Oh boy, were we ready for a change.

Biden and Harris came in with stratospherically high expectations. Lady Gaga sang the national anthem at the inauguration, and a new day was about to begin. Our newly elected White House Democrats were going to replace night for day, chaos for reason, and restructure dystopia with a clear path leading us forward toward order. And they were going to do all of that within their first year in office, if possible (that’s what we dreamed, hoped, thought – okay, what I dreamed, hoped, imagined!) Oh, foolish me. Oh, foolish us. After DT, were we ever ready for change! We were on pins and needles, waiting for our new day to begin. Kamala was dispatched to the Mexican border, and Joe would take care of the rest.

Of course, we were still in the middle of a pandemic, and caught up in pandemic-related worldwide distribution issues that ultimately contributed to an inflation rate not seen in 40 years. Higher gas prices do not happy campers make! Biden didn’t create the pandemic or inflation. Biden didn’t set up Chinese dominance of production and its tumbling dice of ocean misuse to get us our iPhones when we want them. For that, we have to go back through years of policy making and bipartisan culpability in Washington. And yes, we might even have to reassess our love affair with Apple. Perish the thought! But yeah, we just might. Suffice it to say, there is enough inflation blame to go a long way round – and a long way back. Biden just happens to be the President in place right now, so he’s our fall guy.

Biden didn’t create gun violence either. Gun violence came with the job. Gun violence comes with the country that we are. We are consistently deaf to our nation-defining lessons on death by guns and automatic weapons. We are unwilling to leave the curse of our bloody need to kill one another behind us for once and for all. We are, seemingly, just incapable of doing that. We prefer the guns for everybody Don’t Worry Be Happy approach. As Bobby McFerrin once sang:

“In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry you make it double
Don’t worry, be happy.”

And incapable of bringing about real change, we need someone to blame for our morass. That’s why we elect a new President every four years, right?

This time round, we elected Joe Biden.

And surprise, surprise, in an ABC News-Ipsos poll released in December, even though a majority of Americans (53%) still approve of Biden (not a big majority by any means), Biden’s favorability has slipped far from the 72% support that he had just in March. Scapegoat, maybe? And guess what, in recent polls, gun violence, inflation and Covid-response are the major barometers in Biden’s declining poll numbers. Gun violence and inflation, as already mentioned, are beyond any President’s control.

Covid came out of the clear blue sky. Biden’s Covid response is like night and day compared to Trump’s. But a virus is a virus, not controlled by any president anywhere in the world. The delta variant morphed to an omicron variant whether we like it or not. And Biden, despite his power, has no say in that. But yeah, if we’re going to blame someone for the fast-increasing number of Covid infections across the country, let’s blame the guy in office right now. That would be Biden.

Can we fall back on Harris? Not really.

Harris, not often seen or reported on in our media, has percentages that line up pretty much 53% for, and 40% against, not dissimilar to Biden’s. She is not resonating broadly. She faux-pas’s big time recently by saying the delta and omicron variants had caught the current administration off-guard. Fauci, never failing, came to the rescue. Her comments were taken ‘out of context,’  he reassured us.

And so and just because, I thought we might look at how the previous power brokers in the kingdom are doing. They may yet come back to haunt us. A note to Microsoft’s Word’s spellcheck programming people; even now, Word doesn’t recognize Melania as a legitimate name. Come on Microsoft – you’re the most valuable internet-focused company on the planet, get it together and catch up! Melania was here and gone!

Is Melania’s step-daughter, Ivanka, doing so much better than the current occupants of the White House?

I am sad to report that no, she is not.

I found on YouGovAmerica that Ivanka is not doing well at all. The site tells us that Ivanka’s popularity is now at an all-time low of 34%. Welcome to the club, Ivanka! We’re here for you.

How about Melania herself?

It turns out that there is enough disconnect to go round. Melania – unrecognized by Microsoft – left office with the worst final popularity rating for a First Lady ever. But empathy begins from those abandoned en masse by society, so all is not lost. However, after she left the White House, nobody much seemed to care about how our former First Lady was doing. There are no recent poll statistics that I have been able to find on Melania at all.

Melania news was sparse until FoxBusiness recently reported that you can now own a digital watercolor painting of our former First Lady’s eyes in exchange for 1 Solana, a cryptocurrency token. This is not some nutcase hacker trying to make a buck off of Melania. I am not making this up. This is Melania herself selling an NFT. The SOL token involved is, as of this writing, valued at somewhere around $175. Well, you sell a thousand, that’s small change. You sell 50 thousand, you’re looking at almost 9 million dollars! Melania is cashing in. And apparently she is planning to dedicate more of her energy to her new business going forward. According to AlJazeera … Melania Trump will release NFTs “in regular intervals” on her website … with a portion of the proceeds going to foster children. It’s unclear what percentage of the proceeds will be donated, or whether the donations will be given to specific foster child-related charities.

Melania has moved on.

So, there you go!

Oops, not so fast.

Our 45th President, DT, the man himself, seems to think that Melania still has pending, how to put it, responsibilities, duties, (advantages for DT himself?) going forward. He believes that she, despite her current NFT endeavors (she just posted a new one today and is now called crypto queen by London’s Guardian) – , can win the rest of America over for another flyby at the presidency. Well, dreams have to start somewhere.

How is DT, the man himself, doing in the polls these days? As of Dec 15th, FiveThirtyEight tells us that, unfortunately for him and fortunately for us, not so great either. DT had a 52% disapproval rating as of mid-December. The scales seem to have tipped to his detriment. The man lives, still fuming like a discarded cigarette butt, in a luxurious club-like situation in Palm Beach, Florida. He is slow-burning his final years forward, in exile, like some once-upon-a-time Russian oligarch in erstwhile Paris.

So, who wants to be America most? Who loves us the most right now?

Honestly, I don’t know.

Somewhat facetiously, I thought of nominating Lana Del Rey.

Lana Del Rey is a self-made enthusiast for American symbolism and a lover of America’s past. Del Rey, sometimes, knows us better than we know ourselves. She knows our ins and outs, our cultural highs and lows, perhaps more than anybody. She knows our doubts, our inadequacies, our blemishes and our flaws. She knows out inherent attractions, and she understands why we are the country that we are.

Lana knows us like the back of our hand.

Alas, Lana Del Rey is not our answer. She is a singer who has no interest in politics.

So, hurtling on toward November 5, 2024, we are left with the same coterie of names as before, the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Obamas, the Reagans, the Clintons, the Trumps, and now the Bidens.

The Obamas were the breakthrough family on that list. But they have come and gone, just like Melania. The list is getting thinner by the day. There are no new Regans going forward, no new Bushes (that I know of), no Clintons, no new Kennedys and no new Obamas.

But are there still future Trumps out there, lesser or greater Trumps, in our future?

Hell yeah, there are many new future Trumps – sharing his surname or not – just waiting in line, ready to sabotage our democracy all over again. The grand lesson of DT for his acolytes worldwide is that you can lie, bluff, confuse and bluster … and you can get away with it. You can build a fake persona, just like you can build fake news. QED.

Lesson learned.

Get yourself a bullhorn, align yourself with our most base instincts that negate difference, diversity, multiculturalism, human decency and democracy. And then start to prattle, jabber and vent – the more outrageous and farfetched your positions the better.

Then – and just then – some segments of America may start to believe that you have legitimacy. And just then, some segments of America may begin to believe that you love them most.

Oops! Sorry.

That you love America most.

The post Who loves America most? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s really hard to be a Democrat these days. Yes, at the moment, we have a slim majority in the House of Representatives and the slenderest of margins in the Senate. Joe Biden is our president. All of this contributes to why it is especially important now for Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to join their fellow Democrats and support the Build Back Better Act.

Everything comes with difficulty for Democrats. It’s not like with the Republicans where there is a myriad of ways to say no, to obstruct, to negate, to undermine. Democrats have to deal with a real diversity of opinions within their ranks and focus on constructing policy rather than destructing programs.

In 2009-10, Democrats had a slim workable majority in Congress and were able to pass the Affordable Care Act. It was a significant step forward, but because of literally no help from Republicans and some dissension within their ranks, it was a watered-down version of the bill that President Barack Obama wanted. It did not include the public option which would have given citizens the right to choose a government-sponsored health care program that would have been more affordable than others because unlike private plans, it did not involve make a profit for the insurer. Despite the absence of the public option, the ACA was the biggest new federal program passed since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Right now, there is an opportunity for Democrats to once again pass major legislation. They have done so with the COVID-related American Rescue Plan and then the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. But there is a third piece of legislation that will really strengthen the social and economic safety net that was created in President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and then the Great Society. It is the Build Back Better Act.

This omnibus bill is a remarkable proposal that provides comprehensive benefits for everyone from infants to the very elderly. Once again, it appears that there will be no help in the Senate in passing the bill. And, if history serves us right, next year’s mid-term elections will see one or both houses of Congress revert to the Republicans. That will put an end to any meaningful social, economic and human rights legislation that Joe Biden wants to pass.

This is why now is not the time for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to not jack around Biden, Congressional Democrats and the American people. We have a window of opportunity that is almost certain to shut after next year’s elections. Currently, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others can go to Manchin and Sinema and ask them to support the Build Back Better Act. Manchin in particular has shown a willingness to meet, even at inconvenient hours. He hears, though we don’t know how well he listens. But this is the time for him to accept the wins that he has already accomplished (including reduction of the bill by more than a trillion dollars). He could still qualify to be TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year because he has perhaps had more influence of the US, if not the world, than any other person. TIME awards the honor whether the change effected by the recipient is positive or negative.

After the 2022 mid-terms, Democrats will likely be in the minority. Any talks between Biden and Congressional leaders with Manchin or Sinema will be meaningless. As the political pendulum has swung in recent years, there may not be another opportunity for a decade or more.

So, Joe and Kyrsten, whether your really are Democrats or not, now is the time to at least pretend to be one and help the party in this infrequent window of opportunity. Tomorrow’s next chance is far too far off.

The post Another reason why Manchin and Sinema should vote like Dems, at least for now appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There once was a time when most Americans revered the Constitution. The charter outlined how we mortals  structured our government so that reason and fairness were two of the guiding principles. But thanks to Donald Trump and the current generation of Republicans, our governmental structure no longer has clear definition. The rules governing what we can do are suddenly whimsical and chaotic. Where there used to be rhyme and reason, now we have fragmentation and dysfunction. Republican presidents, legislatures and judges have replaced the discretion with how we interpret the Constitution with blatant self-interest.

The reason is that Trump and his followers have little respect for preserving and strengthening the institutions and procedures that for so long have protected our democracy. If the rules do not provide most Republicans with unfair advantages, they rebel against the rules and try to change them, throwing caution to the wind.

The U.S. Constitution outlines a few basic principles that control how government in America is supposed to work. Just for quick review, here are the most fundamental of these.

1. Checks and balances. Each level of government has three branches: (a) executive, (b) legislative, and (c) judicial.
2. Levels of government. We have our national government, the federal government, the fifty states, and tens of thousands of local governments. Presumably the states are the most powerful because they came first. But the federal government has certain clear rights over the states, such as control of interstate commerce or the power to print money and control banking.

Local governments are closest to we the people and that gives the localities certain inherent advantages. For instance, public schools are controlled by local communities. Yet, the states give charters to local governments including school districts and thus the states can dictate a great deal about how we live, work and play.

Historically, the constitution has helped bring order to how our legislators pass laws and executives enforce the laws. But deciding who makes which rules can be extremely complicated. For two centuries, our constitution was helped by a strong measure of common sense among the electorate. An informed electorate with belief in the Constitution helped in determining which branches of government, or which levels of government (federal, state, or local) would make which decisions, and what would be the parameters of those choices.

Now we are finding that all levels and entities of government are wildly scrambling to advance their own power, regardless of the principles of the Constitution or historical precedent. In the world of the truly absurd, we currently find that the governor of Florida (Ron DeSantis) is telling public school districts that they cannot mandate students and teachers to wear masks to school to provide more protection from COVID-19. This is the kind of problem that historically has been solved by agreements largely forged through precedent and a commitment to promoting the common good. A school board would have control over the day-to-day operations of the school, and currently almost all local boards in the United States want to provide as much safety as possible for students, teachers, administrators and other staff.

But Republicans like DeSantis want to maximize the power of their offices and positions, showing little regard for America’s historical relationships branches and levels of government. Our system is now confusing, unpredictable, arbitrary, and capricious.

The answers to the “Who Decides” questions are not easy. The Trump era can show us how far off any beaten path we can go with these questions. It is enough to make your head spin. But that sort of dizziness has been avoided for most of the lifespan of our country because there were sound rules in our Constitution, and behavioral norms kept anyone from pulling DeSantis tricks.

Federalism was a brilliant idea conceived by our founders. It helps us determine publicly beneficial answers to a myriad of questions about “Who Decides.” But it is based on good will among citizens of different political persuasions. We will never recover from the damage of Donald Trump and his legions until they recognize the importance of governing by the rules that have provided us with a large measure of stability for most of the past two and a half centuries. Regrettably, the record of politicians gone wild in acknowledging their mistakes and reinstating the basic principles of governance is not good.

Progressives will need to reach out to others to try to forge relations built on reason and concern for the common good.

The post Republicans are destroying our founders’ Federalism appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What a bizarre month this has been.

We’ve had Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) ask if the National Forest Service might change Earth’s orbit around the sun to alter the effects of climate change. An Ohio doctor pushes the idea that the vaccines can magnetize people and make them susceptible to government monitoring — an idea readily accepted by Republican legislators there.

Now comes Rep. Ann Wagner, (R-Missouri) proposing a bill that would hold China accountable for “deliberate, reckless action that allowed the coronavirus to spread, killing millions worldwide.”

She recently warned constituents that the government must pass this legislation, “to make sure China pays for their reckless actions.”

Talk about reckless actions, I bet she can’t wait to read “Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration’s Response to the Pandemic That Changed History,” a new book by Washington Post journalists Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta that captures the Trump administration’s dysfunctional response to the unfolding pandemic.

The book details some of the inner workings of Trump world early on in the pandemic. We knew he wanted to block cruise ship passengers from re-entering the country. But did we know he also wanted to bar infected Americans returning from abroad? His solution: send them to Guantanamo. All to keep the COVID numbers down in the U.S.A.

The book is not without its ironic moments…

“Testing is killing me!” Trump reportedly exclaimed in a phone call to then-Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on March 18, yelling so loudly that Azar’s aides overheard every word. “I’m going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?”
“Uh, do you mean Jared?” Azar responded, citing the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
– Washington Post

Trump fired key people to stifle sound scientific commentary. And, of course, he espoused ideas like using hydroxychloroquine and bleach injection. He repeatedly claimed the whole pandemic was all a hoax. He downplayed the need for masks and he failed to encourage widespread vaccination.

Crazy, right? We laughed. But Abutaleb and Paletta take a more somber view.

“One of the biggest flaws in the Trump administration’s response is that no one was in charge of the response… Was it Birx, the task force coordinator? Was it Pence, head of the task force? Was it Trump, the boss? Was it Kushner, running the shadow task force until he wasn’t? Was it Marc Short or Mark Meadows, often at odds, rarely in sync?… Ultimately, there was no accountability, and the response was rudderless”

Yeah, Ann Wagner, people need to be held responsible for making the pandemic much worse than it needed to be.

The post Strange times, reckless behavior, nightmare scenarios appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There were over seventy million Americans who voted for Donald Trump. They will not simply go away. If Biden supporters condemn them, it will only raise the Trumpsters’ ire. Liberals need to develop new strategies to reach the Trump voters with the hope they will over time see the benefits that can accrue from progressive policies. It will take a whole new strategy from what most Democrats have tried to date. Central to this approach will be for Democrats to embrace alienated poor white citizens as an essential part of the party; a collection of citizens whose agenda is as important as any other identity group.

Joe Biden can help himself, the party, and the American people by taking a radical approach to filling certain cabinet positions. Key to this will be filling certain positions with “real people;” the kind of individuals with whom alienated poor white voters, and many others, can easily relate.

How about filling the Department of Education with a teacher rather than an educator? Better yet, fill it with a student (I’m not being facetious). How about the Secretary of Labor being a line worker, a truck driver, or a nurse? What about the Secretary of Agriculture being a family farmer?

This would not work for every cabinet position; clearly the Secretary of Energy must be a scientist and the Secretary of State must have an extensive history of studying foreign affairs and traveling abroad.

There are several reasons why I suggest that wherever possible Biden’s cabinet nominees be from the grass roots. Clearly, not everyone in the grass roots would be capable of being a cabinet member. However, throughout the country, there are very thoughtful well-read individuals doing regular jobs who have ideas for reform that would truly advance the condition of people in their profession.

There are people in the trenches of fields like education, labor and agriculture who clearly know best what the current challenges are. They have ideas on what the federal government can do to improve their industry, including the people who work in it and who are served by it. This person may not have had a great deal of administrative experience, but she could have the necessary skills and personal attributes to develop strategies to help others in the grass roots. Naturally, they will have to hire assistants who are skilled managers as well as savvy budgetary gurus.

In addition to skilled grass roots individual making excellent cabinet members, there is another reason to take this approach. Political observers have recently been drilling down to learn why so many members of the Trump base do not like Democrats. For many Trumpsters, it is their disdain for and their separation from the so-called meritocracy.

What is the meritocracy and who are these people? The meritocracy is those people whose standing in life is determined by their professional credentialed achievements. They are the architects, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, city planners, university professors, journalists – the people who ascended to their positions by doing well in school, scoring well on standardized tests, doing what was necessary to make it through college, and in some cases, learned a few things along the way. To many Americans, these professionals are the backbone of our society, the real strength of the American populace. But to a multitude of Trumpsters; these are the people who have had unfair advantages in life, and live in a cloud in which they can neither see the Trumpsters nor care about them.

Those in the meritocracy have high standing in our society. Their prestige is at a level far above the auto-worker, the warehouse worker at Amazon, the bagger at the grocery store, the clerk at the dry cleaners.

In the world of the meritocracy, others within the clique are to be greatly admired and respected. But in the world of the Trump base, these “achievers” are the “others;” the people who got all the breaks in life.

The Trump base are the people who have been susceptible to misinformation on their social media feeds and have no idea how they are being manipulated. It is true that those in the meritocracy suffer from the same malady of manipulation, but to a lesser degree. In any society, there is a balance of power, or imbalance of power. Currently in the United States, alienated poor white people have considerably less power than those in the meritocracy. They are the “out crowd,” and have enormous resentment towards those in the meritocracy.

Those who are traditional achievers may say that they deserve everything that they have, in work, wealth and status. In the traditional way of looking at human achievement, they are spot on. But by viewing their achievements this way, they alienate those who have not made it to the level that those in the meritocracy have reached.

If we are going to achieve a greater modicum of unity in this country, we are going to have to find ways to respect where each of us stands. It’s not just a matter of accepting where others are. It is a realization that each of us has achieved, or in some cases not achieved, because of factors which go beyond the content of our character. They involve the status of the family in which we were born and other factors of luck.

If you are religious, you would say “there but for the grace of God go I.” If you’re not religious, you might say that some get better breaks than others.

Humanizing cabinet selections is a great way to start. A family farmer knows well how he is constantly under pressure from agri-businesses to sell his land and essentially become a tenant farmer. This family farmer needs more protection for his family and thousands of others who retain independent entrepreneurs in America’s first industry. Putting a family farmer in the cabinet would go a long way in preserving a competitive economy and strengthening American culture.

A teacher who has not aspired to move up the bureaucratic ladder, but instead to stay in the classroom, may have the most innovative ideas for improving education. Why not appoint her to be Secretary of Education and help her bring in a team of innovative administrators.

An auto worker who does not know from one day to the next if her plant will be shut could bring excellent insight to the Department of Labor. She would personally be impacted by job transitions, and could provide innovative ideas that would allow herself and her fellow workers to continue to have gainful employment if their plants shut down.

Not only could grass-roots workers make excellent Cabinet secretaries, but they would represent extending a hand to many Trump voters. Biden would bring into government people “like them” who would have a better chance to understand their challenges, frustrations, and opportunities for advancement.

We know Joe Biden will innovate. Bringing some “regular Joes and Janes” into the Cabinet would be a great way to advance the country and open the eyes of Trumpsters to what Democrats can do for them.

The post Biden Can Gain Trust from Trump Voters with Clever Cabinet Nominees appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Paul Krugman recently posted a piece in the New York Times, The Deadly Delusions of Mad king Donald. It likened our current state of affairs to being trapped on the Titanic. Definitely worth a read. Krugman writes thoughtful pieces, but one of the commenters, Citizen nicely summed things up with a goody making the internet rounds in April, but still worth repeating.

The post Adventures on the Titanic appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder—to overturn the “pre-clearance” requirement in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—continues to have major ramifications for voting rights in America. Just before the decision came down in 2013, The Brennan Center for Democracy looked into its crystal ball and envisioned what would happen if the Court decided against pre-clearance. The predictions were ominous, and, unfortunately, they began to materialize, just days after the Supreme Court’s opinion went live. Here are the general categories into which new voting rights abuses were likely to fall, according to the Brennan Center’s prescient predictions. Check them against what has actually happened. I’m republishing this post because of its continuing relevance in the Trump era of diminishing American democracy.

Jurisdictions could try to revise discriminatory changes blocked by Section 5.

To give you a sense of the scope of this category, consider that 31 such proposed changes have been blocked by the Justice Department or the federal courts since the Voting Rights Act was last reauthorized just eight years ago. In just the past six months, after the 2012 election, many such challenges have been rejected.

Jurisdictions could put in place broad discriminatory practices they were previously “chilled” from implementing by Section 5’s pre-clearance requirement.

In South Carolina v. Holder, a Section 5 challenge that preceded the 2012 election, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, an appointee of George W. Bush, highlighted the deterrent effect of the statute — how it prevented state lawmakers from moving forward with the most obviously discriminatory practices, and how these officials narrowed the scope of their proposed voting change to track the requirements of the Section. That deterrent effect will be gone.

Jurisdictions might implement those discriminatory practices they tried but failed to get past the Justice Department under Section 5.

The Brennan Center reports that 153 such voting measures have been submitted and then withdrawn in recent years after federal officials questioned the discriminatory nature of these proposed laws. Even if just half of these policies were to be reconsidered and adopted in the absence of Section 5 they would significantly change the voting rights landscape in several Southern states.

Finally, the most obvious impact — jurisdictions might try to adopt restrictive new voting measures they neither contemplated nor dared submit for preclearance under Section 5.

For best effect, those lawmakers could do so on the eve of an election, forcing voting rights advocates to scramble and practically daring the federal judiciary to enjoin the measures. We wouldn’t likely go back to the age, as John Lewis recounted, where black voters would have to guess the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. But we wouldn’t be too far off, either. Just last election cycle, in Texas, lawmakers sought to impose what amounted to a poll tax on indigent — or carless — registered voters.

If you think these predictions sound hysterical, Orwellian and unlikely to occur in this country, think again. In the past seven years, states and local jurisdictions enacted legislation on many of the fronts outlined by the Brennan Center. We need to stay on full alert.

The post Life after the Voting Rights Act appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Back at the turn of the century, as Chair of the Missouri Advisory Council On Alcohol and Drug Abuse, I appeared before committees working-up the state’s mental health budget.  The legislature maintained this great fiction that they controlled state operations down to one percent of every state employee’s time.  Using their power, a committee – thence the whole legislature – might slash a line item from 12.45 FTEs [Full Time Equivalent employees] down to 10.75 FTEs.

Of course, that mythical level of oversight never happened.  Still, it made the elected Representatives and Senators think they accomplished something.

And, even in these Republican times, the Missouri Legislature holds hearings and goes over the thick budget books for state departments in intricate detail.  Even expending just a trifle of money ($10,000 or $25,000 in a $30 billion budget) leads to debate, negotiations and tremendous angst.

Not this week.

The same legislature which traditionally sweats nickels gave accidental Governor Mike Parson unprecedented authorization to seek and spend over $6 billion without further or meaningful oversight.

Also, the Missouri legislature, by law, must pass a balanced budget for the new state fiscal year in early May.  Nope.

The latest plan has the governor calling a special session – probably in mid to late June – to pass a kinda budget.  Instead of detailed hearings and intricate review, the House and Senate will listen to a quick overview from bureaucrats and pull-out the rubber stamp.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Congress gave the Federal Reserve Board broad power to act in virtual secrecy. Politico reports:

The new law would absolve the board of the requirement to keep minutes to  closed-door meetings as it deliberates on how to set up the $450 billion loan program. That would severely limit the amount of information potentially available to the public on what influenced the board’s decision-making. The board would only have to keep a record of its votes, though they wouldn’t have to be made public during the coronavirus crisis.

Remember, the Federal Reserve already acts deep in the shadows.  How they “find” trillions of dollars to prop-up the economy on short notice is pretty much a head scratcher. Yes, they do, after all, print money.  Still, it would be a nice to believe that somehow people elected by their neighbors get to review and question how our economy is manipulated.  Not this year. The current president sees the Fed as just another loyal serfdom obligated to respond to his whim,.

Donald Trump, alas, ignores rules—and truth—every day.  Note how when he signed the latest stimulus bill, he refused to abide by its oversight provisions.  And, his new hobby is firing federal Inspector Generals, even the ones he appointed.

Donald, like Mike here in Missouri, prefers to rule by decree. “I know what’s best for you” ought to be on both their business cards. Dictate, don’t negotiate. If it works for Vladimir Putin or Recep Erdağon it ought to work for Trump and Parson.

Too bad it is working.

For decades, historians have charted the move towards an imperial presidency in this country. Yet it continues. And, Missouri governors of both parties have yanked more power to their office—the disposal of Eric Greitens being the rare exception to that trend.

My fear?  When COVID 19 heads to the history books, the extra control seized by government executives “during the emergency” won’t go away. Kind of like today’s Federal Assembly in Russia.  What began almost 30 years ago as a true parliament has reverted to the old Supreme Soviet, existing to say yes to the tyrant’s whims (including changing the law so the tyrant can rule as long as he wants).

Remember, Republicans elected to Washington and Jefferson City voluntarily ceded much of their power.  Will their successors ever get that power back?  Probably not

The post Are we witnessing the end of representative government? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

By October 1, 2020, anyone wanting to fly domestically, or gain legal admittance to a government facility or a nuclear power plant needs to have a Real ID (or a valid U.S. passport). Your Real ID is a form of identification that meets standards set—in response to 9/11—by the federal government and set in stone by Congress in 2005. Some states jumped right in and created Real ID’s for their citizens. If you don’t live in Missouri, this is already old news, and you’ve had your Real ID for years. Not surprisingly, ultra-conservative and slow-as-molasses Missouri was among the last of the states to get on board (as I write this, the only remaining outliers are Oklahoma, Oregon and New Jersey).

I hate to admit this, but I’m not sure I completely disagree with Missouri’s recalcitrance. The requirements for getting your Real ID can be onerous for some people and inconvenient for a lot. Those are probably not the main reasons my state legislature dragged its feet—it’s probably more about “big-gummint” intrusion into little people’s lives, and as a “librul,” I’m less worried about that, given the greater good that a big-thinking government can do. What troubles me about Real ID is its basis in xenophobia and the burden it places on people with the fewest resources.

That being said, though, it’s the law. And now that the deadline is looming—the feds are done giving out multiple extensions like those it granted to Missouri several times over—it is becoming an emergency for Missouri citizens to do what’s needed to get the new card.

So, dutiful citizen that I am, and wanting to beat the last-minute crowds that will undoubtedly show up just before the deadline, last week, I did my research, gathered my docs, and headed over to my local DMV to get compliant.

The process was far from a slam-dunk. I was pretty sure I had the proper credentials—but as I waited in line at the DMV, I began to wonder. I had a long time to worry, because when I arrived, I pulled number 25 from the dispenser and then heard them call number 4. Each transaction was taking about 15 minutes. I did the math. It was going to be a long day.

But then, as I observed the official interactions from my chair (I was lucky to get one) three feet away, I began to see a trend: The clerk was turning away more than half of the applicants because they didn’t have a complete set of the required documents. That phenomenon made the line move more quickly—and I found myself guiltily cheering for more rejections—but it was disconcerting, too. With so many people being turned away, it was becoming clear to me (increasingly nervous about my own documents) that the requirements were confusing or not well-explained, or just impossible for some people.

I brought four items, but you might need five, if you don’t have a passport:

1. My current U.S. passport. That’s my proof of identity, because it has my full name and date of birth. (There are a bunch of other things you can bring for identity, but that’s the one I had. Birth certificates count, but mine wouldn’t have worked, because, as a woman who got married in the 1960s and changed my name, my birth name doesn’t match my current name, so it’s not valid ID. A friend of mine told me about an 86-year-old woman she knows who tried to use her birth certificate as ID but was rejected for just that reason and was told she needed something with her changed name, such as her marriage certificate. Unfortunately, all she had was her Jewish marriage certificate, known as a “ketubah.” That wouldn’t work, because it’s written in Hebrew.)

If you have a name problem, you can bring a “name change” document, such as a certified marriage license (in English), a certified divorce decree, certified adoption papers, or an amended birth certificate.

2. I needed something that certified that I am in the U.S. lawfully. My passport worked for that, too, but again, there are other valid documents for that purpose.
3. Social Security Card. (The rules say it can’t be laminated. I was glad I had never gotten around to doing that.) You can also bring a W-2 Form, a 1099 form, or a current pay stub that has your name and social security number.
4. Proof of residence x2: They want two of these. I brought my Missouri voter registration card (not the notification of where you vote) and a printout of my most recent bank statement, which has my mailing address on it. This is the category that tripped up most people who got bounced from the queue ahead of me. They didn’t have two. There’s a long list of things that work, you just have to remember to bring two of them.

The process was so slow that many people left before their number came up. Some took a new number as they exited, hoping to come back later and have an advantage in the sequence. That didn’t seem to work. The young man sitting next to me had tried it, after waiting for 90 minutes earlier that day. But when he came back, his number—89—had already been called, and he had to start over. He got 26 this time—he would be right after me—and we sat together for the next 90 minutes, chatting, secretly hoping for more people ahead of us to be rejected, and commiserating about the sad state of government administration as demonstrated by where we were at that moment.

Finally, they called, “25.” I did, indeed, have the correct documentation, and my transaction took only about 10 minutes, plus a $12 fee. The beleaguered clerk, who had taken quite a bit of shit from people lacking all the required docs, was very pleasant.  Unfortunately, I had made one major miscalculation. Real ID is good for six years, but my driver’s license expires in August of this year, which means so does the Real ID that I received in the mail 10 days later. I should have waited until March (or later), when I would have been within the six-month window for renewing my license. In my quest to get ahead of the game, I got too far ahead, and now I’ll have to go through the whole thing again this summer.

The post I got my Real ID last week in Missouri. Here’s what you can learn from my experience. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

While the Trump administration blusters and tries to discredit the brave staffer who blew the whistle on Trump’s politically motivated extortion of the president of Ukraine, 90 former top brass in national security have issued an open letter in support of the whistle-blower. Released on Oct. 7, 2019—just before a second whistle-blower came forward—the letter emphasizes that revealing wrongdoing is the right thing to do, and that the individual involved deserves protection from retaliation.

The people who signed on to the letter are a who’s who of national security — some who are refugees from the current administration that doesn’t value expertise, thoughtful decision-making or moral responsibility, and many from previous administrations that — for the most part — did (or pretended to). Listed among them are marquee names like Brennan and Clapper, who had served in different roles under both the Obama and Bush administrations. The letter isalso signed by former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and former Senior Director for Counterterrorism on the National Security Council Javed Ali, along with a number of other former Defense Department, State Department and CIA officials.

Some of the signatories had even worked under the Trump administration, including James Nealon, who served as the assistant secretary for international engagement at the Department of Homeland Security until he resigned in February 2018 over the government’s immigration policies, as well as Roberta Jacobson, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Mexico until she resigned in May 2018, and Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who was a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia until resigning in July 2018.

The letter speaks for itself. Here it is in its entirety:

We are former national security officials who proudly served in a wide array of roles throughout the U.S. Government,” they wrote. “We are writing about the Intelligence Community whistleblower’s lawful disclosure, which was recently made public. While the identity of the whistleblower is not publicly known, we do know that he or she is an employee of the U.S. Government. As such, he or she has by law the right — and indeed the responsibility — to make known, through appropriate channels, indications of serious wrongdoing. That is precisely what this whistleblower did; and we applaud the whistleblower not only for living up to that responsibility but also for using precisely the channels made available by federal law for raising such concerns.

“A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed, thus advancing the cause of national security to which we have devoted our careers. What’s more, being a responsible whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of retaliation. Whatever one’s view of the matters discussed in the whistleblower’s complaint, all Americans should be united in demanding that all branches of our government and all outlets of our media protect this whistleblower and his or her identity. Simply put, he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our protection.”

The post 90 top US national security pros say whistle-blower did the right thing appeared first on Occasional Planet.