Read About The Tarbaby Story under the Category: About the Tarbaby Blog
Issues and events that stink to high heaven
Watch this police chief completely dismantle a horrifying gun law that’s backed by the NRA
Milwaukee Police Chief Tears Apart NRA-Backed Concealed Carry Law
Watch this police chief completely dismantle a horrifying gun law that's backed by the NRA
Posted by NowThis Politics on Sunday, February 18, 2018
February 17, 2018
Who is Mick Mulvaney? Narrated by Elizabeth Warren. Unbelievable!
Who is Mick Mulvaney? Narrated by Elizabeth Warren
From Ronald Reagan’s envelope stuffer to Donald Trump’s budget director, meet the self-diagnosed right-wing nutjob Mick Mulvaney (via Who Is?)
Posted by NowThis Politics on Saturday, February 17, 2018
Nick Visser, HuffPost February 16, 2018
Often costing thousands of dollars more than equivalent seats in coach. The report, citing EPA receipts obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, noted several flights cost more than $90,000 in total during a few weeks last June.
Federal regulations mandate government employees travel in the “least expensive class of travel” for their needs, but individuals are allowed to book premium seats if there are security concerns.
The EPA briefly said this week Pruitt had a “blanket wavier” to travel first class but later rolled back its statement when Politico noted that the regulations state that such travel must be approved on a “trip-by-trip basis.” A spokesman later clarified to the news site that Pruitt’s office submitted a waiver seeking an exemption before each trip, citing security concerns.
Until Thursday’s report, it was unclear what those concerns were, although Pruitt defended the bookings in an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, blaming what he called a “very toxic environment politically.”
“We’ve reached the point where there’s not much civility in the marketplace and it’s created, you know, it’s created some issues and the (security) detail, the level of protection is determined by the level of threat,” he told the Union Leader on Tuesday.
Pruitt’s tenure at the EPA over the past year has been controversial among environmentalists. The agency has quickly worked to roll back many regulations meant to combat climate change. The agency has also moved to unravel the Clean Water Act and the Clean Power Plan, and Pruitt was one of the driving forces behind President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the landmark Paris climate deal.
He receives many more threats than his predecessors, E&E News reported in January, and is the first EPA administrator to have a full-time security detail.
The agency also refuses to release many details about Pruitt’s schedule in advance, citing similar security concerns.
Julia Jacobo, Good Morning America February 16, 2018
Hundreds of people attended vigils remembering the 17 victims who were killed in a school shooting in Parkland, Florida on Wednesday, with the sheriff responsible for overseeing the case telling attendees at an evening gathering that gun laws must be fixed.
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel made pointed comments on gun control, saying, “If you are an elected official and you want to keep things the way they are and not do things differently, if you wanna keep the gun laws as they are now — you will not get re-elected in Broward County.”
The statements receiving a round of applause and standing ovation from the crowd.
Several speakers took to an elevated stage to pray for those who died, the injured who are recovering in the hospital and the first responders and school staff who worked so valiantly to keep them safe.
“We mourn for the potential that was lost — for the hopes, for the joys, for the dreams that will never be realized,” one speaker said of the young victims and the heroes who died while protecting the students.
Nearly every seat in the outdoor auditorium was filled, with an audience so large that it spilled onto the sidewalk on the other side of the fence separating the area.
Some members of the crowd nodded silently, while others cried with their hands buried in their faces, as numerous prayers were read.
‘Hero’ coach and freshman among victims of Florida school massacre
Florida school shooting: 19-year-old accused of killing 17 is a ‘broken child,’ lawyer says
‘Hero’ football coach Aaron Feis ‘died protecting others’ in Florida school shooting
Earlier in the day, 17 balloons were released during a vigil at the Parkland Baptist Church, one for each who was killed.
Multiple students were in attendance at a separate vigil at Parkridge Church in Pompano Beach, showing their support for their fallen classmates by wearing shirts emblazoned with an eagle, the school’s mascot.
Later in the evening, a candlelight vigil was held. The vigil lasted about an hour and included a solemn reading of the 17 people who were killed in the shooting.
Among the speakers at the evening event were Chicago Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo, who attended Stoneman Douglas High School and graduated in 2007.
“While I don’t have all the answers, I know that something has to change, before this is visited on another community, and another community, and another community,” Rizzo said.
“We don’t know who’s hiding their sadness or feelings of guilt and loneliness, or who needs help and is too proud or afraid to ask,” he added. “So we have to be there for each other, we have to cope with our pain, and we have to live each other’s pain.”
On Wednesday afternoon, a former student of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, allegedly opened fire on school campus. In addition to those who died in the attack, more than a dozen people were injured, some critically.
Cruz, who has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, appeared in court Thursday afternoon and is being held in the Broward County Jail without bond.
At the vigil, prayers were read for Cruz and his extended family as well.
“We ask that you would intervene in his disturbed mind and show him the hope that can only be found in you,” one speaker asked God, holding back tears. “We pray for your miraculous work to be evident in him, and in spite of him.”
Mark Osborne, Good Morning America February 15, 2018
Kimmel made an emotional plea for action in his monologue on “Live!” — first agreeing with two of Trump’s statements from a Thursday morning address about the shooting. He cited two similar quotes from Trump, including that “no parent should ever have to fear for their sons and daughters when they kiss them goodbye in the morning.”
“I agree with both of those statements,” Kimmel said. “And here’s what you do to fix that, tell your buddies in Congress, tell Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio, all the family men who care so much about their communities, that what we need are laws, real laws, that do everything possible to keep assault rifles out of the hands of people who are going to shoot our kids. Go on TV and tell them to do that.”
Jimmy Kimmel calls out lawmakers in emotional late-night monologue
The comments received loud applause from his audience.
He continued on, attacking Republican politicians and commentators for saying it was too soon to have a discussion over gun control. Ryan, the House Speaker, was among those politicians, telling reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday, “We need to step back” and it is “not the time to jump to conclusions.” Kimmel singled out similar comments from McConnell, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
“Don’t you dare let anyone say it’s too soon to be talking about it, because you said it after Vegas, you said it after Sandy Hook, you say that after every one of these eight now fatal school shootings we had in this country this year,” Kimmel said. “Children are being murdered.”
Kimmel’s comment on “eight now fatal school shootings” appears to be a reference to an Everytown for Gun Safety study, with the correct number being eight intentional shootings causing death or injury in 2018.
Kimmel also made specific reference to Trump’s only major policy decision relating to gun control in his first year in office.
Despite Trump’s immediate appraisal on Twitter of the shooting coming as a result of the suspect being “mentally disturbed,” the president signed H.J. Res. 40 on Feb. 28, 2017 ending the Social Security Administration’s requirement to enter the names of people who receive mental health benefits into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This system is used for gun background checks at purchase.
“One of your very first acts as president, Mr. Trump, was to roll back the regulations that were designed to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill,” Kimmel said. “You did that. Your party voted to repeal the mandates on coverage for mental health. So I agree, this is a mental illness issue, because if you don’t think we need to do something about it, you’re obviously mentally ill.”
Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns
Jimmy Kimmel’s wife: ‘I want to be the one to tell Billy what his dad did for him’
What do NRA-backed politicians plan to do about gun violence beyond ‘thoughts and prayers’? Nothing
“Have you taken any votes ever to take guns from the hands of criminals or crazy people? Can you point to a single vote?”
NRA-backed lawmakers offer thoughts and prayers, but their inactions speak louder than words.
NRA-Backed Politicians Have Nothing to Offer Outside 'Thoughts and Prayers'
What do NRA-backed politicians plan to do about gun violence beyond 'thoughts and prayers'? Nothing
Posted by NowThis Politics on Thursday, February 15, 2018
This woman was physically dragged from the microphone after announcing how much money her state’s politicians get from oil corporations (via NowThis Politics)
This woman was physically dragged from the microphone after announcing how much money her state's politicians get from oil corporations (via NowThis Politics)
Posted by NowThis on Monday, February 12, 2018
Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press February 12, 2018
(Photo: Mike De Sisti/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for next year again calls for drastic cuts in Great Lakes restoration efforts, as well as for slashing rental aid that tens of thousands of Michiganders rely on and toughening work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving nutrition assistance.
It also calls for investing $1.5 billion in programs that support private and charter schools while cutting about $5 billion overall from the U.S. Department of Education.
Like the budget proposal made about this time last year, Trump is looking to nearly eliminate funding for a $300-million program that helps restore Great Lakes water quality by improving fish habitat, cleaning up polluted waterways and protecting wetlands. Trump’s earlier efforts to defund it have so far been rejected, as the program enjoys the support of Republicans as well as Democrats in the Upper Midwest.
Unlike last year, however, Trump’s White House did not make the proposed cut — from $300 million this year to $30 million in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 — clear in its budget message or its list of major reductions and reforms, burying it in a line in a 96-page budget explanation by the Environmental Protection Agency without explanation.
President Donald Trump looks on before signing a proclamation to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the White House on Jan. 12, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Olivier Douliery, Abaca Press, TNS)
“If there’s one thing we’ve learned, we can’t take it for granted that others understand how important our water is,” said U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. “This is outrageous. People across Michigan spoke out and took action last year to stop these cuts and I know they’ll do so again.”
Added U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Flint Township, “Cutting Great Lakes investments by 90% — essentially eliminating the program — threatens the health of our lakes and jeopardizes Michigan’s economy.”
Trump’s budget also again looks to slash other programs considered important to Detroit and other cities in Michigan, including the Community Development Block Grant fund. But it’s unlikely he will be able to push through such draconian reductions — especially given that he was unable to do so in his first year in office with members of his own Republican Party in control of both chambers of Congress..
Trump plan slashes funding for Detroit, Great Lakes and much more
$300 million for Great Lakes protected in funding bill, thwarting Trump
Trump announced the $1.2-trillion budget for the next fiscal year as expected on Monday, including in it $23 billion for border security, $21 billion for infrastructure and $17 billion to fund efforts to fight the ongoing opioid epidemic, as well as substantially increasing military spending by $80 billion or 13%.
But with Congress having final say over appropriations for programs and agencies, the president’s budget proposal has in recent years become more of a political statement of his own than a plan likely to be embraced by either the House or Senate.
Congress has already rejected, for now at least, many of Trump’s last-year proposals such as the elimination of CDBG funds and the popular Great Lakes restoration efforts as it has cobbled together a series of resolutions to keep government funded from month-to-month in the current fiscal year.
Trump’s proposal on Monday even suggested spending about $57 billion less overall on nondefense programs even though Congress authorized that higher level in a bipartisan deal — one signed off on by Trump — just last week.
“The budget reflects our commitment to the safety, prosperity and security of the American people,” Trump said in his budget message to Congress. “The more room our economy has to grow, and the more American companies are freed from constricting
overregulation, the stronger and safer we become as a nation.”
As a policy document, however, the annual budget release still presumably indicates where the chief executive would cut or spend if he could, and he continues to have his sights set on cutting certain programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helped feed 1.3 million people in Michigan as of December.
Trump proposed cutting back on a portion of the financial benefits received by families and sending them regular packages of milk, cereal, meat, canned fruit and other goods, saying it would save money, improve nutritional benefits and reduce fraud. His budget message also said his administration would move to expand “previous reforms aimed at strengthening the expectation for work” among SNAP recipients though details on how that would be accomplished weren’t provided.
Able-bodied receipients already have some work requirements in many cases. The Trump administration suggested more than $213 billion over a decade could be saved through the president’s proposed changes.
Trump’s budget also calls again for eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program — which helped more than 440,000 Michiganders pay home energy bills last year — and the Community Development Block Grant program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program helps pay for home shelters, transportation services, housing rehabilitation and more. In 2017, Michigan communities received more than $111 million in CDBG funds, including $31 million for Detroit.
The budget also suggests reforms to some HUD rental assistance programs —including increasing tenants’ share of rent they must pay from 30% of their income to 35%, which could save the government about $4.3 billion. The Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated last year that about 145,000 low-income households in Michigan used federal rental assistance.
An addendum to the budget suggests adding about $2 billion from the recently agreed upon budget deal in Congress back into rental assistance to keep elderly and disabled renters from getting hit with higher rents.
Meanwhile, the proposal also argues for investing $1.5 billion in school choice programs under U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, with states applying for funding for scholarships that would allow students from low-income families to transfer to private schools and local school boards requesting funding to expand “open enrollment” systems. About $500 million or more would also go to start new charter schools.
Overall the Department of Education would be cut by $5 billion or so with several programs being eliminated, including $2 billion in a grant program to the states to help improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers, principals and other educators.
The grants, the White House said, “are poorly targeted and funds are spread too thinly to have a meaningful impact on student outcomes.”
“The president’s budget request expands education freedom for America’s families while protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students,” said DeVos, a former Michigan school choice advocate and state Republican Party chairwoman. “The budget also reflects our commitment to spending taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently by consolidating and eliminating duplicative and ineffective federal programs.”
Trump on Monday clearly tried to steer interest toward an infrastructure proposal he argues could help attract about $1.5 trillion in new investments in roads, bridges and other projects by using $200 billion over 10 years to leverage state, local and private funding. What’s unclear, however, is whether Congress would be willing to put up such funding or whether states and local governments have the matching money needed to pay for the remainder of the program.
Gov. Rick Snyder’s office said he is “happy to see President Trump and his team discussing infrastructure across the board” and that he looks forward to “working with the Trump administration and serving as a role model for infrastructure development and solutions.”
But it wasn’t immediately clear what benefit the infrastructure proposal could mean to key Michigan projects, such as a sought-after navigation lock at Sault Ste. Marie. Shippers have been seeking a new super-size lock for decades to protect against any potential shutdown of the one aging lock there now that is large enough to handle the biggest ships carrying iron ore and other freight through the Great Lakes.
“It appears there is very little in the proposal that would benefit the Soo Lock project,” Glen Nekvasil, vice president of the Lake Carriers’ Association, which represents shippers on the Great Lakes, said after reviewing the White House’s infrastructure plan. “Nor does it seem to provide any additional funding for authorized projects such as the second (large) lock.”
Contact Todd Spangler: 703-854-8947 or tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter at @tsspangler. USA TODAY contributed to this report.
Elham Khatami, Adam Peck February 12, 2018
Credit: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images
President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited infrastructure plan on Monday, touting the proposal as a $1.5 trillion investment in the nation’s highways, bridges, waterways, and other infrastructure projects. The plan’s topline number sounds great on the surface, but it wildly misconstrues the actual investment being proposed by the federal government — and Trump knows it.
The proposal aims to turn $200 billion in federal funds into a $1.5 trillion investment over the next ten years by placing most of the financial burden on states and cities, which will have to cover at least 80 percent of the cost of any infrastructure project in order to qualify for federal grants, likely through higher taxes, tolls, and other user fees. The $200 billion number is a dramatic reduction in federal cost-sharing from years past.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in January, Trump conceded that the $200 billion in federal funds is “not a large amount,” going on to criticize the amount of money the United States has spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In a tweet Monday morning, Trump reiterated his criticism:
Donald Trump: This will be a big week for Infrastructure. After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is now time to start investing in OUR Country!
But Trump’s plan barely makes a dent in what’s needed to fix the country’s ailing infrastructure. Instead, it places the onus on cash-strapped states and municipalities to come up with the revenue to improve their own infrastructure. As CityLab reported last year, this will be especially difficult for “cities that never financially recovered from the recession, like Detroit, Cleveland, Stockton, and Memphis,” which are limited in their spending ability and yet need infrastructure investments the most.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) annual Infrastructure Report Card, the United States needs to invest $4.59 trillion by 2025 in order to improve the country’s infrastructure — a figure three times larger than even the rosiest estimate in Trump’s proposal and more than 20 times larger than the $200 billion actually allocated.
“If the United States continues on this trajectory and fails to invest, the nation will face serious economic consequences, including $3.9 trillion in losses to U.S. GDP and more than 2.5 million American jobs lost in 2025,” the ASCE report said.
The $200 billion in federal spending includes $100 billion in incentive grants, aimed at encouraging increased state, local, and private infrastructure investment; $50 billion in rural formula funds, which seeks to promote investment in rural infrastructure needs; and $20 billion in so-called transformative projects, described as projects “that can significantly improve existing infrastructure conditions and services” but are considered too risky to attract private or local investments.
Even calling it a $200 billion investment by the federal government is a misnomer. Instead of finding new sources of revenue, the funds will be entirely offset by cuts to other existing infrastructure programs, including a 19 percent decrease in funding for the Department of Transportation and a 3 percent decrease for the Department of Energy, as highlighted in Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget, which was also released today.
Pointing out the glaring lack of new sources of funding in the infrastructure proposal, Michael Linden, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, said on Twitter, “All told, he’s basically proposing a $0 infrastructure plan.”
Michael Linden: No. No. No. This headline is budget-illiterate. Trump’s budget will include $200 billion in infrastructure spending, offset by 20% reductions in base funding for Depts. of Transportation and Energy. All told, he’s basically proposing a $0 infrastructure plan. https://twitter.com/TIME/status/962904104648499200 …
It is unlikely that most lawmakers on either side of the aisle will support Trump’s proposal — with Democrats, and some Republicans, criticizing the plan’s lack of new revenue sources.
But even if the proposal made its way through Congress and money began flowing to projects around the country, it’s unlikely the spending would have any meaningful impact on the worsening condition of the most vital infrastructure programs.
By leaving local governments on the hook for 80 percent of the cost of a project, the Trump administration is encouraging investments in public-private partnerships. A city will partner with a private developer, for instance, to construct a new building as part of neighborhood revitalization. But spending is most needed where public-private partnerships are hard to come by. Private financiers seek to tap into sustainable revenue streams when deciding what projects to invest in, and there are few revenue streams to be had for street repairs or water pipe maintenance. In states that have ceded some authority to private companies for the management and maintenance of highways, regressive tolls have hit the poorest workers the hardest.
Richard Wolf, USA Today February 9, 2018
(Photo: Michael Owens, USAT)
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court precedents that have stood the test of time for generations are in danger of falling like dominoes in the next few months.
First on the chopping block is a 1977 ruling that allowed public employee unions to collect fees from non-members for collective bargaining. The court’s conservative justices have been itching to overrule that unanimous decision for decades.
Next up is a 1992 case in which the court refused to require that mail-order retailers collect sales taxes from buyers in other states. For a quarter century, that has given online retailers a competitive advantage over brick-and-mortar stores.
The court also will consider second-guessing one of its least popular chestnuts — a 20-year-old ruling, based on one from 1945, that gives federal agencies broad discretion to interpret their own regulations.
Since Chief Justice John Roberts took the center seat on the court in 2005, the justices have been reticent to second-guess the decisions of their predecessors. They have done so at a pace just above once a year, considerably less often than in the past.
“That’s not an accident,” says Jonathan Adler, director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “The chief justice, in particular, doesn’t like the court to be a disruptive force. He prefers to maintain stability and predictability where possible.”
It’s not always possible. Roberts could not prevent the court’s conservatives from overturning two of their precedents in 2010’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which eliminated limits on independent political spending by corporations.
And five years later, the court’s decision in favor of same-sex marriage overruled a 1972 decision that found no federal basis to block states from prohibiting the practice.
The court usually adheres to the principle of stare decisis, or adhering to its earlier decisions. But occasionally those earlier rulings cry out for change, and the court waits too long to correct them. Perhaps the top example is Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld separate public facilities on the basis of race and stood for 60 years before being overruled by Brown v. Board of Education.
The court in recent years has had scores of opportunities to overrule earlier decisions and has taken a pass, according to the Supreme Court Database, a research facility housed at Washington University School of Law. The Roberts Court has done so less than any of its predecessors dating to the 1950s.
Few rulings have been up for grabs as often as Auer v. Robbins, the 1997 decision that upheld federal agencies’ right to interpret their own regulations without court interference.
When the court last refused to hear a case that would have toppled Auer, dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas warned that “the doctrine is on its last gasp.” Now the justices have another chance to extinguish it in a case they will consider at next week’s private conference.
“You wrote it.”
Thomas is fond of recounting a conversation on the bench with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who complained that “Auer is one of the worst opinions in the history of this country.”
“Nino,” Thomas responded, “you wrote it.”
The court later this month will hear a challenge to the fees paid by non-members to public employee labor unions that would overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 1977 decision. The justices stopped short of that extreme step in 2012, 2014 and 2016.
Many of the court’s conservative justices believe Abood was wrongly decided to begin with, since it forces workers to contribute to a group they may disagree with. Opponents argue that as a constitutional case based on First Amendment rights, it is less sacred than rulings based on statutes that Congress can amend.
“Although this court reconsiders its precedents with caution, stare decisis does not warrant preserving Abood’s error,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argues in the government’s court papers.
But Abood has its defenders, including Michael Kimberly, co-director of the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic.
If it’s scuttled, Kimberly warns, “Contracts entered into based on unions’ ability to provide specified services, funded through agency fees, would have to be renegotiated. And government employees’ existing reliance on unions’ abilities to negotiate effectively and to provide contractually required services would be eliminated.”
Precedents don’t last forever
The high court’s consideration in April of a case that would level the playing field between online and brick-and-mortar retailers when it comes to collecting sales taxes presents a clear case of technological change influencing legal rulings.
The justices ruled 8-1 in Quill v. North Dakota (1992) that companies selling wares by catalog across state lines were exempt from collecting sales taxes. Now that North Dakota case is being challenged by one from South Dakota.
“As this court has long recognized, stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote in a brief for the Retail Litigation Center. “When the world changes, it is appropriate to consider whether the law should change as well.”
