While this is not going to be an "April Fools!" column per se, it certainly is going to deal with some rampant foolishness from the Republicans in Congress right now. Because what they are trying to do is to replace actual math with nothing short of fantasy math. They are making this attempt to pull the wool over the taxpayers' eyes in order to reward billionaires, without it "costing" a thin dime -- when in reality, it's going to cost upwards of $5 trillion.

Continue Reading »

So... is everyone ready to pay more for everything? Because that's why America elected Donald Trump president, right?

On Wednesday, Trump will be announcing sweeping tariffs on the entire rest of the world. As he likes to put it, "tariff" is his new favorite word in the dictionary. But consumers are likely to call it what it will actually be, to them: a tax. A big fat "Trump Tax" on all sorts of things consumers buy. Which will likely drive up inflation, and which will definitely hit consumers hard in the pocketbook.

Or maybe not. With Trump, you never quite know what he'll do next. And his record so far on tariffs has been completely chaotic. He'll announce one and then turn right around and suspend it. Or he'll announce that he's cut some wonderful trade deal and the tariff won't be levied at all. Or people from certain industries will beg him to relent and he will. There's no rhyme or reason, because there is no actual plan -- just Trump's whims.

Continue Reading »

In keeping with the "world turned upside-down" nature of this week, we are going to start with a few things that haven't been front-and-center, then we'll circle in to a bigger-picture take, and finally we'll fit in the big story of the week at the end.

First, the stuff that may have been lost in the flood. This comes from a journalist's list of "this week's parade of horribles," but this is only the end of this list (the entire list was too long to include here):

Continue Reading »

House Republicans seem to be getting worried. Their historically-thin majority isn't in jeopardy quite yet, but the political trends aren't exactly going in their direction. Which led to a surprise announcement from the White House that the nomination of Representative Elise Stefanik to be the ambassador to the United Nations was being pulled. Stefanik had already delayed going through the Senate confirmation process, since her vote was needed on budget bills. But now she won't be confirmed at all, as Republicans worry about holding on to their majority.

Continue Reading »

Without a doubt, we now live in Orwellian times. Anyone who runs afoul of the Dear Leader must be punished. The truth is whatever the Dear Leader says (even when he contradicts something he earlier said). We don't have a Ministry of Truth (yet), but we do have Truth Social. We have always been at war with Canada, and Russia has always been our friend, right? The past is being rewritten, erasing any mention of the trans people who were instrumental in leading the Stonewall Riots, and any mention of why pioneers like Jackie Robinson weren't considered just some random baseball star. Maybe Rosa Parks will be next: "She was just some woman on a bus... not really sure why some woman on a bus is historic, but everyone remembers her name for some reason...." In all this Orwellian flood, though, the one that stands out for me is the up-is-down nature of the richest man in the world absolutely destroying major government departments in the name of "government efficiency." That one really takes the Orwellian cake, as it were.

Continue Reading »

In what universe does information about exactly what (and where) American warplanes are targeting, the timing of airstrikes, and what weapons will be used in those airstrikes not qualify as "classified information"? That is a jaw-dropping concept, but that is one of the excuses being lamely trotted out for the massive security breach that recently happened. The secretary of Defense just decided on his own, willy-nilly, that such information was somehow perfectly acceptable to talk about on unsecured systems (possibly even including private, non-governmental phones)? That's without even adding in "with a journalist in on the chat" -- but that is indeed the tack some are attempting to take right now. It's all just no big deal, they insist. Nothin' to see here, folks!

Two of the people who participated in the Signal chat appeared before a Senate committee today, and they both tried to float this excuse, incredulously insisting at first that no classified information was shared on the chat. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard even refused to admit that she had even been on the chat. Later in the hearing, Gabbard and C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe "added caveats to their answers, saying that no classified information under U.S. intelligence agencies' purview was discussed." They both said that the question of any other information being classified should be asked of the Defense secretary. This is laughably unbelievable.

Continue Reading »

That headline is obviously meant as a callback to a time when Republicans expressed all kinds of alarm about top secret information being mishandled by high-ranking government officials. In particular, Hillary Clinton's emails. Republicans in Congress gleefully investigated Clinton's email server and what had been sent via a non-standard communications channel -- six ways to Sunday, in fact. They denounced the breach of national security in the strongest possible terms. Later, it became the go-to "whataboutism" response to just about anything Democrats would bring up in relation to just about any Republican. The phrase: "But what about her emails?" or just: "But her emails!" became such a cliché that it was even mockingly morphed (by elision) into merely: "Butter emails!"

Ah, those were the days, eh? When Republicans expressed alarm (real or faked) about national security leaks?

Continue Reading »

President Elon Musk and his figurehead Donald Trump inched closer to a constitutional crisis (once again) last week. It still hasn't been fully resolved, so we've all got more of this to look forward to next week as well.

Trump invoked a law from the 1700s this week which would allow him personally to determine who gets deported. No due process, no hearing before a judge -- none of that. Just Trump deciding: "I don't like this guy, let's kick him out." The Alien Enemies Act is only supposed to apply when the United States is at war with another nation, and has only been used three times -- the most recent being the shameful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But as far as Trump is concerned, it doesn't matter than we aren't at war, he just doesn't want to deal with the courts at all.

The courts, unsurprisingly, disagreed. A federal judge ordered that nobody be deported using the Act, and further that any planes that were in the air with people on them actively being deported be turned around and brought back. The Trump administration refused to do so, and two flights landed in El Salvador (after the judge handed down his order), and everyone aboard was sent to a notorious prison where they will spend the next year doing forced labor.

Continue Reading »

Judicial independence is under attack in America right now. The president and his supporters are calling for impeaching judges -- not for any "high crimes and misdemeanors," but instead for issuing rulings they don't like. And today, in a remarkable "be careful what you wish for" moment, a Republican senator has announced he will introduce a bill to restrict federal district judges from making any rulings that apply nationwide. This is somewhat amusing, seeing as how Republicans use this tactic all the time when there is a Democrat in the White House.

Continue Reading »

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is in the Democratic doghouse right now, after he (and a few other Democrats) recently voted with the Republicans to keep the government open, rather than forcing a shutdown which would have allowed Elon Musk to shift his efforts to eliminate the federal government into warp speed. It was a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Schumer, but his performance and leadership have been heavily criticized (and denounced) by other Democrats ever since. Which isn't a good place for the highest-ranking Democrat in the entire federal government to now be. So should Schumer stay in his Senate leadership position, or should he go?

Continue Reading »