What Lack Of Diversity?

This selfie taken by vice president-elect Pence zipped around the interwebs a few days ago. As you can see, our fair congresswoman, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is prominently featured up front. And she should be because she's the only female member of the House Republican leadership. 

But a lot of people took issue with this photo. Many people observed there was a lack of diversity in this picture of Republican legislators, staff, etc. And when you look at that sea of white faces you have to admit that finding Waldo would be quite the challenge.

Well, Cathy wasn't about to let those lack-of-diversity charges go unanswered. I found her response in this article.

"There is a lot of diversity when you look at the experiences, the backgrounds," the Washington lawmaker, who has been reelected to her post as Republican conference chairwoman, told Fox News' "Fox and Friends" program.

"We are younger," McMorris Rodgers said Friday. "You look at our leadership team. We're 23 years on average younger than the Democrats. I do believe we need to continue to grow the party, though, and continue to reach out to every corner of this country, every person, so that they know that the policies, the proposals are the ones that are going to prove their lives."

That explanation helped me a lot. I mean, I see mostly white men in the photo and quite a few of them have grey in their hair. I count at least nine women and five of them are right up front for your viewing pleasure. But when you only consider the Republican leadership, which Cathy thinks is the most important point to make here, there's supposedly a huge age difference.

Well who knew that from looking at this photo of Republicans?

And then there's background and experiences. This threw me off at first but then I realized Cathy was speaking in code. Background. It's a clue. Look in the background of the photo. To the far left. See? Diversity!

Experiences. Another clue. Look at the people up front. "Hey, everybody, we're taking a picture on three. Ready? One. Two. Three!" 

Congresswoman Virginia Fox has no idea why Pence is pointing with a stick that has a flat square thing on the end so she is looking for the photographer. See? Diversity!

You just have to know how to look for it.

This Is Brilliant

Hypocrisy In Action Cathy McMorris Rodgers Style

As part of a plan to reach out to women and make the Republican party look better than it is, our fair congresswoman, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, penned an article in Glamour magazine in which she states her support for equal pay for women in the work force. She says it can be done in three easy steps.

First, a broad definition within the Equal Pay Act opens the door for employers to define pay disparity as a result of "any factor other than sex." It’s being exploited by some to get away with gender discrimination. Certain circuit courts have held it as a broad catch-all exception whereas others have taken a more nuanced interpretation. We should revisit this definition to better clarify for the courts that decisions must be business-related factors other than sex. 

Second, we should update current laws that don’t go far enough to protect people from retaliation if they discuss their pay. The only way a person can know whether disparity exists is with open conversations about what they earn. 

Third, laws currently favor trial lawyers over victims of discrimination, and we have to shift that imbalance back to the victims. Instead of lining lawyers’ pockets and creating more opportunities for them to seek damages, let’s enforce laws currently on the books and compel those who willfully treat women unfairly to help fund a Government Accountability Office study that would investigate what attributes to differences in pay for people holding identical jobs.

I support equal pay for women--except for when I don't.

Which is all the time.

She may say that but here is what she has done. She voted against laws meant to address the pay disparity between men and women four times. She voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act twice, which lengthened the time for victims of pay discrimination to file a complaint. She voted twice against the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure aimed at closing the gender wage gap by ending the practice of salary secrecy (see Step 2 above), thus giving women and others a better chance of rooting out discrimination, narrowing the guidelines for what pay disparities are justified (see Step 1 above), and strengthening penalties for discrimination as a way to deter it (see Step 3 above), among other things.

The Unfairness Of It All

Cathy McMorris Rodgers voted to defund Planned Parenthood today. Here's her statement.

“The undercover videos featuring senior level officials admitting to unethical and potentially illegal procedures should be of great concern to everyone. Anyone watching these videos can surely say—the American people deserve answers. 

“What kind of country are we if we think the actions revealed in these videos are acceptable? We must work towards better protections for women, children, and families. In addition to the vital legislation passed today, we have three powerful committees investigating the abortion practices described. Our work is just beginning. 

“America is the place where everyone is empowered to achieve a better life. And that begins with safety and security for everyone. Of course, those who would commit violent acts against Planned Parenthood are also clearly in the wrong. 

“Women’s health care should be available from providers who do not practice these horrendous acts. No woman should have to choose between getting the care she needs and supporting an organization that harvests baby organs.”

First of all, the videos have been proven to have been selectively edited. So there's that. If I could record me and our congresswoman having a long conversation about abortion, I could use the same selective editing process to make it not only appear that she's all for abortion, but was talked out of aborting her first child by her husband. Now that would be a dastardly thing to do, wouldn't it? And she would be very upset at being portrayed so unfairly.

Kind of like Planned Parenthood is now.

What Cathy McMorris Rodgers characterizes as "unethical and potentially illegal" is legal under federal law. If it's potentially or truly illegal, where's the investigation and charges by the US Department of Justice? The investigations being conducted by "three powerful committees" do not include having representatives of Planned Parenthood testify and they're the ones our congresswoman say we needs answers from.

“Women’s health care should be available from providers who do not practice these horrendous acts."

So where is a woman to get an abortion if she needs one?

Here's the question I'd like to hear our congresswoman answer.

If abortion were to become illegal, what is the appropriate punishment for a criminal who solicits and receives an illegal abortion? The death penalty? Life in prison? Twenty-five years in prison? What is the price a criminal should pay for having an illegal abortion?

Death - A Taxable Event

It's "Tax Day" and Cathy McMorris Rodgers graced me with a "Tax Day" email. How fortunate I am to be one of the chosen. The email didn't have anything to say about Affordable Care Act horror stories but that's not what she and the Republican-led House were working on anyway. 

This time it was...(dramatic music)...Death Tax!

What our congresswoman doesn't mention is that the estate tax increase wouldn't apply to over 99% of Americans. Also, it can't become law unless Congress passes legislation to make it so. Regardless, referring to it as a Death Tax and saying it could be increased from 40% to 60% is just the right thing to reinforce the confirmation bias of those who think they're being taxed to death.

Later in the day, Cathy McMorris Rodgers posted this enigmatic message on her Facebook page.

I don't know what abuse at the IRS she's referring to. And she certainly doesn't mention anything specific. So I checked out the legislative activities of the House and saw they had a busy day passing bills concerning the IRS.

But there's one that stands out. It's HR 1105 - The Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015. The House voted to enact this legislation today--Tax Day--and Cathy McMorris Rodgers voted for it. If it becomes law it will only apply to about 5,500 of the richest families in the country.

Well, what should we expect. Cathy McMorris Rodgers always looks out for her constituents, whether they live in her district or not.

The Death Tax is killing the richest Americans!

Making Lemonade With Her Pants On Fire

Our less-than-savvy social media congresswoman, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, achieved Internet famosity last week with her Facebook request for Affordable Care Act horror stories. The whole thing backfired horribly for her. And rightfully so. She's been bad mouthing the Affordable Care Act and trolling for horror stories for ages. It's amazing how few horrors she has uncovered and how lacking in horror they are. Unswayed by the lack of evidence, she relentlessly presses on with her Sisyphean task of rolling her Obamacare boulder up the mountain. Only Sisyphus did it as a punishment.

Well, it turns out the backlash she suffered was not her fault at all. It had nothing to do with the overwhelming positive stories posted on her Facebook page by her constituents before attracting attention elsewhere. According to the email I received from her this evening, it was the liberal media attacking her. And the liberal media minions posted favorable stories about Obamacare on her Facebook page and attacked her.

I'm not crazy! I'm under attack!

Friend, 

Last week, on the 5th anniversary of Obamacare becoming law, I asked Eastern Washington families to share their Obamacare experiences with me — and I heard it all – the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

But right away, the liberals in the media began attacking me. Over one and a half million viewers were pushed to my Facebook page to berate me and praise Obamacare. 

The New York Times, MSNBC, and radicals from San Francisco to Great Britain piled on. They’re trying to stifle the honest voices of people in Eastern Washington who are telling the painful truth about Obamacare. 

They don’t care about Republicans’ health care solutions or any proposal that doesn’t fit into their top-down, one size fits ideology -- that’s why it’s so critical that we defend ourselves and fight back against the liberal influence in our nation’s capital and in the left-leaning media. 

Can you help me fight back and defend the work my team is doing to fix America’s health care? 

Add your name to stand with me against the liberal media and their ruthless attacks. 

Thanks, 

Cathy 

P.S. Don’t let the liberal media drown out the voices of Eastern Washington families. Add your name to stand with me against the liberal media barrage.

According to her email she says she asked us to share our Obamacare experiences. Mostly true for the Facebook post.

But when you clicked on the link to to tell your story, it's obvious she's not after your good experiences.

Whether Obamacare has turned your tax filing into a nightmare, you’re facing skyrocketing premiums, or your employer has reduced your work hours, I want to hear about it.

Regardless, the embarrassment and awkwardness she endured and the predicament she found herself in were the work of the liberal media, and not her misinformed, singleminded, Koch brothers funded obsession with overturning health care legislation that has benefited millions of Americans, including many of her own constituents.

But our congresswoman does have her priorities set.

Leave it to Cathy McMorris Rodgers to shoot herself in the foot, plant the gun in someone else's hand, claim to be the victim, and then use that to raise money her PAC.

Figuring this out was like the easiest episode of Columbo ever.

"One more thing, Congresswoman..."

Cathy McMorris Rodgers' Concern

Today Cathy McMorris Rodgers voted to return to the good old days by repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in its entirety and replacing it with--nothing.

From the text of the bill:

Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 242-187.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is not concerned about the millions of people who would lose their health care coverage if this bill were signed into law. Returning back to the days when insurance companies could terminate your coverage for any reason, refuse to cover you for pre-existing conditions, refuse medical treatment, and increase your rates at will does not concern her. Bringing back the rampant increases in health care costs does not concern her.

She's concerned about jobs, but not about those who don't have one. She's concerned about the disabled as long as they are not collecting disability insurance. She's concerned about freedom when it's useful as red meet to stir up the masses. She's concerned about the environment as long as government regulation doesn't inhibit abusing or poisoning it. She's concerned about energy as long as it's the Keystone XL pipeline.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is very concerned. Just not about the right things.

Courage

Remember Rep. Michael Grimm, R-NY, of "I'll throw you off the balcony" fame last January? Well, back in 2007 through 2010 he under reported wages and revenue at his restaurant where he also employed undocumented workers. He was allowed to plead guilty to one of the 20 counts he was indicted for and he's looking at up to three years of prison time.

From the article:

"Before I was elected ... I was a business owner of a small restaurant in Manhattan," the Staten Island congressman told reporters after the 30-minute federal court hearing. "Even though it was a little restaurant, I made some big mistakes. 

"I thank God for the courage to admit when I'm wrong," Grimm said.

So full of courage. Like a chamber pot is full of courage. Grimm is an attorney and former FBI agent. He did not make some big mistakes. He's committed fraud. He also plans to stay in his seat.

We have yet to see if House Speaker Boehner or our own highly touted member of the House Republican leadership, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, have the same--correction, true--courage to force Grimm to resign or expel him from the House.

My prediction--get used to the chamber pot smell.

Reality Is Way Out Of His Grasp

The Inlander's attempt to have "both sides" represented in their commentary in the form of our former congressman, George Nethercutt, again has paid off in spades. Nethercutt presents a bizarro world that doesn't come close to touching reality.

First he ties together the events of Ferguson, Missouri, where a police officer was not indicted for killing a young unarmed black man, and President Obama's executive action on immigration as if they are intertwined. And he has this to day:

Young people need to be taught right from wrong, how to deal with authority figures, what it means to be law-abiding and responsible; doing so shows them someone cares about them. Racial profiling by vindictive police forces isn't the sole cause of racial division in America. My experience is that the vast majority of police officers work to assure that society is orderly and to prevent crime. Certainly there are national examples of police abusing their authority, and such abuse may be race-based. But that abuse is outweighed by overwhelmingly honorable police officers, facing tough duty and danger each day. First responders deserve our respect and our thanks.

Apparently, young people are not being taught right from wrong, how to deal with authority figures, or how to be law-abiding and responsible. And there's the answer. If only young people were obedient and subservient, we wouldn't have these problems. Oh, and most police officers don't profile people based on their race and those that do are not the cause of racial division.

Well, isn't that special? What are the causes? A long history of oppression, lynching, and Jim Crow laws? New voter ID laws? The systemic institutional discrimination? He doesn't say. Also, George Nethercutt has no clue that "my experience", as he calls it, with police officers is from the perspective of someone who benefited from white privilege all his life.

But he's not done jumping back and forth between two unrelated topics.

Nationally, Republicans are in a lather about President Obama's left turn on immigration. Constitutionally and philosophically, he clearly reversed himself with his convoluted "prosecutorial discretion" legal argument for stopping deportation of immigrants in the United States illegally. In my opinion, his executive order was unlawful.

Who knew George Nethercutt paid so much attention to alleged unlawful behavior on the part of the Executive Branch. No wonder he was screaming so loud about the illegal invasion of Iraq, use of torture, indefinite detention, and dark sites. Oh...wait. I guessed he kept that to himself or something.

Time to change subjects again.

Rather than threaten government shutdowns and cumbersome defunding of government immigration agencies, Republicans nationally should adopt the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the Big Brothers-Big Sisters models of reaching out to immigrant and non-immigrant children and families, not only to give them a helping hand, but also to educate them about politics and policy.

Yes, he's referring to the Republicans who want to deport, deport, deport, as if they were interested in any demographic other that old white males.

Back to racism.

Obama, as America's first biracial president, must be careful not to show racial bias himself. Racial discussions are valuable as long as they take a critical look at all aspects of bias, not laying all blame for racial disruption on white bias.

George Nethercutt, blindly benefitting from white privilege, has no idea how much he benefits from white privilege. Sometime ago, a local state legislator, Kevin Parker, dressed up as a homeless person and noticed a remarkable difference in the way he was treated. And he was still white.

I bet George Nethercutt could take it a step further and learn a valuable lesson in racial bias if he wore the right makeup and walked through a "nice" neighborhood or drove a car up and down Division a couple of times at night. Yes, even here in bland, white bread Spokane. Then maybe he wouldn't be so concerned about a biracial president talking about the realities of race in America. It's not blaming racial disruption on white bias. It's a matter of talking about the reality of racism in America.

And George Nethercutt could use a healthy dose of reality.

Bad, CIA! Bad!

The Senate's Torture Report (big honkin' 500+ page PDF), otherwise known as the Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency 's Detention and Interrogation Program, was released today. Well, the Executive Summary was released.

To nobody's surprise, it describes the forms of torture our country used against people. Forms of torture we imprisoned or executed people for after World War II after finding them guilty of doing the same thing. Forms of torture we condemned other countries for using. Forms of torture never dreamed up before.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney had this to say:

“What I keep hearing out there is they portray this as a rogue operation, and the agency was way out of bounds and then they lied about it,” Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview. “I think that’s all a bunch of hooey. The program was authorized. The agency did not want to proceed without authorization, and it was also reviewed legally by the Justice Department before they undertook the program.”

Cheney admits to the Bush administration's knowledge of and authorization for the use of torture. The euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" made torture sound so much more acceptable, especially to protect ourselves from a global terrorism threat. Fear and propaganda can make you accept anything as reasonable. You can even contrive a legal justification for it even if it is discredited and withdrawn later.

But don't expect anything to come of this. After his first election, President Obama said he believed we needed to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.

In other words, nobody will be held responsible for the crimes committed in our country's name.

Doing the right thing is a hard choice. Should a former president and vice president be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned for war crimes or should our country admit to using torture and just say it's time to move on.

Yep. A hard choice.

The CIA should have no problem surviving the stern looks and finger pointing. Our country on the other hand abandoned the moral high ground years ago and has no chance of recovering it. We can express indignation at others all we want as long as we're prepared to have Guantanamo, Bagram, dark sites, water boarding, and rectal feeding thrown into our collective faces. Because now it's a shame we all share.

How Dare The President Do Something

Cathy McMorris Rodgers had this to say about President Obama's decision to address parts of immigration reform through executive actions.

"Tonight the President articulated his plan to act unilaterally on one of the most significant issues facing America: the future of 11 million undocumented immigrants in our country.  His decision to act alone blatantly disregards the will of the American people: for their elected leaders to work together and enact effective, long-term solutions that make people’s lives better.  Tonight the President has done exactly the opposite.  He has revealed that his own desire for unilateral action trumps the democratic process upon which this country was founded.

When it comes to fixing our broken immigration system, the American people want a permanent solution, not a quick fix.  They want the most effective solution, not the most expeditious one.  They want their elected leaders to come together, transcend partisan divisions, and advance real, common-sense solutions.  Make no mistake: I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle – and I will listen to the American people – to get immigration reform right.  I urge the President to join us in that effort."

Our congresswoman laments the President's unilateral action and claims his actions trump the democratic process.

Here's what she's not telling you.

The democratic process isn't working because of the extremists in the Republican-led House. The Senate passed a comprehensive bill in June 2013 that would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants living here illegally and tighten border security. Sixty-eight bipartisan votes passed that bill. The bill would double enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border but provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. The House leadership has refused to bring the bill up for a vote so it's been languishing in the House for almost 18 months.

What does the president's unilateral action consist of? President Obama is not granting citizenship to anyone. His executive order will protect about 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. Those people will not become citizens nor will they receive legal permanent residence. Deportations will focus on the people who threaten public safety.

Plus, undocumented immigrants who have lived her for more than five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents and register and pass criminal and national security background checks, will start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers may cry havoc about the president's "decision to act alone", but what it really translates to is, "The president is doing something because we won't."

Does anybody else need a Kleenex?

Cathy McMorris Rodgers Working Hardly

This morning an article popped into my news feed. I was about how often many members of the House of Representatives miss hearings held by the committees they are members of. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, apparently has one of the worst attendance records.

I thought I'd see for myself. The Government Printing Office has the 2013-2014 hearings here. By their own admission they don't have all the hearings. They only have the hearings that are released to them by the committees. But I think what they do have tells a pretty good story.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce on which Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers sits held 87 hearings between Feb 5, 2013 and Feb 27, 2014. Cathy McMorris Rodgers attended two of those meetings. Two.

The committee held 180 hearings between Jan 26, 2011 and Dec 13, 2012. Cathy McMorris Rodgers attended 46 of them and missed out on 134.

So since January of 2011, Cathy McMorris Rodgers attended at least 48 hearings and did not attend at least 219.

That reminds me of the time when she was the chair of the House Select Committee on Earmark Reform. Not only did her committee not meet their goal of providing reforms for earmarks, her committee didn't even meet.

From the article:

Her spokesman said her duties as chairman of the House Republican Conference include leadership meetings that conflicted with most energy and commerce hearings, and that family situations kept her away from others. 

But another member of the House GOP leadership, Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., attended 79 percent of his hearings and said the work informed his role as chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.

Well, there's one difference. As evidenced by her inability to speak with any depth on any topic at her town hall meetings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers does care to be informed.

Ben Carson Visits Spokane

In today's Spokesman Review we have an article about Ben Carson speaking at a fundraiser for the Life Services ministry last night.

Rising conservative star Ben Carson did not apologize for avoiding political correctness at an event in Spokane on Friday night.
...
Annette Miller, executive director of Life Services, said the decision to book Carson as a speaker was not political, but reflected the shared values he has with the organization.

So what are some of his views?

First, he conflated same-sex marriage with pedophilia and bestiality. Of course, later on he said he was taken out of context and misunderstood.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition.”

And there's this nugget that indicates his lack of understanding of, or more likely his religious beliefs blinding him from recognizing, how evolution works.

"I don’t believe in evolution .... I simply don’t have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what’s right and wrong, just appeared.”

I'm sure the following goes over well with his fellow conservatives.

"The entire concept of for profits for the insurance companies makes absolutely no sense. 'I deny that you need care and I will make more money.' This is totally ridiculous. The first thing we need to do is get rid of for-profit insurance companies. We have a lack of policies and we need to make the government responsible for catastrophic health care."

In 1992 Carson wrote "The most natural question is, who will pay for catastrophic health care? The answer: The government-run catastrophic health care fund. Such a fund would be supported by a mandatory contribution of 10 to 15 percent of the profits of each health insurance company, including managed care operations."

Another tidbit from the article.

Miller said the message of Carson’s latest book – that members of different political parties should listen to and be civil with one another – mirrors the message of the ministry. 

“We end up stifling thoughts, ideas and progress when we’re in a gridlock,” Miller said. “Particularly from a political perspective, that’s true in our country.”

And in the same article we have this example of Carson's ability to listen, be civil, and express a thought that isn't stifling.

No mention of a run for the presidency was made Friday, but Carson did criticize Obama for a statement the president made in 2009 that America is not a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. Carson has made that criticism multiple times in recent weeks, including at an event in Texas, and he continued to make the point in Spokane on Friday. 

“He doesn’t get to decide that,” Carson said of Obama’s statement, to lengthy applause and cheering. “We get to decide that.”

Yep, I'm feeling the love.

Seeing Is Believing

Yesterday's sports news and the Interwebs were burning hot with titillation as the video showing Ray Price one-punching his wife into a loss of consciousness played on an infinite loop. Condemnation rightfully rained down and the NFL and the Baltimore Ravens took harsher actions claiming that seeing what Price did for the first time made all the difference.

And yet all all this time they knew what he did.

Looking Out For Her Constituents

Cathy McMorris Rodgers posted this on her Facebook timeline yesterday. Surprisingly, the majority of the comments are calling her out on her hypocrisy.

 

So what's the deal here? Medicare Advantage Plans are still Medicare but they're offered by private companies. These companies must follow the Medicare reimbursement rules, but they can charge different out-of-pocket expenses and they can set different rules for obtaining services like specifying which doctor or facility you can go to. (Remember how our congresswoman was so concerned with the government telling you where to go for health care? Not so much when it's a private company doing the same thing.) Medicare beneficiaries are not required to use Medicare Advantage, but they can if they choose to. And they can choose which plan they want. The term of each plan is one year. There's a ton of information about Medicare Advantage that eligible persons need to research before they make a choice.

One part of the Affordable Care Act contained a reduction in subsidies to Medicare Advantage. Remember the $700 billion Medicare talking point? The reduction is in payments to private companies. Medicare Advantage subsidies are a huge part of their profit line. From a Kaiser News article:

At UnitedHealth Group, one insurance giant, Medicare Advantage plans account for a fourth of all profits, said Ana Gupte, an industry analyst for Leerink Partners. Another, Humana, owes two-thirds of its profit to Medicare Advantage, she said.

So you can see why the insurance companies are against lowering the subsidies. 

Suing For The Wrong Reason

Republican House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican-dominated House are going to sue President Obama for failing to fulfill his constitutional duties.

As I’ve said, this isn't about Republicans versus Democrats; it’s about the Legislative Branch versus the Executive Branch, and above all protecting the Constitution. The Constitution states that the president must faithfully execute the laws, and spells out that only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate.

Is this about the administration's extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas? No.

Is it about the National Security Agency spying on American citizens? No.

It's about delaying the implementation of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care act, a law that the Republican-dominated House did their best to repeal, defund, and delay. Boehner and company have reached a new level of ridiculousness.

A Tempest In A Teapot

This morning Cathy McMorris Rodgers sent an email to everyone on her list directing us to check her op-ed in the Seattle Times, which she helpfully included word for word in her email. In it she complains that "...drastic energy regulations could cause Washington families to see higher energy bills. And those higher bills, coupled with a weakened economy, would hurt moms and dads already struggling to make ends meet."

What drastic energy regulations is she referring to? The EPA's Clean Power Plan and its effect on Washington state. The plan concerns electrical generation facilities that burn fossil fuels. The goals are:

* Cut carbon emission from the power sector by 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the United States for one year;
* Cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent as a co-benefit;
* Avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days—providing up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits;
* Shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.

But those benefits don't concern our congresswoman. This is what she's concerned with:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced proposals that would require Washington state to cut its carbon emissions by a staggering 72 percent — a rate higher than anywhere else in the nation.

Washington has one coal-fired electrical generation plant and it's located in Centralia. Here's a news report about that plant from three years ago.

Washington's only coal-fired power plant will shut down one of two boilers by 2020 and phase out coal-burning entirely by 2025 under an agreement between TransAlta and environmental groups, according to a proposal released Saturday. 
... 
The 1,376-megawatt power plant has been an environmental target because it spews out considerable air pollution. It is the state's top point source of greenhouse gases, toxic mercury and ozone-causing nitrogen oxide, and second in sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, according to Department of Ecology data. 

Not that it matters much, but notice the EPA had nothing to do with this. What we have here is a single fossil-fuel burning electrical plant that will be converting to natural gas and reducing its carbon emissions. So why is she making a fuss and trying to score political points? Maybe because she's in the Republican leadership and that's what they do.

I would like to point out that the plant is owned by Transalta, the same company trying to foist the Keystone XL pipeline on our country, which our congresswoman has been an avid cheerleader for. It would appear our congresswoman is more interested in helping corporate "persons" instead of real people who would benefit from reduced pollution and cheaper electricity. But she still puts on appearances.

McMorris Rodgers ends her op-ed:

As one in four people continues to struggle with long-term unemployment, our country must make every effort to pursue innovative energy opportunities that are pro-job and will continue spurring America’s energy renaissance — a renaissance that will strengthen the economy for the future and leave a stronger America for our children and grandchildren.

Wait...25% of our population struggles with long-term unemployment? Do any numbers she comes up with ever have a remote connection to reality?

She Outraged--This Time

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is out to make political points on the Veteran's Administration scandal with an op-ed she penned.

As the wife of a retired Navy commander and the representative of the district covering Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington, I see firsthand the permanent effects of war -- both physical and psychological -- on those who serve our country.

Our congresswoman tries to add to her credibility by stating she's the wife of a retired Navy commander. This is just as laughable as it is disingenuous. He was retired from the Navy when she married him. She's never spent a minute living on a military base or experiencing military life, something you would assume about a person making a point of being a spouse of a military member, retired or not.

Last week, we passed the overwhelmingly bipartisan Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014, which holds the VA accountable for actions that are both egregious and preventable. 

So her response is to make it easier to fire people. You have to wonder if she read the audit report.

Lack of provider slots was the highest barrier to getting appointments. She has nothing to say about that.

Though recent reports highlight the fundamental inefficiencies and mismanagement within the agency, the VA has failed to protect America's veterans for far too long. This is a serious problem, and it demands a serious solution.

For far too long. Really? If this has been a problem for such a long time why is she just now speaking up? Remember when the Walter Reed scandal broke back in 2007?

Here was her response back then.

(crickets) 

You get the impression that it depends on whose watch the scandal happens.

Who Protects Us From The Protectors?

This video is an excellent example of how law enforcement officers to easily apply the use deadly force. As you can clearly see, even though the unarmed homeless man was following instructions, didn't present a threat, and was nowhere near any of the armed law enforcement officers to present a threat, they can't take any chances.



As we know in Spokane, the use of excessive force by law enforcement is not unique to any city in America.

Some Things Never Change

You would be easily forgiven if you thought the fiscal year 2015 iteration of The Path To Prosperity, authored by Representative Paul Ryan, was an April Fool's joke. In an apparent attempt to add legitimacy to his budget outlook, Ryan asked the Congressional Budget Office to score it for him. The nonpartisan office did, but they also added a caveat to their report.

At the request of the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, CBO has projected budgetary and economic outcomes under paths for federal revenues and spending (excluding interest payments) specified by the Chairman. The projections do not represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the effects of any specific policies. In particular, CBO has not considered whether the specified paths are consistent with the policy proposals or budget numbers that Chairman Ryan released on April 1, 2014, as part of his proposed budget resolution. 
... 
Chairman Ryan’s specified paths for revenues and spending would require major changes in current law. In particular, by 2040, noninterest spending would be roughly one-quarter less under those paths than under current law, and revenues would be roughly one-twentieth less; 
... 
The amounts of federal debt and economic output estimated for all of the scenarios in this report are highly uncertain. That uncertainty stems from the difficulties inherent in projecting the effects of federal fiscal policies, especially far into the future.

In other words, Ryan told the CBO to use his numbers, which are closer to wishful thinking than reality.

I'm always interested in Ryan's budget plans mostly because I enjoy noting his deceptiveness.

For example, the very first page of his Path to Prosperity contains a graph displaying two futures. One has skyrocketing debt and the other, thanks to his "path", has decreasing debt.

It took me a bit but I finally figured out where he got this.

Ryan is using the extended alternative fiscal scenario, which includes the continuation of certain policies that have been in place for a number of years and the modification of some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period, instead of using the extended baseline, which is based on the assumption that current law generally remains unchanged.

Had he used the extended baseline, then the projected debt would still rise but not nearly as much as the extended alternate fiscal scenario.

And you can see from the above chart, Ryan's made up numbers reflect a decrease in future debt.

Here's another example of his deceptiveness. He references another CBO report.

Meanwhile, the national debt has skyrocketed and continues to climb—well after the recession. In May 2013, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the federal government would add $6.3 trillion to the national debt from 2014 to 2023. But in February 2014—not even a year later—CBO revised its forecast to $7.3 trillion—a $1 trillion increase. It attributed most of the hike to a drop in revenue, the inevitable result of a lackluster economy. 

Here is what the CBO's report actually said:

The baseline budget outlook has worsened slightly since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections. 4 At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues... 

Just as he did last year and the year before, Paul Ryan plays fast and loose with numbers and charts.