Sleepless in Midland

McCain can't rise above need for revenge

Senator John McCain was one of three Republican senators who voted against the Obamacare skinny repeal last week. His motive was pretty obvious: revenge.

Donald Trump was an equal opportunity insulter during the 2016 campaign. And it was inevitable that some of those on the receiving end would extract revenge when the opportunity arose. I predicted it would be Ted Cruz blocking something Trump wanted. Wrong. Cruz made the skinny repeal better and voted for it.

But John McCain couldn't rise above his hurt feelings.. And it probably didn't hurt for Joe Biden to lobby him with a tearful story about his own son. In that regard, McCain signaled that he really is no better than Donald Trump.

What will become of McCain? He's got health problems to deal with at the moment, and if he can't overcome them, then he may not be back in the Senate. Heck, maybe his brain cancer is affecting his judgment. A brain cancer diagnosis would probably cause a person to recognize his vulnerability, but not having been there myself, I couldn't say whether retribution becomes a dominate death bed driver.

In any event, those folks in the Senate are humans with their own emotions and motivations. Sometimes their emotions are so important to them that they put them over the needs of the country. That seems to be the case with John McCain.

Meanwhile, he will get to wear his Planned Parenthood superhero cape while he gets chemo. BTW, that cape looks less like a superhero cape than half a T-shirt.

------

12:22 PM 7/30/2017

With this special council investigation Trump probably feels like the sole driver in a caravan of speeders who got a ticket

Imagine that you're cruising along the expressway at the same speed as the other vehicles. Suddenly the flashing lights of a DPS car appears behind you, the officer pulls you over and issues a speeding ticket. But all the others were doing it too! Why me?

That's the way many conservatives view the current probe into the alleged Russian connection with the Trump campaign which seems to be expanding into every conceivable direction so long as it could damage Donald Trump.

But what about the abuse of power by Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and others who helped Clinton? So far, it seems only conservatives are complaining.

At least some give the appearance of try to do something about it. These guys, Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mike Johnson (R-La.), stuck an amendment to a Democrat's bill. The original bill was an effort to get information on Trump that would be embarrassing. And the amendment sought information about Clinton, Lynch, and Comey. So it's really a slap-back. And the bill, with or without the amendment, probably wouldn't pass anyway, so it's all just theater.

See House conservatives push for a probe of Comey and Clinton campaign.
Same thing at House conservatives gunning for probe of James Comey and Hillary Clinton.
Also here: Exclusive — Back on Offense: Conservatives Plan to Press for Official Congressional Investigation into James Comey, Loretta Lynch.

Well, it's a start.

------

2:50 PM 7/26/2017

Resist! They insist! -- about Trump's Commission on Election Integrity

Lots of folks are complaining about Donald Trump's Presidential Executive Order on the Establishment of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity most likely because it might actually expose some long ignored voter fraud. But the public reason for the complaints is because of quantity of voter information requested from the states. So resist, they insist.

They do have a point. Anytime a government agency gets access to our personal information it opens the door to abuse for political purposes. Heaven knows we saw that in the last administration.

But there's as easy remedy to that. Congress could enact a bill which would limit the use of the information for actual fraud investigations and detection. Go a step further and prohibit any use for political purposes with adequate sanctions against any employee or contractor who violates it.

However, that's only part of the reason. Democrats traditionally oppose anything that might reduce the number of votes regardless of whether those votes were legal or illegal.

I personally have not researched the level of election fraud currently existing. But plenty of others have. See, for example:

Why Are Democrats Afraid of the Election Integrity Commission?; and

Growing Pile of Data Shows That Voter Fraud Is a Real and Vast Problem.

Furthermore, one doesn't have to look far to find anecdotal evidence. Here: Student headed to prison for registering dead voters for Democrats for example.

Finally, some irony. At least two states, Virginia and Maine, will sell you that information.

The swamp needs to be drained.

Mueller may have just expanded the probe beyond his authorization

Boy, did I get that wrong. Last month at this blog I reproduced the order appointing Robert Mueller and noted the limited scope while speculating that he wouldn't go beyond that limitation. Previously: Order appointing Mueller very narrow, unlikely to include Hillary's known misdeeds. But the order did leave some wiggle room, to wit:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

And now we see WaPo reporting this: Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say. But there was this proviso: those "officials" were speaking anonymously, and Deputy Rosenstein warns us not to rely on anonymous sources. So we don't know whether this is made-up news.

If it's true, it's a damn shame Mueller elected to expand his jurisdiction in that direction instead of at others known to have obstructed justice. That would be Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Loretta Lynch, for starters.

Little wonder then, that Trump's team is beginning beginning to fight back and branding Mueller's team as heavy duty Clinton supporters.

------

2:27 PM 6/16/2017

Chris Wallace is probably right -- Comey testimony good for Trump legally, bad politically

Bureaucrats in the D.C. bars were probably riveted to the televised testimony of James Comey the other day. And the not new revelations that Trump wasn't the subject of investigations likely hit them like a ton of bricks.

But it's also likely no minds were changed that day. Trump is a guy you either love, tolerate, or hate with an obsessive pathology.

Chris Wallace had a worthwhile observation: FNC’s Wallace: Comey’s Testimony Legally Good For Trump, Politically ‘Very Damaging’.

Yeah, that's probably right. If Democrats throw enough mud some of it will eventually stick. Whether the Trump coalition that put him in the White House will be able to maintain a Republican majority in the House and Senate in 2018 is an open question. And if history is a guide, Democrats will take over at least one.

Tick tock, tick tock.

------

1:26 PM 6/10/2017

It paid to be friends with Obama, bigly

This is they type of research one would expect to be applied against Republicans. But not this time. The following is an abstract from All the President's Friends: Political Access and Firm Value:

Using novel data on White House visitors from 2009 through 2015, we find that corporate executives’ meetings with key policymakers are associated with positive abnormal stock returns. We also find evidence suggesting that following meetings with federal government officials, firms receive more government contracts and are more likely to receive regulatory relief (as measured by the tone of regulatory news). The investment of these firms also becomes less affected by political uncertainty after the meetings. Using the 2016 presidential election as a shock to political access, we find that firms with access to the Obama administration experience significantly lower stock returns following the release of the election result than otherwise similar firms. Overall, our results provide evidence suggesting that political access is of significant value to corporations.

That those firms experienced lower stock returns after Trump was elected is a refreshing comeuppance.

That came to us by way of Timothy P. Carney's Study documents how profitable access to Obama's White House was where he noted that the possible advantages included government contracts, regulatory relief, inside information, and regulations hindering competition.

It pays to have friends in high places. The mainstream media gave Obama a pass. But you can be sure that if the Trump administration does the same thing we can expect to see much, much bigger headlines about it.

------

2:27 PM 6/5/2017

Instead of trying to improve, IRS take their budget cut out on taxpayers -- evergreen headline

I began this blog post a few years ago and kept adding related links. But it worked its way down on the priority list. But the issue is still with us.

Check out this headline from 2014: Republicans seek to cripple IRS with the subhead: "The GOP’s moves will gut the tax agency, advocates warn."

The IRS definitely needs reform. But the problem with trying to reform an agency by cutting their budgets is that instead of reforming they'll take it out on the taxpayers then gnash their teeth and wail away about how much the cut hurts the service they are supposed to provide. Expect big news stories about how some sympathetic victims are so badly harmed simply because the IRS can't afford to help them.

Bump it up to 2015: House report: Cash-strapped IRS prioritized bonuses, union activity over helping taxpayers.

Fast forward to the other day and check out this one: As Trump Budget Plans Cuts to IRS, Agency Asks for More Money, subhead, "Only 40 percent of taxpayers were able to reach the IRS last tax filing season."

IRS commissioner John Koskinen needs to be kicked out so he can pursue some lucrative job at a Democrat dominated law firm. Drain the swamp.

------

2:30 PM 5/26/2017

It would be nice if they helped but can you blame Democrats for not wanting to touch the Obamacare revamp?

Obamacare was signed into law without the help of any Republicans, and opinions vary as to whether Obamacare was really that beneficial. It became the law of the land, and whether citizens wanted it or not, they were stuck with it. Some polls say most people like it. But maybe that's because they really have no insurance alternatives.

In any event, calls for Democrats to help out with the revisions are falling on deaf ears. But the Obamacare architects deliberately made it hopelessly complicated. Dems don't want to touch it again. Can you really blame them?

They're more than happy to pass that hot potato on to Republicans, and they will be more than happy to criticize the results.

------

2:07 PM 5/25/2017

Order appointing Mueller very narrow, unlikely to include Hillary's known misdeeds

Those of us who thought Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel might result in some focus on the Clinton Foundation and any other shenanigans committed by the Clintons in the run-up to or during the 2016 campaign will likely be disappointed. The order creating the special counsel is too narrow. To see it click here.

Here are the guts of it, as follows:

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

"Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Very narrow. Too bad.

It's very unlikely Mueller will step beyond those bounds. It seems as if the Clintons and Obama can get away with anything.

------

1:54 PM 5/18/2017

Hans A. von Spakovsky on the next Supreme Court nomination

Rumors abound. Chuck Grassley was the first that I heard talk about it in a news report. The rumor was that a Supreme Court justice will retire this summer. Ideally, that prospective retiree would be one of the justices who always side with the Democrat position. But if Grassley is in the loop on that then speculation that the prospective retiree is one of the conservative justices seems appropriate. That would be a wasted opportunity to get another originalist on the court.

Which of the justices will be the next to retire? Bloomberg says Kennedy.

Here's Hans A. von Spakovsky on that prospect. Trump's first 100 days: Our next Supreme Court pick will be the kicker:

But even if it is Justice Kennedy who resigns (and he is the justice the rumor mills are concentrating on), replacing a justice who is only a part-time conservative with a full-time conservative could make a significant and very crucial difference in the outcomes of the decisions that come before the Court.

Whoever the next departing justice is, President Trump must make sure the next Supreme Court justice is someone who believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100 percent of the time, not just when it is convenient to achieve the particular policy goal the justice wants.

And President Trump will need someone who doesn't care what the New York Times, MSNBC, or the Washington cocktail circuit says about him or her.

He needs a rock-solid, principled lawyer who understands that the U.S. Supreme Court is the last defense against an increasingly powerful, oversized, busybody government that seems to believe it has the right to dictate every aspect of our lives.

Would it be too crude to say, "drain the swamp?."

------

1:52 PM 4/27/2017

Heritage Foundation shrugs off demonstrators, points out Soros connection

Lefties, as a rule, are usually opposed to any attempt to cut government expenditures. And that seems to be the excuse for the demonstrations at the Heritage Foundation on 4/25/2017.

Heritage's internet outlet, Dailysignal.com, contains an astute observation from a Heritage spokeswoman. See Demonstrators Descend on Heritage Foundation to Protest Trump Budget. Excerpt:

“These groups do not represent the majority of Americans who have continually called for a return to fiscal discipline and an end to ballooning federal debt,” Sarah Mills, a spokeswoman for The Heritage Foundation, said in a statement. “If the protesters were serious about reforming the way Washington works, they would join us in fighting for an end to special interest policies that harm the American people.”

“Heritage will not back down. We will keep fighting for a responsible budget, a pro-growth tax system, a repeal of Obamacare, and a stronger national defense—only then will we have opportunity for all and favoritism to none,” she continued.

Dailysignal tried to interview some of the demonstrators, but they refused to comment. However, Dailysignal did some digging into the group. And up popped a familiar face, George Soros.

The protesters were affiliated with a group called People’s Action, a Chicago-based nonprofit founded in 2016. ...

People’s Action and National People’s Action, a network of grassroots organizations, operate out of the same office in Chicago. The latter group was founded in 1972 and has received at least $1.3 million in funding from billionaire investor George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, according to GuideStar, an organization that tracks nonprofits.

Hmm. Brings this to mind: Mike Lee Warns Trump About Taxpayer Funding of Soros Groups Overseas. One-world-government seems to be Soros' goal. Unfortunately, there's a long line of entities with the goal of bringing down the United States. Hopefully, none will be successful, although we seem to have a permanent spot on the brink.

------

1:01 PM 4/26/2017e

Obama's Interior Dept denied gravel road to Alaskan city -- claimed to listen to the animals instead

Channel surfing the other day took me to a Heritage panel discussion on C-Span. The speaker told the story about that road in Alaska the construction of which was blocked by the Dept of Interior. I can't find the C-Span video, but here's something even better, a link to a 2014 article directly on point. Feds to Alaskans: No road for humans, lots of land for animals.

The small town of King Cove, Alaska, doesn't have a hospital or an all-weather airport. And medical emergencies that occur during inclement weather go untreated. All they wanted was an 11 mile gravel road connecting their city to Cold Bay which does have an all-weather airport so patients could be flown the 625 miles to Anchorage.

President Obama's Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said nope. Here's the part that will make you cringe:

“She stood up in the gymnasium and told those kids, ‘I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals,” Democratic state Rep. Bob Herron told a local television station. “You could have heard a pin drop in that gymnasium.”

The idea that animals couldn't cross a one lane gravel road is preposterous. Fortunately, there was a regime change in Washington. And a couple of weeks ago this comes out: Interior Department will take new look at Alaska’s King Cove road project shelved under Obama.

Now that's progress. The Department of Interior should certainly be familiar with draining the swamp. Perhaps the suggestion that it be applied to them was an inspiration.

------

1:46 PM 4/23/2017

Ken Buck tells us why we need to drain the swamp

TV program note: Ken Buck will be on the C-Span2 show After Words at the following times:

Apr 22, 2017 | 10:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 2
Apr 23, 2017 | 9:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 2
Apr 24, 2017 | 12:00am EDT | C-SPAN 2
Apr 30, 2017 | 12:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 2

Dailysignal.com provides a hint at what he might talk about in Congressman Says Corruption in Washington Is ‘Worse Than You Think’. Excerpt:

Buck said his book addresses corruption present in government today that he was not prepared for after being elected to Congress in 2014. “One of the things that I found startling when I got here is that you have to pay dues to be on a committee,” Buck said.

During the time he served on the House Judiciary Committee, Buck said he had to pay periodic dues of $200,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign committee of the House of Representatives.

Now, as a member of the House Rules Committee, Buck’s periodic dues are $450,000.

The obligation to pay dues, Buck said, forces members of Congress to hold fundraising receptions and encourages corrupt influences from special interest organizations who attend the fundraisers.

“Who comes to those receptions with checks?” Buck said. “Lobbyists, special interests that want something in return. So there is a game that goes on that you owe the party money and you are expected to vote with the chairman and you are expected to help special interests groups in Washington, D.C.”

Play along to get along. Congress is part of the swamp.

As seen on Fox News Channel -- Dept of Veterans Affairs office removes photo of president

It seems to be a solitary event. As it was reported, a veteran in Florida noticed that the spots on the wall that the photos of the former president and VA Secretary occupied at that particular VA office were blank. To correct that oversight, he obtained photos of the incumbents and hung them there. But the VA removed them -- the photos were not official, you see.

This is the sort of passive aggression that really annoys the hell out of people. But is this common? Are government employees across the nation resisting any acknowledgment of the administration? Or more importantly, are they resisting the efforts of the president to improve government?

One has to wonder if the VA discriminates among their patients against a veteran who, for example, showed up wearing a red Make America Great Again hat.

Drain the swamp.