This Is A Helluva Way To Run A Railroad – Followup

The Democrats are proclaiming victory and the Republicans are gnashing their teeth at the $600 billion in taxes from the very rich over the next ten years that were part of the fiscal cliff deal.  That’s $60 billion a year!  Mitch McConnell declares that the discussion of revenue and taxes is “over”.  Not trumpeted as a victory or lamented as a loss by either party were the “tax extenders” – benefits to special interests like NASCAR, Hollywood and investment banks – totaling $68 billion a year for five years that were included in the fine print.  So, the net tax revenue from the “fiscal cliff” was MINUS EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?  You can see why they wanted this done at the last minute behind closed doors without any public scrutiny or debate.  It’s getting pretty close to torches and pitchforks time.

But now we move to the Debt Ceiling showdown.  Obama has drawn a “trench in the sand”; nothing will be traded for raising the Debt Ceiling.  The Republicans have drawn their own “trench in the sand”.  They will force the U.S. Government to default on its bills unless Obama agrees to new spending cuts equal to the increase to the Debt Ceiling.  In particular, they want to cut Medicare, which they claim is too costly.  Since the Debt Ceiling must be raised around $2 trillion to pay debts we have already incurred (and which these Republicans voted to incur), the spending cuts Republicans are demanding are truly massive.  If implemented they would, of course, throw the country into another recession or even another Great Depression.

While one must take their threats seriously – Republicans have shown themselves to be reckless, irresponsible and abysmally ignorant of basic economics- it’s hard to give credence to their stated reason for wanting to gut Medicare.  When Obama cut the cost of Medicare by $714 billion by eliminating Medicare Advantage, a give-away to insurance companies, Republicans accused him of “stealing” $714 billion from Medicare.  Republicans were able to sell this lie to a gullible public and take back the House in 2010.  When Democrats proposed a panel of experts to identify “best medical practices” to reduce wasteful and unnecessary medical procedures (and thus cut the cost of Medicare), Republicans screamed:  “Death panels!”  When progressives suggested that Medicare be allowed to negotiate with drug companies for bulk rates, like the Veterans’ Administration does, Republicans (and some Democrats) blocked this obvious cost-saving measure as an assault on the “free market”.

How can Republicans argue for cutting Medicare services or raising the eligibility age before (a) implementing all of these measures, (b) eliminating the “tax extenders” in the fiscal cliff deal, and (c) eliminating other “tax extenders”, like the subsidies to oil companies, the “carried interest” gimmick that allows hedge fund operators to avoid taxes, and an assortment of other government handouts?

And why is there never a discussion of how to lower costs by making Americans healthier?  Or of raising payroll taxes slightly to pay for healthcare for our seniors?  An increase of 1% in payroll taxes and imposition of a 1% Medicare tax on unearned income would make Medicare solvent forever.  (See my blog of May 31,2011: “Reframing The Medicare Debate”.)

Don’t be fooled by Republican wordsmiths.  They don’t want to “reform” or “save” Medicare.  They want to destroy it and turn healthcare back over to insurance companies. Likewise, they don’t want to “reform” or “save” Social Security.  They want to privatize it so Wall Street can “manage the investment” of those trillions of dollars, i.e., suck off hundreds of billions a year for themselves in management fees and commissions.

How Is This Deal A Win For Obama?

Shortly after I wrote my last blog, the House voted to pass the “fiscal cliff” solution, with nearly all Democrats voting “yes”. The bill is being touted as a victory for Obama, with GOP luminaries like Charles Krauthammer calling it a “rout”, Joe Scarborough declaring himself “bitter” over the Republican mismanagement of the negotiations, and Donald Trump calling the Republicans the worst negotiators in history, who “got nothing” from this deal.

I know that living in Berkeley means that I dwell in an alternate universe, but I don’t see this deal as a win for Obama. It’s certainly not a sensible approach to deficit reduction. However, since appearance trumps substance in politics and since most Democrats and Republicans think Obama won, I’ll reserve judgment until after the Debt Ceiling “cliff” is negotiated. All I know is that as of two days ago, federal tax revenues were projected to be $3.9 trillion more over the next 10 years than projections based on the deal struck on January 1. That $3.9 trillion in additional tax revenue was one prong of Obama’s leverage over Republicans – the other being the defense cuts in the sequester – and he gave it up! The Republicans succeeded in making permanent about 90% of the Bush Tax cuts, including sweetheart deals on the estate tax and the “carried interest” scam, and they also preserved their ability to extort spending cuts in return for raising the Debt Ceiling in February or March. How can that be viewed as a “loss” for Republicans? They already extracted the Democrats’ agreement to $2.2 trillion in spending cuts (without any additional revenues) in 2011 as a condition to raising the Debt Ceiling then. Maybe they got so used to winning 98% of the disputes with Obama that they view winning only 80 or 85% as a loss. Whatever their thought processes, Republicans are FURIOUS about the fiscal cliff deal and foaming at the mouth at the prospect of extracting cuts in entitlement spending and other domestic programs before raising the Debt Ceiling in March.

Obama has repeatedly said he won’t let the Republicans use the Debt Ceiling for hostage-taking, but I have my doubts. It wasn’t long ago that he said he would never, never, ever let the Bush tax rates on income over $250,000 remain in effect. And then he moved the bar to $450,000 and gave in on the estate tax. Unless Obama goes for the “trillion dollar coin” trick or has the Treasury issue consuls to get around the Debt Ceiling – neither of which he has the political stomach for – we know the Republicans will attempt to use the Debt Ceiling for extortion again. And they may succeed. It worked in 2011 and Obama has shown time after time that he doesn’t have the stomach to play chicken with the Republicans.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but at some point Obama has to stand up to these bullies or his second term will be a flop. When he says he won’t make concessions in return for raising the Debt Ceiling, he’s got to mean it. He needs to go on TV now and explain that raising the Debt Ceiling simply allows the government to pay its bills – bills incurred by Congress – and that there is no justification for Congress refusing to do so. He needs to tell the Republicans that he’s ready to discuss tax reform and spending cuts, but that he won’t do so until the Debt Ceiling is raised. And then he’s got to stick to his guns.

But back to the recent deal. Giving up $3.9 trillion in revenue plays into the Republican plan to cut the size of government by depriving it of the money it needs to function properly. Now that they’ve made the Bush Tax cuts permanent, locking greater deficits in place, expect Republicans to resume whipping up hysteria over the size of the deficit and the need to get it under control by cutting spending. And you know I’m not making this up. What the economy needs now is jobs, not more spending cuts and the accompanying “austerity”. Put people back to work and the deficit will shrink. But where is the money for R&D, education, block grants to states, and infrastructure – the REAL job creators when private industry is stagnant – going to come from? Anyone who thinks that Republicans will agree to spend money on these kinds of things or ever agree to a tax increase hasn’t been paying attention. Obama’s only hope now is to trade relief from the defense spending side of the sequester for some stimulus, but it’s doubtful that the Republicans will go for it. Obama would have been far better advised to extend the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 (or for everyone, for that matter) and “sequestration” for a year in return for a one year extension of unemployment benefits, tax credits, the AMT “fix”, and a decent stimulus package. That way he could have retained his leverage for negotiations down the road when the economy has strengthened. But he didn’t. He allowed nearly all of the Bush Tax cuts to become permanent – an unthinkable capitulation by Democrats until recently – and the Republican dream of “starving the beast” – of depriving the government of revenues for Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, food stamps, education, R&D, infrastructure repair, etc. – has been achieved. I’m afraid it’s going to be a tough decade for the poor and the middle class.

This Is A Helluva Way To Run A Railroad

Mitch McConnell, who doesn’t much like Harry Reid – who could stand spending five minutes with either of them – called his old buddy, Joe Biden, to help him save the country from going over the “fiscal cliff”. They reached a deal a few hours before the American ship of state was scheduled to hurtle into the abyss and, a few hours later, the Senate voted 89 to 8 to approve it.

The deal they approved is set forth in a bill that is 156 pages long. I’m pretty sure that few if any of the senators who voted for it know what is in it and what is not. But, hey, who cares? We passed up New Year’s Eve with our families and ate pizza with a bunch of pompous windbags to save the country! We compromised! We are statesmen! Congratulations all around are in order! What a load of crap.

This bill makes the Bush income tax rates permanent for everyone making under $400,000 a year ($450,000 for families.) So much for Obama’s “line in the sand” commitment to let rates return to Clinton-era levels on earned income over $250,000. It permanently reduces estate tax rates and increases the exemption to $10 million per couple. (The Koch brothers and the Walton heirs must be ecstatic.) Compensation for billionaire hedge fund operators will now be taxed at 20% instead of 15%, i.e., the disgraceful “carried interest” scam will continue permanently. It permanently “fixes” the AMT. It extends for limited time periods about 40 tax benefits for individuals and corporations. It extends unemployment payments for a while. It specifically does not include any “budgetary impact” analysis. The deal does not address the Debt Ceiling. It does not include spending on infrastructure.

Something of this scope and importance should be debated in front of the American people, not agreed to by two guys in a room and voted on a few hours later. As best I can tell, many Republicans in the House don’t like the deal and don’t like being asked to vote on something 156 pages long that they haven’t read. I haven’t heard what Congressional Democrats think, although some have raised similar objections. Good for them. I hope they do their job and insist on debate and discussion before voting. If delay and “uncertainty” causes Wall Street and Cable TV to get their panties in a twist, so what? We’re talking about some major policy issues here.

From a negotiating perspective Obama has again shown weakness. Not only did he abandon his $250,000 “line in the sand” and leave the Debt Ceiling out there for the Republicans to use to extort cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but he gave up the leverage of the threat to let the Bush tax cuts expire. in addition, in the course of negotiations Obama reportedly offered a change in calculating Social Security and veterans’ benefits – the “chained CPI” – that would reduce them. He also reportedly expressed his willingness to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67. He reportedly said that in future negotiations he would be willing to give up cuts to military spending required by the “sequester” in return for the closing of unspecified tax loopholes and subsidies. The Republicans are already talking about how they’re going to take him to the cleaners when they are asked to raise the Debt Ceiling. (I refer you to “the man in black” joke, discussed in a 2010 blog.)

At least Stanford won the Rose Bowl.

Throw Away The Steering Wheel, Mr. President

The original game of “chicken” involved two cars driving straight at each other. The first driver to swerve was “chicken”. A person wanting to be sure of a “win” could throw his steering wheel out the window and make sure the other guy knew it, leaving him with the choice of being “chicken” or being dead. Congressional Republicans got pretty good at playing “chicken” with President Obama during 2010, since he always blinked first. In the summer of 2011, as our debt approached the statutorily imposed Debt Ceiling, Republicans decided to play “chicken” once more, stating their willingness to let the U. S. default on its obligations rather than agree to an increase in tax revenues. They also demanded huge spending cuts as a condition of agreeing to raise the Debt Ceiling, knowing that Obama would “chicken out” rather than roil the markets and, perhaps, trigger a global meltdown of the financial industry. And although they were right, they overplayed their hand.

To solve the 2011 of the Debt Ceiling “crisis” (even knowing that there would be future Debt Ceiling “crises”), the President offered to agree to $3.2 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, including cutting Medicare and reducing Social Security benefits, if only the Republicans would agree to $800 billion in revenue increases. AND THE REPUBLICANS SAID: “NO, NO REVENUE INCREASES EVER.” Their oath to Grover Norquist never to increase revenues trumped their oath of office. Maybe they thought Obama would cave completely. Who knows what they were thinking. But, in any event, their intransigence produced the Budget Control Act, which provided for spending cuts of $1 trillion over ten years, beginning January 1, 2013, (without any agreement on additional tax revenues), half of which come from defense spending. The Act also called for additional spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years, also beginning January 1, 2013, if the SuperCommittee failed, and fail it did. Under the terms of the Act, half of these additional spending cuts will come from defense spending and will be made by across-the-board cuts, i.e., between 8% and 10% of all defense programs will be cut, necessary and unnecessary programs treated identically. Thus, Congress has agreed to $110 billion in cuts to the defense budget every year for the next ten years, something that could NEVER have been accomplished through normal legislative channels.

President Obama will never again be in as strong a negotiating position as he will be on January 1, 2013. As the new year begins, not only will the $1.1 trillion in cuts to defense spending start to take effect, but taxes will have returned to Clinton Administration levels, again something that could NEVER have been accomplished through normal legislation. So, here’s what President Obama should do to exploit his advantage to the fullest:

He should continue the kabuki of pretending to negotiate with John Boehner through the end of the year and, no agreement being reached, go over the “fiscal cliff”. He should then go on national television and announce that we’ve reached this point because Republicans continue to put protecting the interests of the very wealthy above the interests of the nation. He should then point out that while we’ve gone over the “fiscal cliff”, the world has not come to an end, and that we should view our situation as a great opportunity to get America on a path to economic strength and health if only the Republicans will put the interest of the nation above the interests of the giant corporations and the very rich. He should explain where we are, tell the American people what he wants, and explain why these things will be good for the economy. The list should include:

1. Cuts to middle class and poor tax payers back to Bush Administration levels.
2. A “fix” of the Alternative Minimum Tax to relieve approximately 30 million taxpayers.
3. Continuation of extended unemployment insurance benefits.
4. Elimination of the “carried interest” scam, which has allowed hedge fund operators to pay a maximum of 15% tax on their compensation and pay nothing towards Medicare withholding.
5. Repeal of the Debt Ceiling statute. The government should never be held hostage to the threat that it will be forced to default on obligations already incurred. If Congress doesn’t want the debt to be so high, then it should spend less or take in more revenue.
6. Return of the Child Tax Credit to $1,000.
7. Foreclosure relief, e.g., allowing anyone who is current on their mortgage payments to refinance at today’s low rates.
8. Extension of the Wind Production Tax Credit.
9. A commitment of $80 billion per year for the next ten years to rebuild and repair our infrastructure.

He should then ask Republicans to identify with specificity what they want and negotiations should proceed. But he should state that in those negotiations, certain things are off the table, namely:

1. Tax rates on the top 2% will not be lowered.
2. The total amount of defense spending cuts will not be reduced, although they can be delayed or targeted more intelligently.
3. The Medicare eligibility age will not be raised.
4. Social Security benefits will not be cut.
5. The Debt Ceiling statute must go.

I think the President would win this game of chicken and the American people would be the beneficiaries.

Don’t Go Wobbly On Us, Barack

So far, President Obama and his lead negotiator, Timothy Geithner, are doing pretty well.  The President proposed $1.6 trillion in additional revenues from the top 2% (over ten years), $400 billion in Medicare savings (not involving cuts to benefits or postponement of eligibility age), $50 billion in stimulus, elimination of the Debt Ceiling as an extortion tool, and miscellaneous items, including the AMT fix, extension of the payroll tax “holiday” and continuation of extended unemployment benefits.

Predictably, Republicans were (or pretended to be) outraged and insulted.  John Boehner proclaimed himself “flabbergasted” at this “non-serious” proposal.   Mitch McConnell reportedly laughed out loud when the President’s proposal was presented.  Republicans had become so accustomed to President Obama beginning negotiations by offering what he believed Republicans would accept, but making it clear that he would give up more if asked, that they didn’t know how to respond to normal negotiating tactics.

Treasury Secretary Geithner made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows to tell Republicans that the ball is in their court, that it is up to them to say what they want, and that without taxes increasing on the top 2%, there will be no deal to avoid going over the (imaginary) “fiscal cliff”.  He also repeated that the debt ceiling could no longer be used to extort concessions, a position confirmed by the President today.  So far, so good.

What continues to disturb me, however, is the media’s response to the Republicans’ continued demands for less revenues, no increase in rates for anyone, and deep, but unspecified cuts to Medicare.  (Mitch McConnell is reported to have said Republicans want changes “like” raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67.)  Basically, the Republicans have ignored President Obama’s proposal and taken refuge in bluster and tired talking points without offering any specifics.   The media, however, treats them as though their positions are legitimate, speculating ad nauseam over what compromises the Democrats will make to get a deal.  Equally disturbing are comments from key Democrats implying that they are prepared to make unnecessary and counterproductive concessions, e.g., that the rates on the top bracket need not go all the way to 39.6% and that “of course reforms to Medicare will be on the table.”

Some observations:

1. The top two income tax brackets are currently 33% for marginal income between $250,000 and $380,000, and 35% for income above $380,000.  If no deal is reached, on January 1, those rates will return to Clinton era rates of 35% and 39.6%, respectively.  Remember that the Bush Tax Cuts were intended to be temporary.  They all would have expired two years ago, but were extended during one of Obama’s negotiating fiascos.  If the end result of these excruciating negotiations over the Bush Tax Cuts is to make them permanent for everyone but the top 2%, and only increase the rates on the top two brackets by 1% or to have the top rate go to 39.6% only for incomes over $500,000 – two “ideas” being floated as solutions to the “fiscal cliff” stalemate – wouldn’t that have to be viewed as a win for Republicans?   And it would be even more than just a win on tax rates, because the Republicans would undoubtedly resort to blackmail when the Debt Ceiling is reached late this month and use their “compromise” on tax rates as justification for demanding deep cuts to Medicare and other domestic programs.Raising rates on the top 2% is important, because Obama drew a line in the sand and he would look incredibly weak if he didn’t get this – especially since it will happen automatically on January 1 if he does nothing.  But Obama shouldn’t give up anything to get this “victory”.  Returning to the Clinton rates for the top 2% should be a given.  Obama ran on it, he was elected, and the public is strongly supportive of increased taxes on the rich.  More important substantively is getting rid of the Debt Ceiling.  But that should also be a given; other than its use as a tool for blackmail, it has no justification.  Obama should also insist on the stimulus components of his proposal.  We need jobs far more than we need austerity-driven deficit reduction.Contrary to the “Morning Joe” crowd, President Obama shouldn’t compromise so as to preserve the Republicans’ “dignity”.  They deserve to be stripped of whatever dignity they retain after their despicable behavior over the past few years.  (Remember them boasting how they got 98% of what they wanted and how the Debt Ceiling “is a hostage worth taking”?)   The President and Geithner should continue to negotiate in good faith – which will gain them nothing from Republicans, but will gain him public approval – and then let all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire and allow the sequester cuts to begin to take effect.  The pressure on him to “compromise”, i.e., to give in to Republican demands, will be great, but the pressure on the Republicans will be enormous. Business leaders will make them agree to most of Obama’s proposal, but he’s got to hang tough.

   Joe Scarborough and cronies on “Morning Joe” warn that if Obama doesn’t allow the Republicans to save face in these negotiations they will not work with him on anything during the rest of his term.  With all due respect, that is bullshit.  Obama has been more than reasonable in his previous negotiations with Republicans and he got nothing for it but their contempt.  If Obama is perceived as weak in these negotiations, especially when he holds all the cards, the Republicans will walk all over him for the next four years. To paraphrase what Margaret Thatcher said to Geo. H. W. Bush during the run-up to the Gulf War:  “Don’t go wobbly on us, Barack.”

2. Although it may not have been the best negotiating tactics, offering Medicare savings as part of his opening proposal was probably good for the President politically. His proposal did not contain benefit cuts or postponement of the eligibility date.  Public sentiment against doing either of these things is very strong and he needs to strengthen his hand further by forcing the Republicans to state explicitly how they want to “reform” Medicare, which will likely include raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67, WHICH HE SHOULD NEVER AGREE TO.  Even two-thirds of REPUBLICANS think that would be a bad idea – because it is.Republicans have a weird notion of what constitutes “savings” for the government.  Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 doesn’t magically prevent people aged 65 and 66 from getting sick; it just leaves them without healthcare coverage or throws them back to the insurance wolves.  By Republican logic, we could save even more money by increasing the Medicare eligibility to age to 72 or 80, just as we could save money by eliminating air traffic controllers, eliminating the EPA, eliminating the FDA, and by choosing not to repair failing bridges and collapsing tunnels (which is pretty much what we’re already doing).  In the alternate universe populated by Republicans,  steps like these would produce “savings” and “reduce the deficit”.  But only Republicans could actually think such “savings” would be good for the country.
3. A major reason Medicare and Medicaid cost so much is because, as a people, we are fat and sickly.  This is largely because of our diet.  If we were serious about reducing the cost of providing healthcare to our citizens, we would attack one of the root causes of the problem and treat the foods that make us fat and sick the way we treat tobacco – tax them and use the proceeds to launch aggressive advertising campaigns to change our eating habits.  In addition, we should use some of the proceeds to subsidize fruits, grains and vegetables and make them accessible to the segments of the population most afflicted by obesity and disease.  But that would make us a “nanny state”.  Tea Partiers wouldn’t stand for it.  They would put on their colonial costumes, break out their illiterate signs, and hold doughnut and sparerib eating contests.  Sarah Palin would bring cookies to school (as she did when the First Lady launched a campaign to educate Americans about healthy eating) to protest such an egregious infringement of our “freedom”.   Rush Limbaugh’s fat head would explode.  Republicans would rather see Medicare and Medicaid services cut and watch America continue to plummet in international rankings of longevity and obesity than use the power of the government to improve our health.
4. Medicare could be made permanently solvent by raising the Medicare payroll tax by 1% and imposing a 1% Medicare tax on all income, not just earned income.  How about making that point when Republicans and media morons talk about the “imminent bankruptcy” of Medicare, which is an imaginary boogeyman concocted by Republican wordsmiths to terrify the populace?

Please don’t go wobbly on us, Barack.

There Is No “Fiscal Cliff”! Can We Please Stop Talking About It?

Can we please stop talking about the “fiscal cliff”? It’s only a danger if the Republicans in Congress insist on being really stupid and reckless*. Yes, the Bush tax cuts, the AMT correction, and the partial payroll tax exemption all end on December 31. And, yes, if we let them all lapse it will dampen the economic recovery. But the Democrats and the President have said they want to extend everything except the payroll tax exemption and tax cuts for the rich, who, if we return to the rates in effect when Clinton was president, would pay an additional income tax of 4.6% on their taxable income over $250,000 per couple. It’s only the Republicans who say they have no choice but to take the economy over a cliff unless Democrats agree to extend tax benefits for the rich. This is nuts. Of course Republicans have a choice. If someone driving towards a cliff is warned by a sign that says: “Cliff ahead; turn here to avoid crashing your car and dying”, does that person have no choice but to drive over the cliff? No! He turns so as to avoid crashing his car. Will someone please point this out to the media so they can point this out to any Republican who talks about the dread “fiscal cliff”?

Obama should continue publicly to ask the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 2%. If they refuse, then he should simply let all the Bush tax cuts expire on December 31, continue to hold open his offer to restore them for all but the richest 2%, and explain to the country that taxes are going up for 98% of us because the Republicans would rather wreck the economy and sacrifice the middle class than ask the rich to pay the same rates they paid during the booming Clinton economy. Surely Obama can see that this is a winning argument. But all his talk about a “balanced” approach and “reforming entitlements” concerns me. In 2010 and 2011 he showed himself to be a pathetic negotiator and the Republicans think they can push him around. And they’re already trying.

I see where Obama’s opening demand for $1.6 trillion in tax revenue increases over the next four years has been ridiculed by Mitch McConnell as “not serious”. Excuse me, but if nothing is agreed to, the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts will generate $4 trillion in additional tax revenues over the next ten years. (Letting them expire only for the top 2% will generate $863 billion in additional revenues over the next ten years.) Getting to $1.6 trillion without impacting the middle class is easy – let the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% expire, eliminate subsidies for oil and other industries, make hedge fund owners and others taking advantage of the “carried interest” scam pay ordinary income on their compensation, and plug the loopholes that encourage accounts in the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg. The President should explain publicly how this can be done without impacting the middle class. Hell, he should should invite Mitt Romney and his creative accountants to work with him to plug the loopholes that have allowed Mitt and his billionaire cronies to avoid taxes. But I’m very worried that in order to end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% – which will happen automatically if he does nothing – President Obama will agree to “entitlement reform”, e.g., postponing the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare, and make other major concessions to the Republicans.

The President has to show the Republicans that there is a new sheriff in town and that they can’t bully him like they did in 2010 and 2011. As I have suggested in an earlier blog, Obama should insist on: 1. Passage of the American Jobs Act, and 2. Elimination of the debt ceiling, before engaging in any negotiations about stepping back from the phony “fiscal cliff”. This will generate tax revenues by putting Americans back to work and will take from the Republicans their primary blackmail weapon. I’m not optimistic, but I hope I’m pleasantly surprised.
____________________________
*I suppose I should concede that being stupid and reckless has become synonymous with being a Republican. But isn’t it time they woke up?