Tag: george w bush
Michael Mukasey

Former Bush Official Says Supreme Court Critics 'Hallucinate Misconduct' (VIDEO)

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey — who led the Justice Department from 2007 to 2009 under then-President George W. Bush — has declined to say if he would avoid appearances of impropriety with wealthy individuals if he were still serving as a jurist.

Mukasey was also the chief judge of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York until 2006.

Mukasey was presented with a hypothetical by Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) during a Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday about the blossoming ethics scandals involving Supreme Court Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. Chief Justice John Roberts — whose wife reportedly earned millions in "commissions" recruiting talent for legal firms that argued cases before the Court — has repeatedly and vociferously declined to participate in congressional discussions regarding the uniquely powerful institution's capacity to hold itself accountable.

"Judge Mukasey, I'm, I'm not in any way questioning or even seeking to interrogate your personal conduct. What I'm, what I'm asking you is that, as a judge, is it fair to say that you most likely would've declined an offer of foreign travel worth hundreds of thousands of dollars because quite reasonably, you would've had the concern that public disclosure of such travel could have undermined public confidence in the impartiality of your judgment" Ossoff posited.

"Simply because it amounted to, I mean, if somebody took me, I mean, if, if I were a district judge and somebody wanted to fly me on his private plane, um, on a vacation with his family and I were friendly with that person, would I have refused and endangered the friendship? I'm not sure that I would've," Mukasey replied.

"Well," Ossoff responded, "I think the American public sees that kind of conduct and quite reasonably ask the question whether it's appropriate."

Mukasey also alleged throughout his testimony that the public is being encouraged to "hallucinate misconduct" to "undermine" the credibility of the Court, opining that "if the public has a mistaken impression that the integrity of the Court has been damaged, the fault for that lies with those who continue to level unfair criticisms of the Court and its justices."

Concerned individuals following along on social media were exasperated – albeit somewhat unshocked – by Mukasey's perspective.

Chidi: "Every judge should find themselves a wealthy friend. The rot is deeper than we thought."

Charles Campisi: "Michael Mukasey as Attorney General for George W. Bush defended the use of waterboarding & other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' - i.e., torture. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Mukasey is skeptical about having a code of ethics for the Supreme Court."

Novelette Drydon: "He comes off as another unethical one. You can't ruin a friendship, by declining for ethical reasons."

Roy Edroso: "We all know how mad sugar daddies get when you refuse their private jet rides."

HL Bacall: "This isn't rocket science. American citizens have a right to expect that all government employees, even those on the Supreme Court who think they're above the law, will avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and that there will be consequences for inappropriate acts."

Veronica@V2342: "They're all in on it... If they don't try to stop this now stories about their own misconduct will also be revealed. It's why they're working so hard to tamp it down."

Joyce: "Analogy: He did it too."

Kate S: "Maybe those whose actions are calling into question the integrity of the court should be the ones being slammed? The criticism isn't unfair. Some of the Justices' actions are at the VERY LEAST creating the appearance of impropriety. Shifting blame to the public is deplorable."

Watch Mukasey's statement below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Yes, Every Republican Menaces Social Security -- Including De Santis And Trump

Yes, Every Republican Menaces Social Security -- Including De Santis And Trump

Republicans hate Social Security. From the very dawn of America's most popular and successful government program in 1935, Republicans have always hated Social Security. It is a hatred felt not by ordinary Republican voters — many of whom are elderly and rely on the program for survival — but by Republican elected officials and especially the corporate titans who finance them.

Yet since even their own base tends to strongly support Social Security, Republican politicians have habitually lied to conceal their seething contempt. They've practiced that same deception for many, many years. But now, engaging in debate with President Joe Biden over the Republican record on Social Security (and its sister program Medicare), they risk exposing what they endeavored so long to hide.

Inconveniently for them, the record is clear, unambiguous and damning.

Republican officials and the corporate lobbies associated with their party have played a double game on Social Security that dates back at least two decades, when they made an abortive attempt under President George W. Bush to "privatize" the program. The public rejected Bush's scheme to let Wall Street banks siphon away Social Security revenue into private investment accounts — and didn't buy their argument that destroying the program would somehow "save" it.

Bad rhetorical habits have damaged Republican credibility on the issue. From one side of their mouths, they denounce Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme"; from the other side, they promise to "strengthen and shore up" the program that they just described as criminal. Why would anyone believe such doubletalk?

Unlike most Republican politicians, former President Donald Trump understands that attacking Social Security is usually ruinous for his party, which was why he stood apart from the rest of them on the issue during the 2016 presidential primary — and why he's doing the same thing in this cycle. While he encouraged congressional Republicans in their dangerous "debt ceiling chicken" game, he warned them not to touch a penny of Social Security or Medicare.

But we also know Trump lies constantly — except when disparaging his Republican opponents — and this is no exception. When he was president, every Trump budget included deep cuts to Social Security (which Democrats in Congress discarded). During the 2020 campaign, he promised "entitlement" cuts and vowed to end the payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare.

Trump is right about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, however, whom he accuses of wanting to cut Social Security. While DeSantis is no policy intellectual, despite his Ivy League pedigree, he has dutifully repeated the GOP talking points to urge cuts from his first day serving in Congress. So did Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who shares his itch to challenge Trump. Meanwhile, Mike Pence has forthrightly endorsed privatization, reducing his already nil chance of nomination below zero.

And we can expect Republicans to continue savaging each other with gleeful hypocrisy on this issue.

Last year, Florida Sen. Rick Scott infuriated Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell when he proposed to "sunset" Social Security and Medicare (which Scott looted to get rich). Today, Scott denies what his 11-point "plan" plainly stated, and McConnell denies that Republicans want to gut those programs. Both are audaciously deceptive.

You see, Scott's proposal enraged McConnell for a simple reason. In 2018, the GOP leader had learned the hard way what happened after he talked too loudly about his desire to slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "entitlements." So, four years later, he just wanted the notorious Medicare fraudster to shut up, which Scott refused to do.

No, it isn't easy to find Republican elected officials who honestly support Social Security and Medicare. Although Speaker Kevin McCarthy says cutting the programs is "off the table," there is ample reason to believe he really wants those cuts. His choices to chair tax-writing and budget committees have said cutting "entitlements" is their top priority — even as they accused Biden of lying when he mentioned that simple fact.

Why do Republicans hate Social Security? It doesn't matter. What does matter is that they unanimously oppose the equitable solution to any future shortfall in Social Security funds — which requires nothing more than a minor permanent increase in the payroll tax for those at the highest income level.

Biden owned the Republicans in the House chamber at the State of the Union address, when their jeering ended in a standing ovation for his call to protect Social Security from any cuts. That was when they began to dig a deep hole again — and Democrats can only hope they will never stop.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Why Have Republicans Put Social Security On The Chopping Block?

Why Have Republicans Put Social Security On The Chopping Block?

"We have no choice but to make hard decisions," Oklahoma Rep. Kevin Hern recently said. He leads the Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 160 Republican lawmakers that recently called for making cuts in Social Security.

Among other things, the group wants to raise the age at which a worker can collect full Social Security benefit to 70 from the current 67. (It used to be 65.) And they want to use the threat of a default on the national debt as a means to force "compromise." As Hern put it, "Everybody has to look at everything."

Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, meanwhile, says he wants to "negotiate" cuts in spending as a condition for not crashing the American economy.

Financing Social Security is not without challenges. If nothing changes, the program would be able to pay all promised benefits until 2034 — and it could pay three-fourths of the scheduled benefits thereafter. But modest changes, such as raising the amount of earnings subject to paying Social Security taxes, could fill any shortfall.

Republicans have launched attacks on Social Security over the decades. Even though nearly every dollar paid out derives from contributions by workers and their employers, Republicans like to treat it as welfare.

In 2005, President George W. Bush tried to advance a plan to privatize Social Security. Back then, the stock market was booming and house prices bubbling, so he and friends used the pitch that workers would have gotten better returns had they put the money in stocks rather than the conservatively financed program. Bush reassured the public he would not let Americans move their retirement savings into risky investments.

About three years later, the bottom fell out of the stock market. Prices cratered for even the finest blue-chip stocks. Imagine the taxpayer bailout that an enraged public, having seen its government-blessed stock portfolios shot to bits, would have demanded.

It's true that the accounting for Social Security has been a bit scuzzy. That has given some conservatives an opening to argue that they don't have to pay these benefits because, oops, the money is gone. This con centered on the claim that the securities in the Social Security Trust Fund were worthless pieces of paper — or, in the words of Bush, "just IOUs."

But in 2001, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was asked whether the trust fund investments were real or not. He responded, "The crucial question: Are they ultimate claims on real resources? And the answer is yes."

Actually, the investments held by the trust fund are, like other Treasury securities, basically loans made to the government. Had the Treasury not been able to get this money from Social Security, it would have had to borrow more from the public by issuing additional debt.

To go full circle, Republicans are again arguing that payment of the debt is negotiable. And to spice it up, they're adding some boomer bashing.

Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro recently tore into a defender of his Social Security benefits by tweeting his (Shapiro's) kids will be paying for them. "You'll get way more than you paid in," he went on, which is why "it's not fiscally viable."

One hopes Shapiro will familiarize himself with how Social Security actually works. (It's not a passbook savings account.) More confounding, though, was his complaint that Social Security is "effectively a defined benefits plan."

What's wrong with a defined benefits plan? It's a retirement plan in which workers know what they will receive in return for their contributions.

Never mind. Americans have so far resisted getting cheated out of the benefits they and their employers have paid for with real money.

Social Security on the cutting block? Why?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Under Biden, More Jobs Created Than Last Three GOP Presidents Combined

Under Biden, More Jobs Created Than Last Three GOP Presidents Combined

The latest jobs report shows that the unemployment rate has also reached a 50-year low.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday released its jobs report for December 2022, showing that 223,000 jobs were added to the economy, while the unemployment rate has fallen to 3.5 percent.

The new report shows that a total of 10.7 million jobs were added in the first two years of President Joe Biden’s term. By contrast, under the three Republican presidents who preceded Biden — Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush — U.S. job production was much slower.

At the conclusion of George H.W. Bush’s four-year presidency in 1993, 2.6 million jobs had been created. During George W. Bush's two terms, between 2001 and 2009, 1.3 million jobs were created; and 3 million jobs were lost during Trump’s single term.

Trump has the worst record on jobs since the Great Depression, and is the only modern president who left office with a negative jobs record. Under Trump, unemployment hit a record high of 14.7 percent in April 2020, and when Biden took office in January 2021, the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent.

Biden’s record is more in line with those of his Democratic predecessors, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, with 12.5 million and 22.7 million jobs added during their presidential terms, respectively.

The current unemployment rate of 3.5 percent is the lowest since 1969. The bureau's report also showed an increase in employment for workers with disabilities to a level higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment among Black and Hispanic workers also fell.

“Today’s report is great news for our economy and more evidence that my economic plan is working,” Biden said in a statement. “We still have work to do to bring down inflation, and help American families feeling the cost-of-living squeeze. But we are moving in the right direction.”

Biden noted additional actions by his administration designed to help the economy grow, including construction projects underway that are funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Biden also cited efforts to strengthen supply chains and expand domestic manufacturing with legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act.

“We have more work to do, and we may face setbacks along the way, but it is clear that my economic strategy of growing the economy from the bottom up and middle out is working,” Biden added.

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.