Working-Class Whites Watch: Day 105

Anyone who is tuned in to the state of American politics knows that the most important demographic supporting The Stain are so-called 'working-class whites'.  And if you know that, then you probably also know that this demographic is suffering a great deal from 'deaths of despair', caused in part by opioid addiction:

“Much of the relationship between mortality and Trump’s performance is explained by economic factors; counties with higher economic distress and larger working-class presence also have higher mortality rates and came out strongly for Trump,” Monnat wrote. “In many of the counties where Trump did the best, economic precarity has been building and social and family networks have been breaking down for several decades.”

The Bloomberg article quoted above cites a study by Princeton University's Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which among other things states that "Controlling opioids is an obvious priority" in addressing the problem.

So you will probably be unsurprised to learn that The Stain is doing the exact opposite, proposing a 95 percent reduction in funding for the office leading the fight against opioid addiction:

 It's the latest item in the Trump agenda that addiction advocates fear would erode the government's ability to fight an epidemic killing more than 47,000 Americans per year. Since taking office, the Trump administration has fought to pass an Obamacare repeal bill that would result in millions more without coverage; fired a surgeon general who led an unprecedented study of the opioid crisis; proposed billions of dollars of cuts to public health funding; and signaled a return to the tough-on-drugs approach to fighting addiction.

This move seems to be motivated by The Stain's fundamental belief that it Obama did something, it must be reversed.  And if that's really the driving force behind his presidency, it's going to be a long 4 years --- not least for the working-class whites who helped put him there in the first place.

They Get It

I live in Minnesota's 2nd Congressional district.  Most of the handful of people reading this don't, so I'm going to start this post by showing you the results of the 2016 congressional election in our district:

Now, you probably don't know much about the policy views of Angie Craig or Paula Overby.  I don't, either.  But what little I do know about those two candidates leads me to believe that they are further to the left than your average Democrat.

I will also point out that in the five elections preceding this one, the Democrat had never come within 8 points of winning.  I personally invested a ton of volunteer hours for a candidate who lost by 17 points in 2006.  So Democrats can be excused for feeling at least a little bit of frustration over the 28,869 votes collected by independent candidate Paula Overby.  An argument could be made (and has been) that Overby cost the Democrats their best chance at winning this seat in over a decade.

The reason I'm talking about this is that it just so happens that I was in the same room tonight with both Paula Overby and Angie Craig, and politics was discussed.  In fact, politics and plans to defeat Jason Lewis were the whole point of the meeting.  So one might expect that there would be some tension between these two women.

But there wasn't.  To my knowledge, neither has announced a decision to run again --- or not --- in 2018.  But when Angie Craig made what sounded an awful lot like a campaign speech, I saw Paula Overby applaud.  And for her part, Angie made a special point of being friendly with Paula.

This is how it's supposed to work.  Paula and Angie (and I) all share a common goal: making sure that Jason Lewis is a one-term congressman, and making sure that Donald Trump is a one-term president.  It's clear that neither one of them has the time or the inclination to hurl insults at the other, or re-litigate the election outcome.

There are supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders who would do well to learn from Angie and Paula's example.

Write You Congress Critter: Oppose the AHCA

This is the letter I sent to my congressman, Jason Lewis, this evening.  All are encouraged to use it as a template for letters of their own.

Imagine my surprise when I read this evening that Paul Ryan is planning to move forward with a vote on the Republican replacement for the ACA tomorrow, May 4.  This, despite the fact that the current version of the bill has not been released to the public nor scored by the CBO.

I wonder what Jason Lewis, the radio personality, would have said if Democrats had passed the ACA under similar circumstances.  As you are no doubt aware, President Obama made a concerted effort to get Republican input into the ACA, allowing working groups in the House and Senate to debate for four months --- before it finally became clear that Republicans were negotiating in bad faith to delay the bill's passage.  And despite that, Republicans insist on spreading the falsehood that the ACA was somehow 'rammed through' Congress.

What would talk show host Jason Lewis have said if Democrats had voted on the bill WITHOUT releasing it to the public and WITHOUT waiting for the CBO to score it.  I imagine he would have spent considerable time attacking the Democrats for lacking transparency and for trying to ram a bad bill into law --- and he would have been right to do so.

So I wonder why it is that congressman Jason Lewis is planning to vote for this bill?

Setting aside legislative hijinks, what IS known about the bill is that it is a very bad bill.  Unless something has changed significantly --- and there's no reason to believe that it has --- it will still deprive 26 million Americans of health care, just like the bill which failed in March.  It will still slash $370 billion from Medicaid.  It will still lead to an estimated 17,000 deaths per year.

And now as a bonus, we've learned that in order to draw more support from Tea Party Republicans, it will also allow states to apply for a waiver of the 'pre-existing conditions' regulations of the ACA, a provision which has the support of 52% of Democrats and 48% of Republicans.  This despite the fact that President Trump promised just 3 days ago that those with pre-existing conditions would continue to be protected under the new law.

Of course, it's no fun kicking away grandma's cane if you can't top it off with a large helping of hypocrisy, served in the form of a provision that members of Congress will continue to enjoy all of the ACA's benefits.

Come on, congressman.  If you have any concern whatsoever about the well-being of your constituents, you cannot support this bill.  And if you do vote 'Yea' on it, please don't come back to our district and try to tell us with a straight face that you did it in the best interest of your constituents.  There is no reason for anyone to support this bill, unless they want to demonstrate their fealty to a president with a 42% approval rating --- or shovel obscene tax cuts up to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the most vulnerable.


In fact, if you do vote 'Yea' on this bill, don't bother coming back to the district at all.  I know I plan to do everything I can that you don't have your job for long.

Working-Class Whites Watch: Day 89

Once again, The Stain demonstrates that the working-class whites who voted for him were sold a bill of goods:

Unless Congress intervenes by late April, government-funded health benefits will abruptly lapse for more than 20,000 retired miners, concentrated in Trump states that include Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.  Many of the miners have serious health problems arising from their years in the mines.

In mining areas like Uniontown, Pa., and surrounding Fayette and Greene Counties, which Mr. Trump carried 2 to 1, it is an upsetting and potentially costly prospect.  "It's just a terrible, terrible feeling," said one of the retirees, David VanSickle, who spent four decades at work in the mine.  "I think about it 25 times a day."

The president has offered no public comment on the issue, even as he has rolled back regulations on mine operators, an omission that has not escaped the notice of Mr. VanSickle and other retired miners.

Stunning, just stunning.  I mean, the guy swindled thousands of people with a fake university, set up a sham charitable foundation to line his pockets, and lies more than any politician in U.S. history.  And his sole qualification for office was the fact that he's a rich guy.

Who could have predicted that his promises to look out for the interests of the miners would be empty, and that he would instead enact policies which favor the mine operators at the cost of the workers?

Things Everyone Knows: Don't Do Your Opponent's Work For Him

Some Sanders supporters drive me nuts.

So . . . this showed up on my timeline. It was shared by someone I don't actually know personally --- a Friend of someone I know personally, who sent me a Friend request.

Since I don't know her personally, I can't vouch for her politics, but I think she considers herself a liberal/progressive. She has certainly posted a lot of anti-Trump stuff. In fact, I'm pretty sure she's a Sanders supporter.

I don't know if anyone else in my Facebook friends group shares this opinion of the Clintons/DWS/Brazile/Abedin. But just for the record ---

If you oppose Trump and the Republican party, you need to stop doing their work for them. For starters, that means stop it with this over-the-top hatred of these Democrats. There is no proof anywhere that any of these people did anything criminal. There isn't even reason to suspect that any of them did anything illegal, or even particularly wrong. If you actually believe the words in this picture, it means that you are buying into a Russian/Republican con, at least somewhat.

You can't effectively oppose Trump by drinking his Kool-Aid.

Now you may think 'so what, the election's over. It doesn't matter what I say about these Democrats --- there's no way it can help Trump now.' That would be wrong.

The primary way it helps Trump is this: No matter what flaws these people may have, they still have the support of the majority of Democrats. And the Democratic party is the most effective force to counter Trump. So when a Sanders supporter posts stuff like this, it divides the Democratic party and causes Trump's opponents to fight among themselves (like I'm doing right now), rather to focus on opposing Trump.

The more subtle way it helps Trump is that it legitimizes the absolutely absurd attacks he and Russians made on the Clintons, et al, during the campaign. And guess what? No matter who the Democrats nominate in 2020 --- even if it's Saint Bernard --- the Russians and Republicans will generate the exact same kind of misinformation campaign against that person. And when they do, as someone who has given life and credibility to their lies against the Clintons, you will have no credibility yourself when you argue that these new attacks against your candidate are lies.

Lies and smears are exactly that. When Trump lies about Sanders, that needs to be denounced, or at least ignored. The same is true when Trump lies about Clinton. Sanders supporters need to let go of the fact that some of the lies and smears from the last campaign make their candidate look like a martyr. Otherwise the cycle will repeat itself, and an incumbent president who should easily be defeated might well barely stumble across the finish line to claim a second term.

And one final thing. I did what I could to research the origins of this image. My Facebook acquaintance who posted it shared it from some other guy who's not a Friend of mine. I checked out what I could of his page, and he looks like a Sanders supporter, too. But that 'looks like' is important. I expect there are some true Sanders supporters who actually believe this nonsense. But I have no doubt there are lots of people on Facebook who PRETEND to be Sanders supporters, just so they can sucker true Sanders supporters into drinking from their puke funnel and reposting this slime.

Think before you share.

The Republican Case Against Republicans

Something happened in the past few days which is a perfect example why any sensible person interested in making informed decisions about politics and public policy should ignore both the current president and all news outlets which are obviously cheerleaders for this president.  My goal here is not only to prove my case, but to do so citing only Republican sources of information, because as everyone knows, Democrats can't be trusted.  If they had their way, NO ONE would harass women, Muslims or Jews, and everyone would have access to affordable health care which meets their needs.  And how can you trust people like that?

WARNING: You must possess at least two brain cells to ride on this blog post.  If you do not currently possess two brain cells, please exit through the doors on your right.  If you DO possess two brain cells, make sure to get them warmed up!  In a little while, we're going to play 'Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?'

It all began when the current president accused the former president of doing something inappropriate:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Uncharacteristically, the president then refused to talk any more about the alleged "wire tapping".  But since the president is a Republican, and we know Republicans always tell the truth, we know that these tweets reveal four facts:

1. Obama ordered surveillance for political purposes --- hence the reference to 'Nixon/Watergate'.  Such surveillance is clearly illegal.
2. This surveillance targeted Trump or the Trump campaign.
3. The surveillance occurred 'in October, just prior to Election', or possibly in the first week of November 'just before the victory'.
4. The specific location of the surveillance was in 'Trump Tower'.

So, take that information and put it in your first brain cell.  Got it?  Good.

After that, of course, the president and the White House made no further statements to back up their claim.  They didn't cite any evidence, for example, but rather asked Congress and the intelligence agencies to investigate, taking a 'wait and see' attitude toward the story.  And in the first couple of weeks, reports from other 100%-honest and truthful Republicans were not promising.

On March 15, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes announced (along with weasley Democrat Adam Schiff) that he had seen no evidence of surveillance of Trump Tower, stating that if the president's claims were to be taken literally, then "clearly the president was wrong".  The next day, the right honorable Sen. Richard Burr, Republican Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued the following statement (along with Democratic loser and hater Mark Warner):

Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016.

Finally, on March 20, Republican hero and FBI Director James Comey also announced that there was no evidence to support the president's claim.  Needless to say, things were looking pretty bleak for our president at this point!

But finally, the president got some good news confirmation of his claims on March 22, when Devin Nunes dropped a bombshell.  He said he had recently become aware of some surveillance:

1. Which was "legally collected, foreign intelligence under FISA".  Nunes emphasized three separate times that the surveillance was conducted legally, and thus not remotely similar to Nixon/Watergate.
2. Which "incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition."  That is, some government agency was involved in surveillance that was NOT targeting Trump or his campaign.
3. Which occurred "during the transition," which is to say AFTER the election.
4. He also reiterated: "I said from day one there wasn't a physical wiretap of Trump Tower.  I still don't have evidence that shows that at all".

Take those four facts, and stick them in your other brain cell.  Because now, it's time to rub those brain cells together!

Trump said	Nunes said
Obama ordered the surveillance ILLEGALLY, like Watergate.	The surveillance was LEGALLY ordered by the FISA court.
Trump and his campaign WERE the targets of the surveillance.	Trump and his campaign were NOT the targets of the surveillance.
The surveillance occurred BEFORE the election.	The surveillance occurred AFTER the election.
The surveillance occurred AT Trump Tower.	The surveillance did NOT occur at Trump Tower.

So, when you get done rubbing your brain cells together, what do you conclude?  A fairly bright 5th-grader would conclude that Nunes' allegations provide close to 0% confirmation of Trump's tweets.  The only thing Trump and Nunes seem to agree on is that sometimes the federal government conducts surveillance.

Most conservative media outlets, however, are no match for bright 5th-graders.

The Daily Wire blared: "Trump is 100% Vindicated on Wiretapping".

The Gateway Pundit insisted: "TRUMP WAS RIGHT!"

And so on.

This would seem to conclusively demonstrate that conservative news outlets are either staffed by total morons, or that they are effectively part of the Republican party, and thus will say anything, no matter how logic-free, if they think it makes them look good.  Which is why I said at the very top that a sensible person interested in making informed decisions should ignore them.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  One would hope, after all, that a sitting president wouldn't make such an incendiary claim about his predecessor unless --- well, ever, actually, even if it were true.  But if a president DOES make such a claim, he'd better damn well have access to hard evidence to back it up.

If Trump has such hard evidence, then the correct response to Nunes' announcement would either be (a) Silence, or (b) A statement along the lines of: "That's not the surveillance I was referring to."  But instead, Trump decided right along with the morons of the conservative media that Nunes' non-bombshell vindicated him, preening "So that means I'm right" in an interview with Time magazine.  Which is a fairly tacit admission that Trump's original allegation was made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

So please.  If you want to be a partisan hack and marinate in media which lie to you in order to make yourself feel good about being a Republican, well, go ahead.  But then don't wrap yourself in the flag, or seriously insist that you know what's best for the country.  If you listen to Fox and Gateway Pundit and InfoWars, at least acknowledge that you're doing it out of selfish reasons, and not because you give a damn about staying informed or what's best for the country.  And whatever you do DON'T VOTE AGAIN.  Voting is for adults who take their civic duties seriously.

If you're ready to change your ways, start looking to respectable mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post or The Atlantic.  And if you're feeling adventurous, consider even Mother Jones or Talking Points Memo.  They may not say the things you like to hear, and they may even make mistakes from time to time, but they'll never lie to you just to advance a political agenda.

And finally, in case you were thinking that at least Devin Nunes is the one honest Republican in this story, think again.  After going off half-cocked on the 22nd to give Trump & Co. an excuse to feel vindicated (and possibly engaging in criminal obstruction of justice in the process), he has now backed down from his claims, saying that he can't be sure whether Trump and/or his aides were captured by surveillance even incidentally.

As a rule, it's best just to ignore Republicans completely.

#NoMuslimBan

Earlier today, I saw some random comment from someone which effectively boils down to 'It's better to let thousands of strangers be inconvenienced, suffer, or possibly even die than to risk letting one terrorist into the country.'  While this sort of attitude is born of both fear and selfishness, it is on some level understandable.  No one wants terrorists (of any race or religion) to come to our country and do us harm, and since the people affected by the #MuslimBan are 'others' who we will never know personally, well then, tough on them.

It is also, however, profoundly un-American, at least by the definition I have learned of what it means to be American.

"Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  These words are famously inscribed on the Statue of Liberty near Ellis Island, and for over a century have been a point of American pride, standing for America's promise of freedom and a better life for those who come here from other countries.  When we turn people away out of selfishness and fear, we renege on that promise.

Ironically, many of the same people who support the #MuslimBan also cite their incorrect belief that America was founded as a 'Christian nation' as a reason to discriminate against Muslims.  Even if that were true, there is nothing remotely Christian about denying critically ill children access to medical care which could save their lives.  The Pope agrees, having announced that "It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help."

But don't take the Pope's word for it.  I'm no Christian theologian, but even I have studied the Bible well enough to know Jesus' admonition to love God and love thy neighbor.  And I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't just talking about your next door neighbor, or your neighbors who look like you do and believe what you do.  He meant that Christians love everyone, without exception.  And while America was not founded as a Christian nation, the vast majority of religious Americans are Christians.  So turning back refugees is also un-American in this respect.

Of course, many Americans aren't Christian, or even people of faith, including your humble host here at Things Everyone Knows.  But I am an American, and I speak from my cultural identity as an American when I say this: hate breeds hate, and love breeds love.  The people who support the #MuslimBan do so because some people have done harm to us out of what they say is a defense of Islam.  The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001 did so out of hate.  And that hate has taken root, and incubated, and grown for 15 years, and is manifesting itself now in hate speech, hate crimes, and the #MuslimBan.

Hate cannot conquer hate --- it can only breed more.  The way to defeat terror is to reject hate, and focus on what is best in us.  America, the land of opportunity.  America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.  A place where all men (and women, and trans folk) are created equal, and receive equal treatment under the law.  We've all heard these phrases so many times they're trite, because until recently, we took them for granted.  But they actually do mean something.

Or at least they can, if we choose to live up to them.  These are the principles which make America great, not some clueless blowhard in a red hat playing to our basest instincts.