying to pass a $1.9 trillion Covid relief package through Congress. Don't you think?

The two main concerns with regard to the bill are that it will make the total government layout $6 trillion in one calendar year, as Chuck Todd pointed out during the discussion, and the other is the inflation that could be caused by infusing so much liquid into an economy that is beginning to recover as Brett Stephens mentioned.

Both parties have been exploding the national debt over the decades and one can only wonder when that day of reckoning will come when the interest payments become unmanageable. Inflation is a concern but with smart fiscal policy it can be mitigated. Pricing going up while wages stay flat so that you're dollar covers less - inflation - has been going on for some time now (an understatement), but if the concern is Venezuela-type inflation, that worry is overblown.

The economy is starting to recover, but the recovery will certainly be disproportionate in who it benefits without the Covid relief bill passing. The relief package consists of elements that directly address Covid efforts - vaccine distribution, testing, tracing, PPE, et al, but its also designed to make people and state governments whole again. It's this part of the bill that Republicans in Congress object to even though Republican governors and mayors are in favor of its passage because they know they need the help to balance their budgets and prevent layoffs of public employees like firemen and police. Some Texas elected officials have stated that people are on their own as it isn't the job of the government to help, then again their not looking at any hurting individual directly in the eye and saying that.

Conservative concern over fiscal policy as mentioned above does need to be seriously considered, however, Republicans can not claim fiscal responsibility or responsibility for much at all if you consider how a Republican president and Senate sat on their hands for the better part of a year while hundreds of thousands died. If they had taken the pandemic seriously, maybe this relief package wouldn't have been necessary, but given where we are now it is absolutely necessary.

The relief package could be all for not if we do not continue to practice mitigation efforts as Dr. Fauci instructed because as he explained the baseline for cases per day is still way too high. He also explained that with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine coming online, productive and distribution will be ramping up even more. Basically, he's telling us we're in a race to get as many people vaccinated as possible as quickly as possible because let's face it, the American people writ large can not be counted on to do the right thing and continue strict mitigation measures. Will they? Not bloody likely, as the saying goes.

We mentioned earlier that Republican leaders and the local and state level want the relief package to pass and in polls 60% of Republican voters want it as well so why didn't Republicans in the House vote for the bill? Why is it projected that none of the Republicans Senators will vote for it either? For Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) and a select few others, it is about fiscal issues, but for most all the others it's about not giving President Biden a political win under the guise of fiscal responsibility. If Republicans vote for a bill put forward by the Biden Administration then that says to the base that they are legitimizing the Biden presidency, which is a no-no in Trump world, or at CPAC occurring as we write this. 

Republicans should put their complaints about the Biden Administration not being bipartisan until all of them say aloud that Joe Biden is president. It's clearly apparent that they haven't acknowledged basic civics.

Panel: Carol Lee, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Brett Stephens, The New York Times; O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa Network

One more thing...
How scary is this? A golden Trump statue at CPAC, a false idol compared to the golden calf. As North Dakota governor Kristi Noem (R) said, they've become what they behold... Sheep.

Not to mention the fact that Donald Trump would never ever be seen in shorts and flip-flops, please.