OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 2/5/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on the Republican Party’s identity crisis" PBS NewsHour 2/5/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including tensions in the Republican Party, Democrats and bipartisanship, President Biden's economic relief plan and former President Trump's impeachment trial.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Very good to see both of you this Friday night.

Let's start by talking about the Republican Party.

Jonathan, the Republicans in the House of Representatives this week voted — just in the last day voted not to take away committee assignments from Marjorie Taylor Greene, conspiracy theorist, someone who has made deeply disturbing statements.  They left to it the full House, meaning Democrats took the vote.

She said, Greene said today that it didn't really bother her, that committees didn't matter, and, besides, it's Donald Trump's party anyway.  Is she right?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Well, she's right in that it's Donald Trump's party, but she's wrong about the fact that it doesn't matter.

It does matter.  And if she doesn't think committee assignments or being assigned to a committee matters, then she shouldn't be in government.  She should resign her seat if she doesn't believe that sitting on a committee, doing the work of being an elected representative and representing your constituents in Congress, if that doesn't matter, then perhaps she should go back to Georgia.

But this is indeed Donald Trump's party, and we saw it with the votes that were taken within the Republican Caucus.  Marjorie Taylor Greene was able to hold onto her committee seat because the vote was a public vote within the caucus.  Liz Cheney was able to hold on to her leadership post within the Republican Caucus because that vote was a secret ballot.

And we talked all last week or all this week about how her hold on her [Cheney] leadership post was tenuous because the base was so angry, the caucus was so angry.  And yet, by secret ballot, she won reelection to that leadership post within the caucus overwhelmingly.

So, this might be Donald Trump's Republican Party, but, behind closed doors, within the Republican Caucus, at least as it's playing out in the House, there are some tensions there.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, I mean, what Congresswoman Greene actually said was that it's a waste of time.  She views committees as a waste of time.

But my question to you is, I mean, what does this say about the Republican Party in Congress?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, I have decided to look on the bright side.

I think this was the week we saw more anti-Trump activity in the Republican Party than any week in the last five years.  We had Mitch McConnell calling Marjorie Taylor Greene's ideas cancerous.  Liz Cheney won by 2-1.  That was not automatic.  And it shows there's a lot of people who — in the House Republican Caucus who are not with the Trumpsters.

They're a little intimidated by them, but, in private, that's not where their views are.  We had Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse with a very forthright assault on the GOP of one of the counties in Nebraska who wants to censure him.  And so people are beginning to stand up in ways that haven't happened.

And I think, partly January 6, partly looking at the things that Greene believes, they see, as McConnell said, that these are just disastrous cancers for the party.  And so it's not all the way there, but we're beginning to see much more of an assault than we saw before.

And then, just finally, we had 10 Republican senators break from a bit of their party and put out a COVID relief proposal.  So, I'm seeing progress.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, let's pursue that.

I mean, Jonathan, I interviewed former Missouri Senator John Danforth this week, who said that his party, who — he says he's still a Republican — has become, he said, a grotesque caricature of what it once was, that it's no longer conservative, it's populist at the extremes.

Do you see — where do you see this going, is the question.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I do agree with David that there are green shoots to use a phrase from a previous presidency, green shoots of progress, and maybe even green shoots of a new beginning.

But the Republican Party right now is going through — I think, is going to be a multicycle refreshing, that the these green shoots that we are seeing, will that mean that Republicans become more emboldened and stand up for themselves and, going into the midterm elections, the non-Trump Republicans get elected, maybe even Republicans take over the House, but not with Trump Republicans?  I don't know.

But what I do know is this.  The Republican Party is not — is not going to cure itself of what former Senator Danforth talked about until it has concerted leadership within the caucus to push the Marjorie Taylor Greenes and the other folks within that caucus, because she is not the only one, push them aside and get about the business of governing.

I focus on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who should have used the Marjorie Taylor Greene moment as a leadership moment to do what a leader is supposed to do and stand up for the values of the party and the caucus, and to push aside those who run afoul of that.

I don't know what Leader McCarthy stands for.  I don't know what the Republican Party stands for.  And if his calculations this week are about retaking the House in 2022, my question is, what is your program?  What are you for?

Because unless you can tell the American people, and particularly folks in the districts around the country, unless you can tell people what the Republican Party will do and what Leader McCarthy would do as speaker proactively, positively, then why should the American people look at the Republican Party as a viable alternative to the Democratic Party?

Judy Woodruff:  Well, speaking of what the Republicans can do, David, you mentioned the Republican role, I think, in COVID relief.

What role do you see them playing?  As the president is saying, we need to go big, Republicans and even some Democrats raising questions.

David Brooks:  Yes, I — Joe Biden ran on bipartisanship and unity.

He had a chance when the 10 Republicans put forth their $618 billion proposal to say, OK, let's try for a week.  I'm not going to give you more than a week, but I will give you a week, and we will see if we can get you over a trillion.  The Republicans have already voted for roughly $4 trillion dollars in aid.  I think they could have gotten a fifth.

But the problem is, aside from Joe Biden, I don't think there's any taste for bipartisanship in the Democratic Party, sometimes with justified reason.  They have just lived through the horror of the Trump presidency.  They just lived through January 6.  They just don't have much respect or trust for the Republican Party.

And so they don't want to do bipartisanship.  I think those 10 Republicans really do.  I think there are another 10 or 15 in the Senate who would prefer it.  They're not going to go as big as Biden wants to go, but I think they would like it.

But you can't tell people to trust people they don't trust.  Trust takes time.  And the trust is not there for bipartisanship in this Congress.  I think Biden really wants to do it.  It — the evidence of this week is, we're just not going to see that.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, what do you see as the outlook for bipartisanship?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, it depends on your definition of bipartisanship.

If bipartisanship, you mean sitting with people from the other — from the other side of the aisle, talking through the issues, talking through policies and programs, and then, as President of the United States, you decide that what you have heard does not meet the policy proposals that you have in mind and the mandate you feel you have from the American people, well, then, if you go a different route, that doesn't mean that you haven't been bipartisan.

It just means that you have a different governing philosophy.  I do think President Biden has lived up to his promise to be bipartisanship.  He didn't have to meet with those 10 senators, and yet he did.

I do think that David was absolutely right in his — in what he said and in his terrific column today in The New York Times.  I don't think that Democrats don't want to do bipartisanship.  I do think that Democrats do suffer from a lack of trust, because they have been Charlie Brown to the Republicans' Lucy with the football.

When President Obama was in the White House, President Obama tried desperately to negotiate in good faith with Republicans, only to have them say no, be recalcitrant.  And having learned that lesson, President Biden, having been part of the Obama/Biden White House, does not want to be in that position, nor should he, especially when you have millions of Americans who are not only suffering through a pandemic, but also through the resultant economic crisis.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, lingering effects?  If the Democrats end up doing this with Democratic votes, what's the fallout?  What does that mean for the future?

David Brooks:  Well, people do really like bipartisanship.

Our own Amy Walter had a good column this week saying that, when you try to pass something with — on a partisan basis, what happens is that piece of legislation tends to be unpopular, because independents would rather you do it on a bipartisan basis.

So, I think, in the long term, Democrats probably made it slightly more likely the Republicans will do very well in the midterm, if they ram this through on a partisan basis.

Having said that, I think the size of our social problems are so large that $1.9 trillion basically given to the least fortunate among us is about the right size.  And so I wish they had done it with bipartisanship.  I wish the Republicans had come up to like $1.2 trillion.

But I'm thinking about the country, I'm thinking about a country that is suffering from inequality, from decay, from declining prospects, from a rural-urban income gap.  And $1.9 trillion, can go a long way to setting us on a different social path, a more equal social path.

And so, despite my reservations about the way they're doing it, I still think it needs to be done.

Judy Woodruff:  Just a little over a minute left.

I want to get from both of you your expectations for next week's impeachment trial, the second one, Jonathan, for President Trump.  What do you think will happen?

Jonathan Capehart:  I think we will hear wrenching testimony, in that the House managers, the House impeachment managers, will present a case that will bring the American people and the witnesses/jurors back to that day on January 6.

I expect the moment to be probably one of the most impactful, emotional moments in recent American history.

But I also expect this trial to be short.  I wouldn't be surprised if we're talking about the end of this trial a week from today.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, what do you expect?

David Brooks:  Yes, that sounds about right.

I'm mostly struck by how Donald Trump has sort of vanished.  Obviously, he's off Twitter, but he's not taking any measures to be anywhere.  And so it's just going to be a one-sided affair, which will end in an acquittal.  And then we will get back to business.

I will be very curious to see if the nation tunes in or whether they're really ready to move on from the Trump era.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we are going to be covering it, and we are going to be asking the two of you about it one week from tonight at exactly this time.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

David Brooks:  Thanks.

AMERICAN MILITARY - U.S. Force Reduction in Germany

"Trump pushes plan to reduce forces in Germany despite bipartisan opposition" PBS NewsHour 6/24/2020

aka 'Trump Makes Boyfriend Putin Very Happy by Abandoning Germany'

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump met with Polish President Andrzej Duda at the White House Wednesday -- the first time he has hosted a foreign leader since the pandemic began.  Trump reiterated his administration’s plan to base 2,000 American troops in Poland after relocating them from Germany.  The move is controversial and has roiled both members of Congress and U.S. allies in Europe.  Nick Schifrin reports.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Overcoming Polarization

"How these 3 governors say we can overcome political polarization" PBS NewsHour 1/29/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The past month saw a political climate of extreme division in Washington, D.C., over the partial government shutdown.  But some leaders at the state and local levels are striving for improved bipartisanship and compromise.  On Monday, Judy Woodruff sat down with three governors trying to work across party lines: Larry Hogan (R-Md), Chris Sununu (R-N.H.), and Tom Wolf (D-Pa).

JUSTICE IN AMERICA - First Step Act

"How criminal justice overhaul will affect life for inmates" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has signed a landmark criminal justice bill.  The First Step Act increases judges' discretion on sentencing low-level offenders, provides incentives for prison rehabilitation programs, and requires inmates to be located within 500 miles of family.  As Yamiche Alcindor reports, the legislation earned rare bipartisan support and grants hope to thousands with incarcerated loved ones.

JUSTICE IN AMERICA - Smarter Criminal Law?

"Sens. Grassley, Durbin on ‘smarter’ criminal law, bipartisanship" PBS NewsHour 12/12/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Senate is expected to take up criminal justice reform before year end.  A proposed overhaul would lower mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, ban the shackling of pregnant prisoners and ensure inmates stay closer to family.  Judy Woodruff talks to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) two advocates for the bill, about its provisions and rare bipartisan support.

TRUMP AGENDA - Criminal Justice Reform?

"Is Trump’s criminal justice plan ‘rehabilitative and redemptive?’" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has outlined a new bipartisan agreement on criminal justice reform.  The plan ends the “three strikes” policy mandating life in prison for third-time drug offenders and adds incentives for low-risk inmates.  Mark Holden, general counsel for Koch Industries, which advocated for the proposal, joins Judy Woodruff to explain why he thinks the reform “makes communities safer.”

"Why Trump’s criminal justice reform plan could represent a ‘breakthrough’" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has announced a criminal justice reform plan that would enact major changes to the nation’s sentencing laws -- and reduce prison terms for some inmates.  NPR's Carrie Johnson joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why the new bipartisan agreement is a ‘big deal’ and what its chances are for garnering Senate support.  Plus, analysis of Matt Whitaker's status as acting attorney general.

TRUMP - Act Of a Dictator, His Enemies List

aka "Abuse of Presidential power."

"Trump’s threat to revoke security clearances could create an ‘atmosphere of fear’" PBS NewsHour 7/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The threat from the White House to possibly revoke security clearances of six former national security and intelligence officials -- all of whom have been critical of President Trump -- has set off bipartisan criticism.  Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith tells Nick Schifrin that the element of fear could cause current national security officials to hesitate to tell the truth.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/9/2018

"Shields and Brooks on budget deal economics, White House domestic abuse scandal" PBS NewsHour 2/9/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the bipartisan budget deal that increases spending and add to the deficit, President Trump’s defense of a White House aide accused of domestic abuse, and questions about the future of Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, welcome.

So, I’m sorry, Mark, to go from that great music in Appalachia to talking about the budget.  But that was the big thing that passed in the wee hours of this morning.  The President signed it today.  Both parties somehow came together.

What does it say about their priorities?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, first of all, Judy, step back.

And Edmund Burke, who was a friend of mine the 18th Century…

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  … conservative, said 'all government is compromise and barter.  And this was.'

This was a compromise and barter.  Each side got some things they wanted and other things they didn’t.  So that is sort of — it evokes echoes of an earlier era in this city.  At the same time, it was…

Judy Woodruff:  You mean because they agreed?

Mark Shields:  Because they agreed.  And the parties were split.  It wasn’t unanimous on one side or anything of the sort.

But, that said, I think it’s fair to say that the deficit itself is now dead as an issue.  All of us have gone to Republican Conventions where it was solemnly sworn that they would be for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.  That’s over.

Maya MacGuineas was on the show earlier today.  And she has been very conscientious, very effective.  But there is no move now.  The debt is out of control.  We went from were borrowing $436 billion more this year than we did last year, and that’s even before this latest agreement.

So, Republicans — Bill Clinton did balance the budget.  Nothing since has been remotely approaching that.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, red ink as far as the eye can see forever and ever?

David Brooks, New York Times:  It was a compromise, but it’s the kind of compromise we always see.

Ever since we came, or since our segment started — maybe as Burke and Paine in the 18th century — it was…

(LAUGHTER)

They have been able to compromise when it comes to expanding the deficits.  And that’s consistently been true over the past many years.

If you’re just — if every side gets to spend on what they want to spend, that’s the way they can compromise.  They have never been able to compromise when both parties have to take some pain.  And so that’s the kind of compromise they can’t do.

What strikes me as special about this is that everyone is a hypocrite on the deficits.  They’re all for cutting red ink when they’re in the minority and they’re all against it when they’re in the majority.

But there is a shift in tone in the Republican Party that seems interesting to me, which is, it used to be a party that talked the language of economics first.  Its native language was economics, an economic language, and so the budget really did sort of matter, and the budget really mattered, and tax cuts mattered.

Now economics is a secondary language for the Republican Party.  Immigration is the first language.  It’s an identity party, not an economic party, right now.  And so they’re willing to compromise on a lot of spending if they can win on immigration.  And that’s sort of where the party has gone.

Judy Woodruff:  And because immigration wasn’t part of this deal, Mark, as David, that’s how the Republicans were able to sign on.

Mark Shields:  It wasn’t.  It wasn’t a part of this.

Judy Woodruff:  That’s what I said, that it wasn’t.

Mark Shields:  No, no, and that — I think it’s fair to say, though, Judy, that if the Senate were determinant, I think there’s at least 60 votes in the Senate, and maybe even a solid veto-proof majority, for immigration reform that provides relief for these young people who were brought here as children and who have been contributing members of our society ever since.

But it’s the Republican House, and it’s in particular the anti-immigration caucus that paralyzes Paul Ryan.

But I just — I do want to point out one thing on the deficit itself.  We went through two World Wars, the Civil War, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Great Depression, and ran up a total indebtedness of $1 trillion.  And the Democrats were accused of being the tax-and-spend party.

And then we got the tax cut and spend.  The debt quadrupled, quadrupled, under Reagan and Bush, and that really set the pattern.  It was successful politically.

Bill Clinton, for all his failings and all his foibles, in eight years went from the biggest deficits in our country to the biggest surpluses.  So, now we have had 17 years of war financed by three tax cuts, I mean, which I think does reflect what David was talking about.

Judy Woodruff:  So is one party or another more responsible for this, David, or is there blame to go around?

David Brooks:  I do think there is blame to go around.  Deficits tend to come down when we have divided government.

When one party has control, deficits go up, because they can spend on their priorities.  And the Democrats like spending.  The Republicans love tax cuts.  You get a little of both.

I’m not a big believer in third parties, but if there is a third party movement, I suspect the debt will be a big part of that.  Remember how powerful that issue was for Ross Perot.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And so we can say deficits are going away as an issue, but deficits aren’t going away as a reality.

And as interest rates go up, the burden of paying just down the debt begins to swallow more and more of the budget.  It cuts out of the defense spending.  It cuts out of domestic discretionary spending.  And you just become a government that just pays bankers.  And that could be a gigantic issue, especially as interest rates rise.

Mark Shields:  And I would just point out, for those who think about deficits at all, the borrowing on the interest rate, Judy, and the payment of the debt to bondholders is a transfer from people of ordinary income to the wealthiest Americans.

It’s an absolute anti-decency transfer of wealth to people who have to pay their taxes in order to pay off bondholders.

IMMIGRATION - Bipartisan Deal and Trump's Rejection

"Senators have agreed on a bipartisan immigration deal.  Here’s what’s in it, and why the White House rejects it" PBS NewsHour 1/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A bipartisan group of senators announced on Thursday they have agreed on an immigration deal that would protect so-called “dreamers” and beef up border security.  But President Trump is not yet on board, according to spokesmen who say the proposal needs work.  Meanwhile, the President reportedly used vulgar language in describing immigrants from some countries.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff.

OPINION - Shields and Gerson 9/8/2017

"Shields and Gerson on Trump's deal with Democrats, DACA's demise" PBS NewsHour 9/8/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join John Yang to discuss the week's news, including President Trump decision to side with leading Democrats in a deal on the debt ceiling and Hurricane Harvey aid, the move to end DACA and whether more moderate Republican lawmakers will retire from Congress.

JOHN YANG (NewsHour):  From hurricanes to wildfires, natural disasters have drawn the country's attention away from the political storms in Washington this week.

But rest assured, we will bring you up to speed now with the analysis of Shields and Gerson.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

We had the unusual scene this week of a bipartisan leadership meeting in the Oval Office, and the President cuts off his own treasury secretary as he's making a recommendation and agrees with the opposition party on this debt ceiling, on a short-term C.R.  and Harvey aid.

Michael, what do you make of all this?

MICHAEL GERSON, The Washington Post:  Well, it's just a massive shift.

It wasn't that long ago they were talking about putting the wall on the debt relief.  And so it's a huge change.  I think that, you know, the Art of the Deal is easy when you surrender.  That book wouldn't sell very well, but it's true.

And he signaled surrender, not just on this issue, but somewhat on DACA and somewhat on the whole issue of debt, the debt ceiling, trying to get that out of American politics.  So it was a firestorm for Republicans.  They're wondering, is this the new world?

JOHN YANG:  Mark?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:  I'm not sure it's the new world, but I am sure that, if I were Mitch McConnell, I would be seething with anger, the Republican Senate leader, because what Donald Trump did to him and to Paul Ryan (the speaker) was cut them off at the knees.

They had to go back to their respective caucuses and tell them, no, they weren't going to take the position that they in fact had endorsed and told them they were going to take on the debt ceiling and the continuing spending resolution, but, in fact, they were going to follow the advice embraced by the President of Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic Well.

So, if you're McConnell, just taking it from his perspective, he's trying to hold on to a Senate majority going into headwinds of 2018, which doesn't look like a good Republican year, and he's got a President who is not helping him in that sense.  He's got to have something he can point to that the Senate has accomplished.

The last, best hope, or only hope, actually, is probably tax cuts for their supporters and their admirers.  And without the President, he can't do that.  And so he has to bite his tongue, bite his lip, and any other part of his facial extremity that he can and swallow hard, because he just — he was really diminished by this.

MICHAEL GERSON:  Yes, I think we Republican leaders look pathetic, though, in a certain way.

They were livid, according to the reporting, on that three-month debt increase.  They weren't livid on nativism.  They weren't livid on misogyny.  They were not livid on serial lying.

I think that it makes them look like they have kind of a moral center problem, that this is what the final straw is, is a difficulty.  Also, they have given a lot.  They have given their standing.  They have given their — almost their political character for nothing so far.

MARK SHIELDS:  I agree.

MICHAEL GERSON:  I mean, they have literally gotten nothing.  And tax reform may not even happen, and if it happens, it might be a scaled-back version.

So they have give an whole lot for very little in return.

MARK SHIELDS:  You're absolutely right, Michael.

But I would just add that one picture that came out of that meeting of Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer each with their hands on the other's lapels and shoulder, you could almost see them — kind of Trump was in his element, trash-talking to Schumer.  And I knew you.  You were from James Madison High School in Brooklyn, and Schumer to him saying something like, Donald, you're from Jamaica, Queens.  Who are you kidding?

And it's not a continuing relationship, but there's a chemistry there that isn't present with either McConnell or Ryan.  Ryan is a choir boy to Donald Trump.  He's a darling of The Wall Street Journal editorial page.  He's never had a relationship with McConnell.

I agree, but — I agree with what Michael's point is.  What were the words of Charlie Sykes, the Republican talk show host from Wisconsin who's a friend of Paul Ryan's?  He said, quoting “A Man for All Seasons,” Paul, you know, for whales, you have traded your soul, but for a tax cut, you have traded your soul.

And I think there's a lot of truth to that.

MICHAEL GERSON:  He's a diminished figure.

MARK SHIELDS:  Yes.  Yes.

JOHN YANG:  Chuck Schumer, who he called the chief clown, and is now…

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS:  Yes, exactly, exactly.

JOHN YANG:  And Mitch McConnell — the President invited the Cabinet and their spouses up to Camp David this weekend.  One Cabinet spouse who declined, Mitch McConnell.

And how much was a shot across the bow at the Democratic — at the Republican leader — sorry — and was it his intent to diminish them?  And how much of this was situational?  He saw a deal he could take with the Democrats, and so he took it?

MARK SHIELDS:  I think it's always the latter with him.

And what was really remarkable was, he was delighted, was the President, in getting favorable reviews in the press that he hates, that he diminishes, that he denigrates on a regular basis, The New York Times, The Washington Post.

And so thrilled was he, he actually called Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to bask in it and tell them the good reviews they were getting.

I mean, no, this is not a matter of strategy or conviction.  It's a matter of…

MICHAEL GERSON:  It's not a violation of his convictions.  I'm not sure he has any.

He has a set of instincts, which are nativist and nationalist.  But I don't think he has a set of economic and political philosophic conventions on spending or a lot of other issues.  So, when he makes this kind of turn, I think it's relatively easy for him.

POLITICS - A Bipartisan 'Sweet Spot'

"Increasing hydropower hits a bipartisan sweet spot" PBS NewsHour 2/11/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Energy will be a key issue for the new Congress, and hydropower is one of the few areas of agreement between Democrats and Republicans.  Legislative changes have made it easier to develop small-scale hydroelectric projects and both parties find it advantageous.  Special correspondent Dan Boyce of Inside Energy reports on what else proponents are seeking from lawmakers.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  The topic of energy often fuels political debate.

But, as our next report shows, water might be putting out some of those fires.  The U.S. Department of Energy says hydropower has the potential to generate electricity for more than four million homes.

Our story comes from Dan Boyce of Inside Energy.  That’s a public media collaboration working with the NewsHour.

DAN BOYCE, Inside Energy:  This is what a lot of us think of when we hear the word hydropower, but in a lot of ways, this is the old face of hydro in the U.S., and this is the new face.

So, Bev, this is all it is.

BEVERLY RICH, San Juan County Historical Society:  This is it.

DAN BOYCE:  A generator the size of a wheelbarrow pulling in water from a mountain stream, generating enough power for about 10 homes.  This little generator has helped change the course of hydro-history.

BEVERLY RICH:  Come on, really?  This little, tiny thing in a 5-foot-by-10-foot building is causing all of this?

DAN BOYCE:  Beverly Rich and other members of the volunteer San Juan County Historical Society started taking care of this old mill site about 15 years ago, a mill with a water pipeline the workers used decades ago to help process precious metals like gold and silver.

BEVERLY RICH:  At that time, we kept thinking, gee, there really ought to be a way we can use that water.

POLITICS - Breaking Deadlock, Evidence-Based Policy-Making

"Using a numbers-based approach to end political gridlock in ‘Moneyball for Government’" PBS NewsHour 11/27/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It turns out that data may also have a role to play in politics.

As everyone knows, Republicans and Democrats are as far apart as ever these days, especially after this month’s midterm elections.  But some are trying to change that.  A bipartisan group of authors has written a new book, “Money ball for Government,” a data-driven approach to policy-making endorsed by key players on both sides of the aisle, including two current U.S. senators, former White House staffers and policy experts.

Gwen Fill recently spoke to two of the book’s contributors.  John Bridgeland, he’s a former domestic policy adviser for President George W. Bush, and Gene Sperling, the director of the National Economic Council under Presidents Obama and Clinton.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Gene Sperling, John Bridgeland, Republican and Democrat sitting next to each other talking about how to fix government.

One of the interesting things in this book “Moneyball for Government,” John Bridgeland, is you describe as playing tee-ball in a sandlot, that you don’t keep score, you don’t know what inning it is, and everybody gets a trophy.

JOHN BRIDGELAND, Domestic Policy Adviser for President George W. Bush:  Yes.

GWEN IFILL:  How is government policy like that?

JOHN BRIDGELAND:  It’s a remarkable thing, Gwen.  Less than one dollar out of every hundred of federal domestic spending is backed by even the most basic evidence.

In fact, government managers of programs across the federal government, only 37 percent tell us that they have significant evaluations over the last five years for their programs.  So government is basically flying blind when it comes to government spending.

And Gene and I and a bipartisan group of domestic, economic and budget policy advisers across three administrations want to bring a culture of evidence-based policy-making to our federal departments and agencies and the Congress.

MIDDLE EAST - Newshour Analysis 9/3/2010

"Shields and Brooks on Prospects for Jobs, Mideast Peace, Bipartisanship"
PBS Newshour 9/3/2010

(from transcript)

DAVID BROOKS (New York Times columnist): But the danger you get with financial crises is, people do try to do something short-term, and they end up creating so much debt or so much other problems or so much inefficiency, they end up making things worse. And you get these -- the debacles, these debt debacles.

Now, the administration is talking about some, I think, responsible things they will probably unveil next week, maybe a payroll tax holiday, maybe some business tax cuts, maybe some infrastructure spending, a lot of little things. But we shouldn't expect that is going to have a huge impact, certainly not this year. Maybe not next year. I think we just have to -- I have just lost a little faith that we have the -- we have the expertise or the capacity to fine-tune an economy in this shape, which we don't really understand.
----
MARK SHIELDS (syndicated columnist): And, you know, Ronald Reagan was about as formidable an adversary as anybody on the Democratic side would ever want to run into, as principled, conservative. But, at 5:00, he could sit down and have a drink with Tip O'Neill. Under the rules and under the mores of these folks, any cooperation, any civility toward the other side is a sign of collaboration and collusion. And I -- boy, I think that doesn't augur well for our politics, nor this city.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I mean, my whole life was based on what Mark just said, but I have said we should wait and see. In Massachusetts and other places, we have had people who are pretty partisan, but surprise you and sometimes can be nice. And Reagan was plenty tough. But he was nice. Mark's right. And maybe they will be tough and not -- but I -- personally, you know, the Republican Party is not headed in the direction I want to see.

I do think you have to collaborate. And that has become a dirty word. There is no question about that.

POLITICS - Lets Not Mince Words, Republicans

"You Have the Right to Remain Silent" by Nancy Greggs, Democratic Underground

She doesn't mince words in the article, and here are some excerpts:

Yes, elected Republicans, you have the right to remain silent. But at this juncture, I believe it is beyond a right – it is an obligation.

Within minutes of the Democrats assuming their role as the majority, the inevitable criticism of their every action, every word, every plan or idea began, delivered in the whining tone you are now famous for, and continues unabated.

Not only is this detrimental to the spirit of bipartisanship you became so enamored of in the wee hours of November 8th, it is childish, hypocritical and, more often than not, downright silly – but alas, completely expected. Such are the times we live in; such are the morals of your party.

You asked no questions; you pursued no investigation into the facts underlying the conduct of the War in Iraq, or its inevitable consequences. You quietly accepted spying on American citizens, illegal wiretaps, illegal warrantless searches, rendition, secret prisons – and eventually sanctioned the use of torture.

In fact, the only time you opened your mouths was to stand and vote “yea” on every bill that stripped the citizenry of its fundamental rights, turned our country into what has become a democracy in name only, and to support every scatterbrained idea put forward by the oh-so-obviously incompetent idiot you elevated to the presidency.

...the truth of the matter is simply this: You lost your right to criticize a long time ago, and it’s about time you woke up to that fact.

As the Democrats adopted the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, you said, “Where will the money come from?” Don’t you think that’s pretty rich coming from people who have sanctioned the expenditure of billions of dollars in Iraq, without even a modicum of fiscal oversight, and without a single positive thing to show for it?

Don’t you think that’s an almost humorous reaction from the same people who gave tax-cuts to billionaires, and corporations making record profits? Don’t you think that is an amusing retort from a party that exercised no oversight when it came to no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other administration-connected war-profiteers?

Let me break this to you gently: Nobody’s laughing, least of all the hard-working middle-class who, along with their children and their grandchildren, will be paying off the money you handed over to Big Oil and Big Pharma without so much as blinking an eye.

To be perfectly blunt, the only explanation for your behavior while in office is the fact that the vast majority of you are blatantly stupid. Too stupid to know that voters would find a raise in the minimum wage more to their liking than the Bankruptcy Bill. Too stupid to comprehend that the outsourcing of jobs would not find its way into the hearts-and-minds of out-of-work Americans. Too stupid to realize that when you questioned the patriotism of those who oppose your policies, you just might be insulting the voters on whom your job depends. And way too stupid to have the foresight to know that the monster you have created, George W. Bush, would hang around your necks like an anchor as you struggled to keep afloat, totally uninterested in the political survival of yourselves or your party as he arrogantly played the role of omnipotent emperor – a title that you, yourselves, conferred.

In view of all of the above, I would think it obvious that it is time for all Republicans to remain silent – except, of course, when it comes to praying, something you all allegedly do every day. When asking forgiveness of the Almighty for what you have done to your fellow citizens, your country, and the world at large, you might want to pray fervently and frequently – and by all means, do it loudly, because between you and me, I don’t think God is in a listening mood when it comes to people who wrapped themselves in Christianity as they sanctioned torture and the deaths of innocent women and children, while at the same time ignoring the plight of the homeless, the hungry, the sick and the dying.

....to put it in terms even the dumbest Republican can understand, it’s time to shut the fuck up. And if you take umbrage at that expression, remember that you found that four-letter expletive perfectly acceptable when your vice president used it on the Senate floor.

Yes, shut the fuck up. It is an expression that is crude and distasteful, and denotes a total lack of respect for those who it is aimed at – and I cannot think of a more appropriate time to use it, nor a more deserving group of people to say it to.

Ladies and gentlemen, Nancy Greggs