Tag: catastrophic presidency
Matt Gaetz

The 'Catastrophic' Legacy Of Matt Gaetz

What a Christmas present! In its report released last Monday, the bipartisan House Ethics Committee cited "substantial evidence" that from 2017 to 2020, former Rep. and would-be Attorney General Matt Gaetz "regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him," including an underage 17-year-old, and from 2017 to 2019, had in his possession illegal drugs including cocaine and ecstasy, on "multiple different occasions." Investigating a 2018 trip Gaetz made to the Bahamas, the committee found that he violated House rules by accepting transportation and lodging, which is not allowed. Summing up its conclusions, the committee found that Gaetz "violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress."

The House panel reported that Gaetz was "uncooperative" throughout its investigation and "knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee's investigation of his conduct." They also found that he used his former chief of staff to "assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent."

And he almost got away with all of it.

How? Why?

Those questions deserve answers.

This is the man who brought down Speaker Kevin McCarthy, twisting the House into knots and bringing about a dangerous stalemate in Congress.

This is the man who was Donald Trump's first choice to be attorney general of the United States.

The report was the product of a multiyear investigation of Gaetz that took place while he was taking a leading — and sometimes decisive — role in House deliberations and actively campaigning for the president-elect. Had Gaetz had his way, and some of his Republican colleagues had theirs, we would still not know the truth about him. Gaetz brought suit to attempt to block the committee's release of the report, in a complaint that reportedly requested a restraining order and injunction, claiming that the committee's action violated the Constitution in its effort to "exercise jurisdiction over a private citizen through the threatened release of an investigative report containing potentially defamatory allegations."

Gaetz resigned from Congress two days before the report was due to be issued, in an obvious attempt to block the report's release. It was the same day he was nominated for attorney general. Rep. Michael Guest, who chairs the Ethics Committee, opposed its actual release. While writing that he and other Republican members "do not challenge the Committee's findings," he argued that releasing a report about someone who is no longer a member of Congress, "an action the Committee has not taken since 2006," is "a dangerous departure with potentially catastrophic consequences."

The "catastrophic consequences" are that this criminal served in a leading capacity in the House of Representatives and almost became the attorney general of the United States. The "catastrophic consequences" are that he was nominated for that position by a president-elect who was — we have to presume — utterly ignorant of the fact that this man's peers had concluded that he was a serial felon who got away with it.

Why is a member of Congress free to not cooperate with a committee charged with ensuring that members of Congress act ethically? Why did they wait years while he actively obstructed their investigation before making that clear? Just a few weeks ago, he was talking about running for Marco Rubio's Senate seat in Florida. Didn't the citizens of Florida have a right to know what the House committee had concluded? How could the chair of the House Ethics Committee say no to that? Talk about dangerous precedents.

The Matt Gaetz debacle is proof positive that Americans have every reason to distrust Congress, which is a sad state of affairs in a democracy. Gaetz's legacy, if you can call it that, is that a president should not nominate anyone to high office without careful vetting, and that the public has a right to know about the integrity of the men and women we elect to serve us. The Ethics Committees of Congress should do more, do it publicly and be transparent about their work. Non-cooperation, active efforts to obstruct justice, should not be tolerated, and should be disclosed. Matt Gaetz had no business even being considered for attorney general when his only qualification was his loyalty to Donald Trump. The members of the committee knew that. Why didn't anyone tell Donald Trump? Or us? This is a story that should not go away.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

The True Cost Of George W. Bush’s Magical Thinking

The mystery has always been why any Democrat would have wanted to follow the catastrophic presidency of George W. Bush. To understand why, it’s necessary to revisit ancient history, specifically 2001. Given today’s TV- and Internet-shortened time horizon, that’s almost like invoking the Napoleonic Wars, but bear with me.

Thanks partly to his skill at “triangulation” — seeking middle ground between left and right — President Clinton left a legacy of prosperity and balanced budgets. Republicans impeached him anyway.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Clinton’s spectacular folly gave GOP hard-liners the excuse they’d spent his entire presidency looking for. That’s not the point. To the Limbaugh-led, Confederate-accented Republican right, all Democrats are illegitimate. President Barack Obama often acts as if he doesn’t understand that.

Anyway, let’s stick to what’s relevant today: taxes, spending and the U.S. economy. According to Congressional Budget Office projections, had the nation maintained the fiscal course the Clinton administration laid out, the national debt everybody rants about would have been retired by 2009.

See, that’s the real cost of George W. Bush’s magical thinking. By any rational accounting, Bush and the GOP Congress that gave him everything he wanted from 2001 to 2007 should be held responsible for the entire $10.6 trillion national debt — along with the $1.3 trillion yearly deficit they handed to Obama, as well as the Wall Street crisis and bank bailouts.

It’s that simple: With no Bush income tax cuts, no unfunded Medicare drug benefit, and no off-budget Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the U.S. balance sheet would have been in fine shape for his successor. Then government investment needed to rescue the economy from the doldrums wouldn’t have seemed so alarming.

See, that’s how Keynesian macroeconomics is supposed to work. Pay down the debt in good times, spend on job creation and tax cuts when people are hurting and the private economy’s sucking wind. This mysterious “confidence” everybody talks about? What it amounts to is money in people’s pockets. Economically speaking, there’s no other kind.

Instead, heeding Dick Cheney’s observation that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” the Bush administration topped-up Scrooge McDuck’s bullion pool. Now Scrooge funds think tanks paying store-bought “scholars” to argue that the massive debt they created is all the Democrats’ fault for seducing grandma with socialist schemes like Medicare and Social Security.

Alas, history is notoriously unjust. Supremely confident, a shape-shifting opportunist like all truly gifted politicians, Obama came along at precisely the right time. Had the September 2008 Wall Street bubble burst even one year earlier, you couldn’t find one of these Tea Party jokers north of Richmond, Va., with a search party.

Instead, Republicans pinned the blame on him. At times, Obama’s acted the perfect pigeon, a high-minded poser who won’t take his own side in a fight. Democrats hoping he’d confront Republicans holding the nation’s economy hostage were kidding themselves.

When word of the president’s debt-limit capitulation came down, historian Rick Perlstein (“Nixonland”) posted a friend’s hostile appraisal on Facebook:

“He’s a one-trick pony, always has been, and that trick is performing judiciousness, reasonableness … being able to agree with those with whom he supposedly disagrees and to disagree with those with whom he supposedly agrees.”

“He’s the LeBron James of American politics,” I commented. “Comes up awesome in the second quarter of game two.” As a basketball fan, I’m sure the president would know exactly what I meant: When push comes to shove, he folds.

More substantively, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote about “an inverse miracle of intellectual failure.” Everything learned about macroeconomics since the Great Depression has gone for naught. Krugman predicts further economic stagnation as governments embrace austerity in the face of joblessness. Here in the United States, economic recovery ground to a halt after Obama’s inadequate stimulus money ran out.

But maybe we’re being too melodramatic. To continue my own metaphor, Obama might say that losing game two needn’t mean losing the series. The agreed-upon budget cuts are back-loaded, hardly taking effect until 2013 — after the next presidential election. They’ll have little near-term economic effect.

In the meantime, no election-year hostage dramas. What Obama gave Republicans, they pretty much already had. Enacting progressive policies was impossible, given GOP control of the House.

Politically speaking, now they own the deficit. Wild talk about Obama the socialist big-spender will be limited to the Michele Bachmann/Froot Loop wing of the GOP. Also, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, adding far more revenue than the White House’s agreed-upon cuts, is built into the deal’s baseline numbers. Obama holds a veto.

Not for nothing did Obama invoke President Dwight Eisenhower the other day. He’s basically governed as a moderate Republican all along — definitely not the kind of change his starry-eyed followers once believed in, but probably the best they can hope for come 2012.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World