Backroom deals, lies, and performative grift!

January 10, 2023

          Late Monday, the House majority approved a rules package allegedly designed to bring transparency to the legislative process. But the public version of the House resolution containing the rules omitted a secret supplement that conceals the corrupt promises made by McCarthy to purchase votes of reluctant GOP members who did not trust him. The existence of the secret supplement was initially reported in Monday’s Punchbowl News (later confirmed by other outlets). Punchbowl News reported,

However, there’s also a secret three-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become speaker – three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY2022 levels, a debt-ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments and more.

          Gosh! A secret agreement to “freeze” congressional spending! Sounds like something Americans deserve to know about, doesn’t it? Or how about a “debt-ceiling strategy” that was part of a quid-pro-quo to drag McCarthy over the line in his ego-driven quest to become Speaker? That “strategy” will materially affect the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Why is the supplemental agreement secret? There are no innocent answers to that question, and we are entitled to presume the worst.

          And so it begins. The 118th Congress begins with a lie in the GOP-controlled House. But it gets worse. The first attempted legislative act by the Republican majority is to repeal funding for the IRS over the next ten years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the net effect of repealing the funding for the IRS will increase the deficit by $114 billion—but the GOP wants to reduce “entitlements” to Americans who have paid into Social Security and Medicare trust funds their entire lives.

To be clear, the increase in the deficit will be caused by defunding the IRS because tax cheats will evade scrutiny from a shrunken workforce at the agency. In other words, the first act of the GOP majority is to attempt to “give a pass” to tax cheats at the expense of retired Americans who funded their retirements and healthcare through paycheck deductions.

          The GOP bill to shrink the IRS will not be approved in the Senate. It is the first act of “performative grift” by McCarthy’s majority that will go nowhere. But even if the Senate passed the bill, Biden has promised to veto it. See Talking Points Memo, White House Issues First Veto Threat Of New Congress Against Republican IRS Bill. As long as House Republicans plan on introducing “public relations” bills with no chance of passing, Biden may as well threaten to veto them. Argh! Only one day into the new Congress and I am already exhausted by the GOP’s posturing!

What can Biden do about the GOP threat to use the debt ceiling to force major cuts in Social Security and Medicare?

          We will all become experts in the debt ceiling (against our will) in the next several months. Sooner or later, you will need to understand what is at stake and how the debt ceiling operates. If you feel up to that task today, I recommend an article from the Washington Monthly that discusses the background of the debt ceiling and proposes a novel way of dealing with the GOP’s attempt to use the debt ceiling as a hostage. See Washington Monthly, Biden Can Raise the Debt Ceiling Without Congress.

          As explained in the Washington Monthly article (and by Professor Tribe), the term “debt ceiling” is misleading. It does not limit spending or budget deficits. It does limit the total amount of borrowing to fund pre-existing spending by Congress. If the GOP majority in the House refuses to raise the debt ceiling, that will not necessarily limit future spending, but it will cause the US to default on pre-existing debt service and spending already authorized by Congress. The GOP will use the threat of default to attempt cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

          But . . . there is a possible way around the threat of default. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution includes a clause that provides that the “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.” That clause was added to the 14th Amendment because Southern Democrats were threatening to default on public debts authorized by Congress to pay pensions to Union soldiers. That situation is analogous to the current threat and should give Biden the authority to continue to pay pre-existing debts even if Congress does not “raise the debt ceiling.” Per the article in the Washington Monthly,

Here’s the argument: The Constitution’s text bars the federal government from defaulting on the debt—even a little, even for a short while. There’s a case to be made that if Congress decides to default on the debt, the president has the power and the obligation to pay it without congressional permission, even if that requires borrowing more money to do so.

          The arguments in favor of Biden continuing to pay previous debts incurred by the US are not free from doubt but have the most logical force of the possible outcomes. For a convincing explanation of the legal theory that the President can pay existing debts even if the “debt ceiling” is exceeded, see Neil H. Buchanan in Verdict, The Worst Sequel of 2021: “Debt Ceiling Zombies Attack!”

          If Democrats do their job of alerting the public to the consequences of the GOP’s plan to take the debt ceiling hostage, we can avert this crisis long before Joe Biden needs to “Break glass in case of emergency.”  

Discovery of classified documents in office used by Biden after his term as Vice President.

          President Biden used an office at a Washington policy institute after he finished his term as Vice President. Last November, his lawyers found two classified documents in a locked closet in that office. They called the National Archives on the day the documents were discovered and turned them over to the National Archives the next day. Biden learned of their existence on the day they were discovered by his lawyers.

In an abundance of caution, Merrick Garland has sprung into action by opening an investigation of Biden’s retention of the documents. (If only Garland had acted with such speed in investigating Trump!) See WaPo, Justice Dept. reviewing classified documents found in Biden’s post-VP office.

          As many commentators have noted, this case presents an I.Q. test for journalists and the major media outlets: Are they able to comprehend that this is a minor story that merely highlights the criminality of Trump’s theft of defense secrets, or will they treat it as the most recent iteration of the “Hillary’s emails” story. We will know in forty-eight hours. Business Insider has already passed the test: See Business Insider, Why Documents Found at Biden's Office Are Different From Trump Mar-a-Lago Documents.

Fulton County grand jury issues recommendation on Trump effort to interfere with Georgia presidential election.

          Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been presenting evidence to a “special” grand jury for more than eight months regarding Trump’s efforts to corruptly influence the Georgia presidential election in 2020. “Special” grand juries in Georgia do not issue indictments; instead, they issue recommendations to the District Attorney. (Here, Fani Willis.) Willis can then proceed to request a regular grand jury to issue an indictment.

          Notably, the special grand jury recommended that its report be released to the public. A hearing is set for January 24, 2023, on the request to release the report. See Atlanta Journal Constitution, Fulton special grand jury completes Trump investigation. In other words, we may have insight into the recommendation of the special grand jury by the week of January 24th.

          Let’s hope that the special grand jury recommends the issuance of an indictment. If it does so, that will (a) deflect some political heat from the DOJ for not acting more quickly, and (b) provide some incentive for the DOJ to act with greater urgency in indicting Trump. The fact that the J6 Committee and a Fulton County grand jury were able to operate more expeditiously in arriving at prosecutorial recommendations than the DOJ represents an inexcusable failure of Merrick Garland’s leadership.

If you disagree with my criticism of Merrick Garland, I recommend the highly regarded commentator Terri Kanefield, who has pinned to the top of her blog her defense of the DOJ’s timetable in (not) indicting Trump. See Terri Kanefield, FAQs (Sticky) - Teri Kanefield.

Developments in Brazil.

          Readers have asked me to comment on the developments in Brazil. I am reluctant to do so because I am more reliant than usual on what I read in the newspaper for details. But here are two observations based on what others have reported.

          First, Anne Appelbaum hits on the most important point in her article in The Atlantic: Our objective should be to set an example for Brazil by holding our own coup plotters and insurrectionists to account. See The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum, What the Rioters in Brazil Learned From Americans. Per Appelbaum,

But the power of example works in other ways too. If Americans want to help Brazil defend its democracy and avoid sinking into chaos, and if we want to avoid #StoptheSteal movements proliferating in other democracies, then the path forward is clear. We need to prove conclusively both that these movements will fail—after all, the American version already did—and that their instigators, from the very top to the very bottom, pay a high price for that failure.

          Second, a reader who is studying “democratic backsliding in Brazil” sent a link to an article in Americas Quarterly, Reaction: Brazil’s Capital Invasion, that features interviews with experts on Brazilian politics. One shared reaction among the experts is that despite initial ambivalence or passivity by the Brazilian military, its decision to arrest protestors quickly turned the tide and saved the day. In some ways, that pattern repeats what we experienced on January 6th.

          Finally, it is worth noting that Steve Bannon and Jason Miller (a Trump adviser) have been advising Bolsonaro. See Gateway Pundit, Steve Bannon and Jason Miller Reportedly Advising Brazil's Bolsonaro on Next Steps After Stolen Election. That is the strongest indication that the January 6th insurrection was exported to Brazil by Trump / MAGA extremists.

As Anne Appelbaum says, the sooner we bring Trump to justice, the sooner political losers in other countries will realize that there is no benefit to importing his criminal schemes into their country. Trump’s day of judgment can’t happen soon enough.

Founding Members Zoom call on Tuesday, January 10 at 2 PM EST / 11 AM PST.

Reminder to Founding Members that there is a regularly scheduled monthly Zoom call on Tuesday, January 10 at 2:00 PM EST / 11 AM PST. I will circulate a reminder email on Tuesday morning with the link (also previously circulated).

Concluding Thoughts.

          Two media celebrities famous for being famous who supported Trump were vloggers who branded themselves as “Diamond and Silk.” They claimed they were not vaccinated against Covid. For a time, they appeared on Fox News as commentators. They were eventually kicked off the network for spreading misinformation about the pandemic. In November, Diamond (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway) was hospitalized for unknown causes. On Monday, Trump announced that Diamond “died suddenly” but gave no explanation.

          While we await details about the cause of Diamond’s sudden death, it is a good time to remind ourselves about the effectiveness of the bi-valent mRNA booster. See this pre-print at The Lancet, Arbel and Peretz, Effectiveness of the Bivalent mRNA Vaccine in Preventing Severe COVID-19 Outcomes. The outcomes of the observational study are summarized as follows:

• In summary, the researchers noted that bivalent booster vaccination in the eligible population was associated with an 81% decrease in COVID-19-related hospitalizations.

• It was also associated with an 86% decline in mortality.

• Notably, there was a low response rate for bivalent vaccination (14%) among eligible subjects, perhaps due to vaccine misinformation, belief that vaccination was unnecessary, or reports of side effects.

          The study provides strong evidence of a significant reduction in hospitalization and death for those who receive the mRNA bivalent booster. And yet, the immunization rate for the booster is only 14%!

          Remember when we felt like it was a miracle that the Covid vaccine was finally available? How did we go from that feeling to not being interested in getting boosters that will reduce severe illness and death? Even if you received earlier vaccinations or have had Covid, if you are eligible for the most recent bivalent booster, the evidence strongly suggests that you should get it!

          Talk to you tomorrow!