Archive for August, 2017

A Texas Republican Is Spending This Week at Dairy Queens Slamming Trump’s Border Wall – Mother Jones

Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least-effective way to do border security.

Tim MurphyAug. 9, 2017 4:06 PM

A stretch of the USMexico border in Rep. Will Hurd's district.David/Flickr

Texas Republicans are laying low during the August recess. Just eight of the 25 Republicans in Texas congressional delegation have held a public town hall in 2017. ButRep. Will Hurd is an exception; the second-term congressman, who represents more of the Mexican border than any other member of Congress,is holding a series of 20 town halls during August (most held at local Dairy Queens), and at many those stops, he has taken aim at one of President Donald Trumps signature agenda itemsThe Wall.

Hurds district, one of three Republican-held seats in Texas carried by Hillary Clinton last fall, hugs the Rio Grande for 800 miles, much of it sparsely populated. If Trump did build a physical wall spanning the entire length of the US-Mexico border, about 40 percent of it would sit in Hurds district; consequently, Hurd has been a critic of Trumps proposal dating back to last year. Trumps wall has been a frequent topic during his town halls this week, and Hurd hasnt been shy about attacking the presidents idea. In a visit on Monday to Alpine, a gateway to Big Bend National Park, Hurdtore into Trumps one-size-fits-all approach to border security.

Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least-effective way to do border security, he said.

Original post:
A Texas Republican Is Spending This Week at Dairy Queens Slamming Trump's Border Wall - Mother Jones

Republican, Democratic senators seek answers in Wells auto scandal – Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of U.S. senators from both parties on Wednesday turned up the heat on Wells Fargo Inc. over its latest scandal, in which hundreds of thousands of car-loan borrowers were charged each month without their knowledge for collision insurance, which many of them did not need.

The Republican chairs of the committee and the subcommittee that would head any congressional investigations into insurance sales, Senators John Thune and Jerry Moran, along with those panels' senior Democrats, Senators Bill Nelson and Richard Blumenthal, wrote to Wells CEO Timothy Sloan with questions about the scandal as basic as how many customers were affected.

They also requested copies of the bank's internal report that first identified the problem.

The group sent similar questions to Barry Karfunkel, CEO of National General Holdings Corporation, which provided the insurance.

Last week Moran said he was seeking additional information from Wells about reports the bank charged 800,000 borrowers for insurance without their knowledge or consent, but did not give specifics. Many borrowers already had cheaper insurance with other companies.

The letter asks Sloan when the bank, which paid $190 million in fines and penalties last year over creating phantom bank accounts, first learned about the insurance sales practices and also what steps it is taking to prevent a recurrence and to refund the erroneous charges to customers.

The letters do not mention possible hearings or subpoenas, but the senators have the authority launch an investigation using both if they are not satisfied with responses to their letters. Wells and National have until Aug. 23 to answer the questions.

The Wells letter shows senators are concerned with reports that thousands of borrowers fell into delinquency because they could not afford the premiums on top of their monthly payments and the possibility bank management pushed employees to sign customers up for insurance with incentives or special benefits.

Incentives are at the heart of last year's scandal, where employees said they created accounts in customers' names or pushed account holders to buy additional products they did not need in order to meet high sales targets.

The senators are also seeking information about possible commissions paid or revenues shared between Wells and National.

Wells spokeswoman Jennifer Dunn said the bank is committed to addressing the lawmakers' concerns.

"Customer harm is not acceptable at Wells Fargo," she said. "We are committed to fixing these mistakes and earning back trust.

Reporting by Lisa Lambert; Editing by David Gregorio

See the article here:
Republican, Democratic senators seek answers in Wells auto scandal - Reuters

Trump Is Losing His Battle With the Republican Party – The Atlantic

When President Trump decided to throw his weight behind a plan to slash legal immigration last week, the way many people heard about it was through a pair of dramatic exchanges between reporters and Stephen Miller, a White House senior adviser who is among the hardest of hardliners on immigration in the administration. That made the initiative seem the latest example of how Trump has brought forward a new series of policies that look to pull the U.S. back from the world and keep the world out of the U.S., from his Muslim travel ban to his emphasis on illegal immigration. Even Richard Spencer loves it.

But the plan that Trump endorsed is actually one offered by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, both of whom, while supporters of Trump, are longtime Republicans who entered office before him. A peculiar thing has happened to Trump, the Republican president with the least fealty to the Republican Partys traditional values, shortest ties to the party, and greatest opposition within it. As I wrote last week, Trump has gotten more done than his critics and opponents might wish, or might wish to admit. But almost everything he has achieved has been directly in line with traditional Republican priorities, while most of the things that are peculiar to Trump have failed or stalled out. Forget the deep state: Its the GOP thats blocking the presidents agenda.

Trump Has Quietly Accomplished More Than It Appears

Take the legal-immigration bill. What makes it a potent proposal is that it has substantial overlap between both the Trump wing of the party and the GOP ancien rgime. Cotton, the ambitious young Arkansan, has aligned himself with Trump to an unusual degree, given his pedigree as a socially conservative, fiscally conservative national-security hawk. Perdue ran as a classic business Republican when he ran for Senate in Georgia in 2014. They are not alone in wishing to limit legal immigration. During the 2016 GOP primary, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum both came out in favor of restrictions, before Trump even entered the race. If the Cotton-Perdue proposal succeeds, it will be because it draws support both from Trumps supporters and from many establishment Republicans.

Realistically, it faces long odds. Lots of other Republicans oppose limiting legal immigration, from Paul Ryan to Orrin Hatch to Lindsey Graham. But plenty of other policies that sit in the Venn diagram overlap of Trumpism and traditional Republicanism either stand a better chance or have already succeeded.

The most obvious example is also what is arguably Trumps greatest achievement: his successful nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The Senate has confirmed four other federal judges, with 30 more nominated. These appointments are important because they place conservative, and often young, jurists into lifetime jobs where they can reshape the law for decades to come. Few of these judges qualify as particularly Trumpist; Gorsuch was a rising star in conservative jurisprudence well before the presidents arrival. Trump has long recognized how powerful the nominating power is as a tool to keep GOP officials from abandoning him. In August 2016, he warned Republicans, Even if you cant stand Donald Trump, you think Donald Trump is the worst, youre going to vote for me. You know why? Justices of the Supreme Court.

Trump has also seen some success on the southern border, where crossings have decreased since he took office. Interestingly, that has happened without any actual construction on Trumps famous border wall. But while Trumps rhetoric about illegal immigrants was far more inflammatory than what any other Republican presidential contender was willing to say, Republican voters and many officials (as well as many Democrats) have long supported better border security. In April 2016, nearly two-third of GOP voters wanted a wall along the entire border. However, Republican officeholders tend to be more skeptical of the necessity of building a 50-foot wall along the border, or of drastically expanding the Border Patrolso its no surprise than neither of those proposals has moved very far.

The balance of Trumps major accomplishments, as I laid them last week, fall under the umbrella of rolling back Obama-era regulations, particularly environmental and business regulations, as well tougher crime policies. What these things share is that they are long-standing priorities of big business and of pro-business Republicans. The GOP has been hostile to regulation in general, and to environmental regulation in particular, for years. And since these are changes that are being made by lifelong Republicans who control executive branch departments and can proceed without Congress, and dont have to rely on Trumps personal involvement, theyre the things that are getting done. Theyre also the sorts of measures (and maybe even the specific measures) that any Republican administration would have pursued.

Meanwhile, the priorities that made Trump distinctivethe ones that he talked about most on the stump, and the ones that seem to have brought new voters into the Republican coalitionare withering. The border wall is unbuilt and largely unfunded. The Border Patrol expansion is tenuous. The promise to protect entitlements has not actually been broken, but Trump has repeatedly signaled his support for Obamacare repeal plans that would take a bite out of Medicaid. NAFTA renegotiation remains in the hypothetical future. Republicans have torpedoed Trumps hopes for a rapprochement with Russia, forcing additional sanctions against Russia down his throat with veto-proof majorities in the Congress they control. The massive infrastructure plan that Trump promised seems dead well before arrival, killed by non-Trumpist Republicans who had little interest in a huge spending plan straight from the Democratic playbookno matter if Trumps voters liked the idea.

As the slow-rolling, episodic debacle of Obamacare repeal demonstrates, overlap between the Trump and traditional wings of the Republican Party is not always enough to push a policy over the top. Both sides agreed on the priority, a long-running GOP goal that was also a Trump stump staple. But in some respects, that, too, was a victim of the gap. In reality, there were two different GOP factions, one that simply wanted to tear Obamacare down, and one that wanted to tinker around the edges but preserve many of the popular provisions of the law. And though Trump took out his anger for the bills failures on GOP senators like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and John McCain who voted against it, that trios stated priorities were actually much closer to Trumpswho claimed hed bring premiums down, improve plans, and also expand coveragethan they were to those of hardline conservatives like Mike Lee.

Why has Trump failed to push his own pet causes through, even as conservative Republican policies prosper? Wasnt this the Trump who had bent the GOP to his will and overcome the fearsome party establishment? One culprit is Trumps lack of discipline and short attention span, and his manifest lack of interest in the details and mechanics of policymaking. But some of his failures are rooted in the very same party takeover. Because he captured the GOP by blitzkrieg, having little experience in politics, he arrived in Washington not only without his own experience to draw on but also without the benefit of the exterior structuresthink-tanks, lobbying concerns, outside-spending groupsupon which most presidents can rely. Though most Oval Office occupants have more experience than Trump, they also dont usually need to do all the work of pushing policies through Congress.

Building that support structure requires time, capturing existing institutions, or both. The closest Trump had to that was the Heritage Foundation, a venerable conservative think tank that had taken a turn away from providing intellectual heft for the GOP to becoming, under the leadership of former Senator Jim DeMint, a gadfly that pushed Tea Party concepts on the party and punished any renegades. Heritage embraced Trump early on.

But the awkward fit was clear. In response to Trumps call for a $1 trillion infrastructure package, Heritage produced a plan that downplayed direct federal projects, relying heavily instead on tax credits and public-private partnerships to have private-sector companies do the work, rather than the government. What little detail Trump has offered on his infrastructure plan since the election seems close to the Heritage blueprint, but that means its a long way from what he seemed to be promising on the trail, and in any case its going nowhere. Meanwhile, Heritages board pushed DeMint out and the think tank seems to be reinventing itself.

So its not just Trumps infrastructure plan that has failed to materialize; its also the metaphorical infrastructure Trump requires to advance his agenda. The president promised during the campaign that I alone can fix it, and despite his struggles so far, he shows no signs of wavering from the insistence on going it alone.

It isnt hard to see a line between these struggles and a New York Times report over the weekend about the shadow 2020 contest arising between Republicans who are quietly preparing presidential runs if Trump decides, or is forced, not to run for reelection in three yearsor perhaps even if he does. One of those potential candidates is Vice President Pence, whom the Times noted has taken a variety of preparatory steps, even while maintaining his allegiance to Trump. (Indeed, Pence fiercely denied the report, despite the steps he has taken.) A few months ago, it looked like Trump had successfully conducted a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Two-hundred days into his presidency, things look a little different. Having stymied his distinctive policy innovations and successfully implemented their own, why wouldnt GOP mandarins finish the job off and shove Trump aside in favor of a Republican who can do all the same thingsand without the chaos and embarrassment that Trump lugs along with him?

Read more from the original source:
Trump Is Losing His Battle With the Republican Party - The Atlantic

The Only Enemy Pakistan’s Army Can Beat Is Its Own Democracy – Foreign Policy (blog)

Pakistan has a new prime minister at least for now. Last Tuesday, Pakistans parliament held a special election to replace Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N), who was ousted in a judicial coup last week. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, a staunch Sharif loyalist, is expected to keep the prime ministerial palace warm while the PML-N arranges to secure a seat in the parliament for Nawaz Sharifs brother, Shehbaz Sharif, in a coming by-election and as a prelude to hoisting him into the prime ministers seat.

It is not surprising that Nawaz Sharif has been ousted. What is surprising is that he managed to hold on for so long. The army had its sights on Sharif before he was even sworn in after winning an unpredicted landslide victory in the 2013 election. It had already taken him out of office twice before. Shehbaz Sharif is much more palatable to the army. Unlike his brother, he has eschewed confrontation and has even maintained cordial ties with the generals.

Such are the prerequisites to holding power in Pakistan. Whereas many countries have an army, the Pakistani army has a country. For Pakistans powerful military, the notion of actual democracy is contemptible. The army long ago arrogated the right to step in whenever it felt wanted and repeatedly reminds Pakistanis that civilian leaders are the bane of the nation while the army is the only savior. Whether directly or indirectly, the army has ruled the country since the first Pakistani army chief Ayub Khan staged a coup in October 1958. It has done a far better job hanging on to power than it ever has at winning a war.

Since 2008, when democracy was formally restored after Gen. Pervez Musharrafs nine-year dictatorship ended, Pakistans predatory praetorians have faced a looming problem: Democracy, however flawed, was taking root right under their well-groomed moustaches. Although the general election that brought Sharif to office wasnot pristine, it was the first time that a democratically elected administration had completed its term (although not without considerable havoc ginned up by the army) and handed power over to another democratically elected administration.

Between 1988, when democracy was restored after the demise of Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in a plane crash, and 1999, the army connived to depose the governments of Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and in 1996 and that of Nawaz Sharif in 1993 and ousted Sharif again! in a bloodless coup in 1999. But given that democracy had managed to weather the storms since 2008, Pakistan watchers were cautiously hopeful that, as democracy became more routine, the military would have an increasingly difficult time undermining governments and staging outright coups. The problem is the generals recognized the same and contrived to prevent democracy from sinking its roots too deeply.

In addition to this general concern about maintaining its primacy in national politics, the military had special cause for concern about Sharif. The military has a long memory and so did not forget that Sharif had previously exercised his constitutional prerogative to replace the army chief, Gen. Jehangir Karamat, in 1998 with Musharraf. (This was surely not Sharifs best idea, as history demonstrated.) Nor would it forget that Sharif tried but failed to oust Musharraf in turn after he orchestrated the 1999 Kargil War with India, which ended in ignominy for Pakistan.

Worse yet, Sharif did so while Musharraf was in Sri Lanka and refused to let his plane land in Pakistan with virtually no fuel and nowhere else to land. The military concluded that this was an attempt on Musharrafs life and put the coup into motion. Musharraf, apparently in an act of grace, did not hang Sharif; rather, he exiled him to Saudi Arabia.

Sharif had a long memory, too. When democracy returned, Sharif only demanded that Musharraf be tried only for the 2007 suspension of the constitution and not for the 1999 coup itself. But the very thought of one of their own being tried for a treasonable offense sent the men on horseback into a vertiginous panic. This would not simply be a trial of Musharraf but of the entire institution and its presumptions about its proper role in the governance of the country. The trial never actually happened thanks to unrelenting army pressure and Musharraf still lives in comfortable exile in Dubai and London, where he has mysteriously been able to afford luxurious flats.

Given his relative strength, Sharif sought to assert a whit of civilian control over the countrys bloated military. He took over personal oversight of thedefense and foreign affairs portfolios, which had previously been left to the military. He was vocal about pursuing better ties with India and sought to expand economic and other ties with the armys eastern nemesis. Sharif engaged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at every opportunity.

And, in an act that the military saw as verging on high treason, Sharif had the temerity to argue for jettisoning the age-old strategy of manipulating Afghanistan to obtain strategic depth against India. Sharif also committed to negotiate with the Pakistani Taliban, which has savaged the country for more than a decade. The army, for its own reasons, wanted to launch a selectiveoperationagainst the group in Pakistans North Waziristan area, which it did in June 2014. Operation Zarb-e-Azb, which ended in April 2016, was so successful that the army had to launch yet another operation in early 2017 called Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad.

While the army had been gunning for Sharif since he returned to power in 2013, it was constrained in its options. Given that Sharifs won an outright parliamentary majority, the military could not simply rely upon coalitional shenanigans to bring his government down. Worse yet, no matter what domestic hijinks the army cooked up by making good use of a lothario cricketer-turned-politician named Imran Khan and a Pakistani-Canadian activist cleric named Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Pakistanis were not clamoring for the army to come in and rescue them.

The constitutional provision that the Pakistani army had previously relied on to unseat governments was also no longer available to it. This amendment, known as 58(2)(b), was introduced in 1985 and turned Pakistans parliamentary democratic system, which featured a strong prime minister and a titular president, on its head. The amendment granted the president (then Zia) sweeping powers to dissolve the national and provincial assemblies, which he did.But in 2010 President Asif Ali Zardari signed the18th Amendment, returning Pakistan to a more traditional parliamentary democracy.

Without its trusty cudgel, the army needed to develop new ways of bringing democracy to heel, which is why, soon after Musharrafs departure, the military began cultivating Pakistans Supreme Court. The judicial farce that resulted in Sharifs most recent ouster demonstrates that the courts remain tools for the generals to clip democracys wings.

In April 2016, the massive tranche of leaked documents known as the Panama Papers identified that Sharifs family had offshore companies. After considerable rabble-rousing by Imran Khan, whose own accumulation of wealth is deeply suspect, and who threatened to paralyze Islamabad with a lockdown, the Supreme Court agreed to set up a judicial commission to probe allegations of corruption against Sharif. (Khans ability to mobilize crowds most likely involves resources provided by Pakistans intelligence agency, the ISI, which is also strongly suspected of funding his near spontaneous political ascent in 2010.)

But the original charges against Sharif were never proved. Instead, to disqualify Sharif from office, the court relied upon a peculiar article in Pakistans constitution known as Article 62, which relies upon an undefined concept of moral repute. It also utilized Section 99(f) of the Representation of the People Act of 1976, which permits a person to be disqualified if he or she is not sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and righteous. In 2014, a Supreme Court judge observed that the constitution does not define these terms.

While some quarters are hailing this outcome as the triumph of the courts over venal politicians, others understand this for what it is: an arbitrary and selective application of an absurd set of undefined criteria to dislodge a long-festering splinter in the armys middle finger. While there is little doubt that Sharif is actually corrupt, there is also little doubt that any politician in Pakistan is free of corruption. This has set a dangerous precedent to arbitrarily topple elected governments.

Since Shehbaz Sharif is a provincial player with less international experience, the generals believe that hes more pliable on their core issues of relations with India, the United States, China, and Afghanistan. But the military will still work to eviscerate any lingering positive feelings for Nawaz. Over the long term, expect the army to sow fissures in the party to weaken the Sharifs hold over their political fiefdom.

While the courts are being celebrated in Pakistan for liberating the country from a predatory politician, would the gallant justices ever move against the army with any modicum of verve? Doubtful. No Pakistani court has ever had the mettle to hold a single general to account for treason, much less more petty nuisances such as industrial-strength corruption. When Pakistans Supreme Court can take on the real menace to Pakistani democracy the generals we will have something to celebrate. Until then, the army has stumbled upon yet another tool to trim the branches of democracy in Pakistan.

Photo Credit: ARIF ALI/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Go here to read the rest:
The Only Enemy Pakistan's Army Can Beat Is Its Own Democracy - Foreign Policy (blog)

Are the news media enemies of the people or defenders of democracy? Here’s what the founders thought. – Washington Post

Welcome back to The Monkey Cages weekly presentation of Founding Principles, short videos designed to explain American government and how it works in theory, and in practice. Were up to episode seven, in the midst of thinking about the American publics interaction with politics and the political system.

Last weekwe looked at the role of public opinion.As President Dwight Eisenhower argued in 1960, public opinion is the only force that has any validity in democracy. But, Ike added, since it is so important, it must be an informed public opinion. James Madison put it even more bluntly: A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.

That means we have to look at the news media one of the key ways information flows between Americans and their government.

The principle of a free press is a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights embedded in the very first amendment to the Constitution. That doesnt mean we always appreciate it. Google the phrase media bias and you get more than 400,000 results. President Trump has used attacks on what he calls fake news as a political weapon. Indeed, he has dubbed most media outlets the enemy of the American people.

Many presidents have resented their media coverage. Thomas Jefferson, back in 1814, was already lamenting the good old days, saying, I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, not to mention the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them. And yet Jefferson also said this: Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

This episode explores why that is, and what the media can and cant do. It looks at the role of agenda setting and framing as well as the polarization that both drives and reflects the important shift in recent decades from an era of broadcasting to one dominated by social media and narrowcasting. Finally, it tries to decipher what biases media outlets really have.

A free press is not a goal in itself but a means to educate and edify Americans about the issues that face them not least, the choices they have at the ballot box. So stay tuned for next week, when we move to that most direct connection between the public and the government: the electoral process.

Follow this link:
Are the news media enemies of the people or defenders of democracy? Here's what the founders thought. - Washington Post