Monday Reading

As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ op- eds.

This week, the focus is on one issue, the one that most clearly defines the repugnant, sociopathic Trump Republican Party:  separating immigrant families at the southern border as leverage for enacting extremist immigration laws.

Proving there are really no "moderates" in the Trump Republican Party, gibbering sneak and Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins tries for the umpty-ninth time in her useless career to go MIA when the chips are down:

U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), often described as a “moderate” Republican is no moderate when it comes to separating children from their parents. She refuses to sign on to a Democratic bill that would end it – effectively derailing the legislation from Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Without the support of a GOP Senator like Collins, the Feinstein bill has little chance. [snip] 

After praising Sen. Feinstein as “compassionate,” Collins said she would not support Feinstein’s bill, which currently has 43 signatories, claiming it is “far too broad.”
Collins claims the bill would “prevent arrests within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or suspected of terrorist activity.” She appears to be the first and only Senator to make the allegation. 

The Senator from Maine could bring her objections to Sen. Feinstein, who has a strong law and order record, to reach a compromise. She could have legal experts weigh in, and offer a compromise. 

Instead, Collins says she wants her bill that fully finds President Trump’s wall to be passed. It’s been languishing since February. She says it provides a pathway to citizenship form DREAMers. 

It does nothing for the nearly 12,000 migrant children separated from their families and currently being held by the Dept. of Health and Human Services.  (our emphasis)

She's up for re-election in 2020. Keep her in your thoughts.

E.J. Dionne, Jr., must've had Collins and a number of other Trump Republican Party hoplites in mind when he recalled a quote from former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank:

“Moderate Republicans are the people who are there when you don’t need them.”

Dionne goes on to describe what actions the Trump Republican Party is proposing in the House:

The Republicans who purport to be above Trumpian nativism briefly threatened to show some spine by taking a stand in defense of immigrants brought to the United States without authorization when they were children. Referred to as “dreamers,” they are functionally American in every way except in their legal status. 

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) organized what is known as a discharge petition to force votes on a series of immigration bills. One of them was a clean effort to give the dreamers a path to citizenship that was favored to pass if it got a vote. 

Every one of the 193 Democrats in the House signed the petition, and so did 23 Republicans. It needed only two more GOP signatures to force action. 

And on the cusp of victory, the so-called moderates caved in to Ryan. The last two endorsements would never come. 

Of two bills Squeaker of the House Paul "Lyin'" Ryan will bring instead, this one is supposedly the "moderate" one:

While offering a less generous approach to the dreamers’ problem, that second bill would also provide billions for Trump’s “beautiful wall,” a series of new restrictions on legal immigration and tougher rules for asylum seekers. 

Its “solution” to the family separation debacle would be to end court-mandated legal protections for children brought across the border so entire families could be jailed together. Now there’s humanity for you.  (our emphasis)

Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael Shear at the New York Times trace the child separation policy back to the early days of the Trump regime to dispel any notion this wasn't their "nuclear option" from the beginning, then give us this confirming quote from one of Trump's many evil incarnate advisors, Stephen Miller:

“No nation can have the policy that whole classes of people are immune from immigration law or enforcement,” he said during an interview in his West Wing office this past week. “It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry, period. The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.”

So much for "The Democrats made me do it!"

What's the reality on the ground?  Nomaan Merchant of the Associated Press filed this report from a "detention center" in south Texas:

Inside an old warehouse in South Texas, hundreds of children wait in a series of cages created by metal fencing. One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets. 

One teenager told an advocate who visited that she was helping care for a young child she didn’t know because the child’s aunt was somewhere else in the facility. She said she had to show others in her cell how to change the girl’s diaper.

Cages. Children. How did this country sink so low? (Rhetorical question.)

Then, there's this disturbing detail on the child forced to watch as her mother was frisked by a Border Patrol officer:

this kid is 2 years old.

they took her shoelaces so she wouldn't use them as a weapon or hang herself.

2 years old. pic.twitter.com/hn3T9psm1t

— m i t h (@ManInTheHoody) June 16, 2018

Finally, as always, we close with a recommendation to check out Infidel 753's excellent link round- up, which also provides more reads on this topic as well as many other issues and "stuff" to provoke, inspire and otherwise interest you.

BONUS:  Good friend P.E.C. emailed us this morning with some good points on false equivalencies going unchallenged in the media, and one potential unintended consequence of detention:

I am so frustrated with msm (I get most of my news from PBS, CBS and the WaPo) where no one has called out the truly false equivalency comparing people here who commit crimes being separated from their children just like those parents at the border. The children of a person living in the U.S. have many resources to lean on for comfort and security. They may have their other parent, they may have other family, they may be in school or have other care givers. There is absolutely no equivalent argument and this needs to be presented in the press. What is being done at the borders is cruel and wrong. 

Further, detaining all those teenagers is creating a hotbed for the development of just the gangs people are fleeing. Everyone wants to feel they belong, and short of parental security and guidance it would be only natural, especially for teens during what can be a difficult time in their development, to seek out a brotherhood of people to whom they can cling and who they feel will have their backs.

The Myth Of The "Moderate Republican" -- John McCain Edition

As the Republican Senate wealthfare tax bill abomination shambles toward a vote (likely today or tomorrow), another "moderate" Republican Senator, shows his tribal colors:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Thursday morning that he would support his party’s tax overhaul, a huge win for Republican leaders that could help pave the way for the upper chamber to pass its bill in the next 24 hours. 

“After careful thought and consideration, I have decided to support the Senate tax reform bill,” McCain said. “I believe this legislation, though far from perfect, would enhance American competitiveness, boost the economy, and provide long-overdue tax relief for middle-class families.” 

This man who'll never have to worry about facing knuckle-dragging Republican voters again, this supposed fighter for the Senate's "regular order," this "maverick" so beloved of the credulous media, is going to vote for a bill that, in truth, does nothing that he claims it will (in fact, this man who, by virtue of his position, has insurance that pays for his cancer treatments will vote for a bill that would result in funding cuts for cancer treatments for Medicare patients!)  How's that for integrity?

BONUS:  Michael Tomasky has a good read on this shameful bill and the shameful people who are voting for it.

The Myth Of The "Moderate Republican" -- Susan Collins Edition

Let's get one thing straight and out of the way: There Are No "Moderate" Republicans.

There are Republican officeholders who, on occasion but not because of "principles," will vote against the rotted out party's agenda.  It's generally based on some calculation involving re-election or extorting some legislative favor (refer back to "re-election"), but not on consistent application of "principles."  If that were the case, neither the House nor Senate Republican wealthfare bill would have been drafted, since they grossly violate the Republican "principle" of reducing the debt -- a "principle" which only comes into play when a Democrat is in the White House. But "moderate Republicans?" Please.

The latest example of this, shall we say, ethical "fluidity" is Maine's Republican Senator Susan Collins, who either just fell off the turnip truck or is willing to believe a number of promises made by notable truth- teller and policy genius Donald "Rump" Trump (via TPM):

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) walked out of a lunch meeting Tuesday with President Trump and Senate Republicans with a broad smile on her face, telling reporters that promises from the president to support two separate health care bills left her “encouraged” and more amenable to voting to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate—something just weeks ago she warned would devastate the middle class. [snip] 

Collins insisted Tuesday that she secured support from Trump for two bills she says would mitigate the damage of repealing the mandate—one to restore government subsidies to insurance companies that Trump defunded earlier this year and the other to set up a federal reinsurance program. 

Health policy experts are not so sure. 

“The Alexander-Murray bill—while good policy on its own—would come nowhere close to undoing the damage from individual mandate repeal. The same is true of the Collins-Nelson proposal,” writes Aviva Aron-Dine, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former senior counselor at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Aron-Dine says the reinsurance funding in the Collins-Nelson bill, about $2.25 billion per year for just two years, falls far short of the $10 billion per year in permanent funding needed to prevent premiums from rising. She added that repealing the mandate is also likely to be the final straw that pushes insurers to flee the market entirely.

Collins can't be unaware of the implications of passing the Senate wealthcare bill, and she also can't be unaware that "promises" from Rump are worth the same as a certificate from Trump University. So, the most reasonable explanation is that now that she's running for re- election, she needs to rejoin the tribe and get with the program, and this is her "get back in the fold" card.

Others not subject to re- election like Sen. Corker of Tennessee and Sens. Flake and McCain of Arizona, have expressed "concerns" over various aspects of the bill, the former focusing on its ballooning the deficit, the latter more for "regular order" issues.  Don't expect their objections to last the week, however. They're posturing for various reasons, none of which will exist once the roll call begins.

Finally, as a fig leaf for her shriveled conscience, Collins is taking refuge in some magical thinking:

Though Collins said earlier this month that she would need these bills passed into law before voting on the Senate tax and mandate repeal bill, she moved the goalpost on Tuesday. 

“I’m pushing to make sure they are passed and signed into law prior to the conference report coming back,” she said, “So I would know for certain that we’re going to be able to mitigate the impact of repealing the individual mandate.” 

When reporters pointed out the possibility that there will be no conference committee, that the House just passes the bill as-is, Collins waved away that fear. “Everything I’m hearing is that there is going to be a conference committee,” she said.

Will she act indignant for the folks back home when the individual mandate repeal ends up in the bill Rump signs and her constituents lose their health insurance? Or when her low- and moderate- income constituents see their taxes go up? Why, of course she will. But only "moderately" indignant.

Former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett explains why these sociopaths need to pass this wealthfare atrocity now (found via NMMNB):

If Democrats get control of one or both houses of Congress next year — a good bet — then obviously the tax cutting will end. That’s why Republicans are working at breakneck speed to get their tax cut enacted ASAP. They will use any lie, any tactic, no matter how underhanded, to achieve their goal. 

Republican deficit hawks, who are now AWOL, will suddenly reappear the moment Trump signs the tax cut. The media will be filled with reports from leading authorities about how the deficit endangers the country in a variety of ways, arguing that action must be taken immediately. 

But taxes will be off the table because of the tax pledge. Therefore, all deficit reduction must come from spending cuts. And of course, defense cuts will be off the table. Therefore, the bulk of cuts will have to come from so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare because that’s all that will be left.

Condensed down:  afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable.

Remember on what side those "moderate Republicans" come down. Then we need to vote immoderately.

BONUS:  Another "moderate" rolls over.

(Photo: Sen. Susan Collins - um, no.)

Marco Rubio Haz Policies On "Other Things" (Spoiler Alert: They're Not Good)

Desperate for an "establishment" Republican to act as a bulwark against rampaging loons Donald "Rump" Trump and Sen. "Tailgunner Ted" Cruz, hacks like former Bush speechwriter and very Moderate Republican Michael "Mushroom Cloud" Gerson are casting about for a savior and given precious air time on PBS of all places:

MICHAEL GERSON: I will tell you one hopeful issue for 2016.

With the right lineup, with, say, President Rubio and Speaker Ryan, both of them have tried, from the Republican side, to engage the issue of poverty. Paul Ryan has traveled the country looking at examples of community-based efforts. Rubio has put out serious policy on EITC and other things.  (our emphasis)

Ah, yes, hep generation gusano Sen. Marco "Glug Glug" Rubio (R-MIAmi), "establishment" Republican hopeful has "serious" policies on..." other things."  Let's hear what those glorious "other things" might be (via No More Mister Nice Blog):

This is a man who has a lifetime ACU [American Conservative Union] rating of 98 out of 100. A man who hasa perfect rating from the NRA in the U.S. Senate. A man who earned scores of 100 in 2014, 100 in 2013, 71 in 2012, and 100 in 2011 from the Family Research Council. A “Taxpayer Super Hero” with a lifetime rating of 95 from Citizens Against Government Waste. A man Club for Growth president David McIntosh called “a complete pro-growth, free-market, limited-government conservative.” ...

Rubio’s the guy who earned a 100 from National Right to Life in two straight cycles, and a zero rating from NARAL. He supports an abortion ban after 20 weeks, opposes exceptions for rape and incest (although he’s voted for legislation that includes those exceptions), and opposes embryonic stem-cell research....

Rubio opposes gay marriage and has said that “we are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech. Today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.” He recorded robo-calls for the National Organization for Marriage....

He wants to raise the retirement age for those under 55....

Rubio opposes raising the minimum wage....

Not to mention, there's no war he's not in favor of.   (And a murderous, felonious in- law he's willing to vouch for.)  He seems like just the candidate to lead us into the 21st Century 19th Century!

So clearly, judging from the list above, he's an "establishment" Republican.  The only surprise is that there are still people who think that means anything but straight- up reactionary crackpot.

(Image:  We can just picture him in the Oval Office.)

Jeb Bush And The Myth Of The "Moderate Republican"

Catherine Rampell reviews some of the seminal "thinking" of purported compassionate, "moderate Republican" John Ellis "J.E.B." Bush, as revealed in his 1994 book, "Profiles in Character:"

Bush also pines for the days of “pillories and public dunkings,” and regrets that “much of today’s criminal justice system seems to be lacking in humiliation.” He endorses one idea, proposed by a Miami Herald columnist, that juvenile offenders should be shamed by dressing them “in frilly pink jumpsuits and making them sweep the streets of their own neighborhoods.” This sounds a lot like the infamous pink underwear inmates wear in Arizona’s Maricopa County, but apparently even that would be insufficiently emasculating.

Perhaps most astonishingly, Bush advocates using corporal punishment in public schools, because he says the humiliation involved (rather than the physical pain) is so effective.  [snip]

Bush has some other strange and/or relatively retrograde things in the text, including some histrionics about the rise of no-fault divorce (as well as “no-fault psychotherapy”) and fierce objections to the fact that a criminal defendant’s childhood and life circumstances are ever taken into consideration before passing judgment.  [snip]

But even if Bush no longer directly embraces, say, corporal punishment, his underlying philosophy is clear, and it’s consistent with attitudes we’ve seen among conservatives now in power in places such as Kansas and Wisconsin: that the main reason people are broke, unmarried, in prison or unemployed is because it’s all just too much gosh-darn fun.

Prescriptions for the moral instruction and betterment of society whether by the likes of trust-fund heirs like "J.E.B." or by the likes of erstwhile "populists" like Mike "Huckster" Huckabee and Scott "Koch Head" Walker, all amount to the same thing:  privileged =cough= white =cough= authoritarians want to maintain their increasingly shaky grip on power by being "tough" with "those people" that aren't their moral, financial or societal "equals."  It goes hand in hand with Republican efforts to strip voting rights from "those people," fight marriage equality, curtail a woman's reproductive rights, fight immigration reform, and stick it to the poor while lavishing tax benefits on the rich.  Let's bury this myth of "moderate Republicans" once and for all, please.

BONUS:  Of course, it's not just Jebbie that has pinched views.

"The Most Dangerous Group in Congress"

  Josh Barro, writing in Business Insider, tells us who "the most dangerous group in Congress" is:

Our government is a disaster because of a small group of Republicans in the House of Representatives.

I'm not talking about the group of Republicans you might think.
Yes, there are 30 to 50 arch conservatives in the House who have been insistent they won't reopen the government without putting a major dent in Obamacare.  These people are not the key problem. They are only relevant because so-called "reasonable" or "realistic" Republicans allow them to be.

The most dangerous group in Congress is moderate Republicans, many from the northeast, who could reopen the government and break extremists' grip on their caucus' agenda, but choose not to.

According to the Washington Post, 21 House Republicans say they are prepared to vote for a "clean" continuing resolution to reopen the government. Together with Democrats, this is enough votes to pass the bill that has already passed the Senate, reopen the government, and stop the madness.

Yet these Republicans who publicly say they favor a clean CR have repeatedly voted with their extremist colleagues to prevent it from coming to a vote.

If moderate House Republicans don't want a government shutdown and favor a clean CR, why have they passed up on ways to end the shutdown?  [our emphasis]

To find Barro's answer to the question, go here.

BONUS:  Harold Meyerson concurs.