Radio America Online News Bureau

Archives for December 2017

Brat Hails Final Tax Bill

by

Republicans are celebrating Wednesday after both the House of Representatives and Senate approved major tax reform legislation, laws which supporters claim will put badly need money in the pockets of American families and giving an already improving economy an even bigger boost.

The final bill is a compromise hammered out between differing House and Senate versions that were approved separately in recent weeks.  House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Dave Brat, R-Virginia, says the new law is far better than what he expected to emerge from the congressional negotiations.

“I was fairly shocked.  Up in D.C., usually at year-end when you go into conference I usually don’t like the outcome.  But in this case, we fixed a lot of the issues.  We had a college student loan issue, a graduate student piece.  There was a Medicare piece, a small business piece.  All of those got major improvements,” said Brat.

Brats admits he wishes the the final bill would have called for three tax brackets instead of seven, but he says there’s still good news there.

“By rearranging those brackets, they ensured that way more people get a tax cut.  A single woman with a child gets over a thousand dollars back.  That’s great.  A family of four with two kids, married and making $70,000 – that’s the typical income in my district – they’re getting $2,059 back,” said Brat.

“The corporate rate goes down from 35 percent to 21 and it takes place this year.  In the Senate plan, they were going to lag that a year.  In conference, we fixed it so it goes into place.  That’s probably the most important piece,” said Brat, who says the stock market has been soaring in anticipation of this bill getting passed.

Brat says another big group of winners are young people looking for work.  He says businesses will now be in better position to hire people for good jobs.

“I think the kids I taught for 20 years are going to go out.  They’re going to have multiple job offers and go out and live the American Dream.  That’s the goal of this thing.  The kids go out and get good jobs.  That’s a virtuous cycle, so I’m proud of it,” said Brat.

And while Democrats all voted against the bill, claiming Republicans were giving big tax cuts to businesses and rich people at the expense of the middle class, Brat says the facts prove otherwise.

“The Democrats on the floor today were just apoplectic on the thing.  I’ve never seen such emotion and misinformation.  We’ve (supposedly) raised taxes on the middle class for the rich.  They just can’t overcome the basic facts,” said Brat.

Some Democrats admit that middle class families will get some tax relief but suggest the $1,000 or $2,000 in extra income only amounts to a few dollars a day and makes no tangible difference.  Brat disagrees.

“They’re making fun of giving back money to lower income folks, which I thought they would applaud.  A thousand dollars or two thousand for a family of four, that’s some big bucks.  That pays for a lot of stuff that families don’t currently have,” said Brat.

He says the emotional denunciations from the Democrats are designed to distract from their dearth of ideas.

“If you want to reject a hypothesis, you have to offer a better hypothesis and they don’t have that,” said Brat, noting the the Democrats’ budget called for $10 trillion in new taxes and $11 trillion in new spending over the next decade.

“If you raised taxes $10 trillion, you would go into a massive recession next year.  Period.  End of sentence,” said Brat.

He says eight years of Obama economic policy led to anemic economic growth.

“You saw the evidence over the last ten years.  You didn’t have growth.  Your growth was at one and a half or two (percent) tops.  Now we’re at three percent and the Federal Reserve has us at four percent next quarter,” said Brat.

While Brat admits the bill does not pay for itself and projects a $1.5 trillion deficit over ten years, he says the impact of the bill should easily lead to additional revenues to cover that amount.

“If you put the tax package together with capital incentives and lower rates and less regulation, all you have to do is come up with $150 billion a year in growth, and we’re going to blow by that with ease,” said Brat.

Standard Podcast [ 13:58 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Tax Reform Passes, GOP Flirting with Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Rosie’s Bribery

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer House and Senate passage of tax cuts and tax reform, noting the vast majority of Americans will see bigger paychecks while the Obamacare individual mandate gets repealed and energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is given the green light.  They also recoil at reports that Senate Republican leaders may have agreed to Obamacare bailouts and taxpayer-funded abortions in exchange for Sen. Susan Collins voting for the tax bill.  And they discuss Rosie O’Donnell offering two million dollars apiece for Collins and Sen. Jeff Flake to vote against the tax legislation.

Share

Rep. Jordan Details Pursuit of Truth on Dossier, Unmasking

by

Rep. Jim Jordan says the connection between the Democrats and an anti-Trump dossier is well established and he says the big questions now are whether the dossier was the grounds for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign and whether the FBI and Justice Department used it as an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.

Last week, Jordan and other lawmakers grilled Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team, with a special emphasis on recently fired FBI official Peter Strzok and recently demoted Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.

Strzok was fired by Mueller, allegedly for his barrage of anti-Trump text messages to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page.  However, in addition to the political chatter came a Strzok text suggesting he expected Trump to lose the election but was planning to take action if the GOP nominee won.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” texted Strzok.  “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” he added in a text dated Aug. 15, 2016.

Jordan thinks there is a major story behind that text and likely explains why Mueller kicked Strzok to the curb in the Russia probe.

“Remember, Peter Strzok is Mr. Super Agent Guy at the FBI.  He ran the Clinton (email) investigation, interviewed (Cheryl) Mills, (Huma) Abedin, and Sec. Clinton.  He’s the guy who did the famous exoneration letter that changed the term ‘gross negligence’ – a crime – to ‘extreme carelessness.’  He’s also the guy who ran the Russia investigation and interviewed Mike Flynn.

“So he gets kicked off the Mueller team  and we’re told it’s because of anti-Trump text messaging and Lisa Page.  My belief is it’s got to be more than that.  Because as I said in committee a couple of weeks ago, if you kicked everyone off the Mueller team who is anti-Trump, you wouldn’t have anybody left,” said Jordan.

So what might be the real reason for Strzok’s dismissal?

“It has to be something more and my contention is it goes to the dossier, the dossier that I believe was used for securing the warrants to spy on Americans, the dossier that was put into the application that was taken to the FISA court to get warrants to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign.

“I believe Peter Strzok, who was the deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI and ran both the Clinton and Russia investigations, probably has his fingerprints all over that application,” alleged Jordan.

While Strzok’s direct involvement with the dossier has yet to be proved, Jordan says the FBI’s connection to the dossier seems pretty clear.

“Did they pay Christopher Steele, the guy who wrote the dossier?  It’s been reported that he was reimbursed by the FBI.  Why are they paying the guy who was paid at the same time by the Clinton campaign.  If the answer to that question is yes, I think that shows that this took place,” said Jordan.

He says the rest of the money trail is very well established.

“The Clinton campaign and the DNC paid Russians to influence the campaign.  They paid the law firm, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Christopher Steele, who took that money and paid Russians to get false information that was used to go get warrants to spy on Americans.

Jordan adds that if the FBI did pay for the dossier, the other lingering question is even more troubling.

“If that in fact happened, that definitely shows there was an effort to go after the Trump people and the Trump campaign with this ridiculous report the Clinton campaign paid for that we call a dossier,” said Jordan, who is stunned that Mueller is spending all his energies looking at possible crimes on the GOP side of this campaign.

“[The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee] paid Russians with campaign dollars to influence the election and what’s Mueller’s investigation looking at?  The other campaign,” said Jordan.

When it comes to Bruce Ohr, at first blush there appears to be circumstantial evidence of impropriety, as a result of Ohr’s consultation with Fusion GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson and the revelation that Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS during the final months of the campaign.

Jordan says it goes a lot deeper than that.

“His wife not only worked there, she was hired specifically for the Russian project.  Second, Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele during the campaign.  So at the same time the DNC is paying Christopher Steele to put together this dossier, he’s also meeting with a top Justice official.  That’s kind of strange,” said Jordan.

But he says the unlikely coincidences keep coming, mostly notably the post-election meeting between Ohr and Simpson.

“Did they meet to get their story straight and get their story straight and figure out, ‘We did this.  What do we have to do to correct it and get our story straight.’  Or – maybe and – did they meet to say, ‘Maybe it’s time to double down.  Maybe it’s time to go after President-Elect Trump,” said Jordan.

Jordan is increasingly confident his suspicions are correct given that the “unmasking” of Trump campaign officials began during the transition period.

“Never forget, it was during the transition, from Election Day until Inauguration Day, that we started to see all of this unmasking and all of these leaks from the intelligence community,” said Jordan, suggesting that timeline alone requires detailed testimony from Ohr.

Jordan says Congress will continue to pursue answers, beginning with deposing Strzok, Ohr, Page, and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.  He also wants to see the FISA application and what evidence was submitted to obtain warrants.  He also wants all of this to take place in public so the American people can evaluate the facts for themselves.

The congressman also demands a second special counsel to look into all this since – if there’s any fire to the smoke – the Justice Department and FBI are incapable of investigating the matter.

“I don’t like special counsels.  I never have.  But I don’t know any other remedy,” said Jordan.

 

Standard Podcast [ 8:14 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Northam’s Moderate Start, Dismal Midterm Polls, Damon’s Dubious Denials

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are pleasantly surprised to see incoming Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam back away from pushing Medicaid expansion, much to the consternation of liberals.  They also shudder as a  new generic poll of voters suggests Republicans are in for a very rough 2018, as Democrats lead big among women and young people and even hold slight edges among men and senior citizens.  And Jim sounds off on actor Matt Damon’s insistence that he never knew about any of Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual assaults and harassment.

Share

Conservatives Urged to Lead on Criminal Justice Reform

by

The exploding opioid crisis in America is fueling a renewed push for criminal justice reform, and a prominent grassroots activist says conservatives would be wise to take up the mantle in order to shrink the size of government and put more productive citizens back into our economy.

In October, President Trump declared a public health emergency over the horrifying number of opioid deaths and addictions around the nation.  James Madison Institute President and CEO Dr. Bob McClure says the way states treat drug addicts is costly and counterproductive.

“Our criminal justice system is overloaded and in dire need of reform.  The effort needs to be led by states, not bureaucrats who want to protect their turf,” said McClure.

According to McClure, the turf wars consist of prisons fighting for every penny they can get, just like every other office in government.  He says the rising incarceration rate leads to stretched resources at the prisons and a lack of money where it could do a lot more good

“Every dollar that is spent incarcerating an addict is a dollar we cannot spend treating the addict, getting him or her a path to becoming a productive, tax-paying citizen.  It’s a dollar we can’t spend on funding schools or the environment or whatever pet project there may be.  There is not an unlimited amount of money, so that is where the turf wars begin,” said McClure.

He says the impact of so many able-bodied Americans languishing in prison is major kick to the shins of the U.S. economy.

“It’s becoming an economic issue.  Typically, in states around the country, the prison system or penal system – however you want to define it – is one of the top two or three budget items.  It continues to grow at a rampant pace,” said McClure.

McClure’s vision is for the criminal justice system to stop looking at all drug offenses the same way.  He says the violent drug pushers should be treated much differently than the addicts and the small time dealers.

“Those folks deserve to be locked up with the key thrown away.  But what we’re talking about is an addict who is struggling, who needs more mental health and needs an opportunity to take a substance abuse and mental health approach as opposed to a lock ’em up approach,” said McClure.

For McClure, the criminal justice reform movement is, for the moment at least, focused on drug crimes and making the distinctions that give addicts a helping hand.  Some law and order conservatives have thus concluded the movement is little more than going easier on drug offenders.

McClure not only disputes that but says the get tough on crime approach is a proven failure.

“We’ve tried ‘three strikes and you’re out.’  It doesn’t work.  Prison becomes a revolving door for the really, really bad guys and it becomes a destructive problem for those who end up in prison because they had a few extra pills,” said McClure, who says tying judges’ hands with mandatory minimum sentencing is another stain on the system.

McClure’s reference to inmates who had a few extra pills highlights cases like Cynthia Powell.  A grandmother in her forties, Powell is spending 25 years in prison because she decided to be kind to her neighbor and give him some Lorcet pills – combination of Tylenol and hydrocodone.

“She’d never been arrested, never been in trouble.  She never had a violent history or anything.  She gave [the neighbor] her prescription Lorcet pills because he said he had a bad back.  he turned out to be a DEA agent and now she’s in jail,” said McClure.

“Because the judge had no discretion and there were mandatory minimums here in Florida, she now sits in jail with a mandatory minimum sentence.  Those are the kinds of egregious stories that we see around the country that need to be addressed,” said McClure.

McClure firmly believes the scrapping mandatory minimums is not only best for the addicts but also for the taxpayers.

“If we are able to fix this issue without the kind of mandatory minimums [where we just] ‘lock ’em up,’you also shrink the size of government.  So it’s public safety, it’s economics, and it’s shrinking the size of government,” said McClure.

But while law and order conservatives may have their own misgivings, the libertarian argument is that the drug wars are a very costly failure.  Would decriminalizing drugs lead to more sweeping changes?

McClure is not ready to go there.

“It’s smart justice reform.  It’s not just for legalizing drugs,” said McClure.

“Take care and treat those who have a problem.  Lock up those who are violent criminals.  I don’t think the libertarian view would say to allow the violent criminals to roam the streets.  Our smart criminal justice reform would do what libertarians want, however, and that is shrink the size of government,” said McClure.

Share

Atlanta Airport Chaos, Manchin Wants Franken to Stay, Harry Reid and UFO’s

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America offer all crazy martinis, starting with the fire that caused a power outage and snarled all air traffic at America’s busiest airport but officials say their emergency plans worked swimmingly.  They also react to Sen. Joe Manchin blasting his fellow Democrats and urging Sen. Al Franken to withdraw his resignation.  And they sigh over the revelation that Harry Reid and two other senators sneaked $22 million in UFO research dollars into the budget back in 2007.  Way to go, Nevada.  Way to go.

Share

‘The Vitriol We’re Seeing Clearly Crosses the Line’

by

Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr is vigorously defending the panel’s decision to revert to the regulatory framework that applied to the internet until 2015 and he is blasting critics for hurling racist insults at the FCC chairman and even disrupting Thursday’s meeting with a bomb scare.

Advocates of the move  argue a heavier government hand stifles innovation and upgrades by the major internet service providers.  The critics suggest the deregulation leaves consumers at the mercy of telecom giants like Comact, AT&T, and Verizon.

“This is something people are pretty fired up about and I get it.  Americans cherish the free and open internet.  They don’t want to see the FCC doing anything to undermine that.  The vote we took doesn’t do that.  We returned back to the 2015 regulatory framework and we make sure there’s consumer protections in place,” said Carr.

Led by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the commission voted Thursday to classify the internet under Title I of the 1934 Communications Act as opposed to Title II, which is where the Obama-era FCC classified the web in 2015.

“Title II is what applies to your traditional landline telephone service.  Title I, up until 2015, is a lighter regulatory framework designed for what we call information services.  That’s what the internet was and that’s what the internet is again after our decision,” said Carr.

Critics see things far differently.  Late night talk host Jimmy Kimmel took aim at the FCC Thursday night, offering a number of ominous scenarios that he says are now possible because of Thursday’s vote.

“The FCC did something absolutely despicable today.  They voted to put an end to net neutrality.  This is the rule that says everyone gets equal access to the internet: a big company or somebody selling crocheted owls from their house in the Midwest,” said Kimmel.

“As long as they tell us they’re doing it now, internet service providers will now be able to slow down or block web traffic to any website or streaming service they like, which benefits the big telecom companies and does the opposite for all of us,” he added.

“There’s a lot of myths in there to bust,” said Carr, contending Kimmel and other net neutrality advocates have it backwards.

“That’s what the law was under Title II.  Title II said that a broadband provider could block websites, could throttle traffic, due paid prioritization as long as they disclosed it to their customers.  What we’re doing is going back to the 2015 framework.

“The key is it’s not going to be a free-for-all.  Federal antitrust law is going to apply and it’s going to regulate the type of hypothetical harms that we heard him talking about,” said Carr.

Carr says that incorrect understanding is leading to a lot of the tensions in this debate.

“I’d be very concerned if we were turning over the reins of the internet completely to ISP’s and letting them dictate your online experience.  That’s simply not what we’re doing, but I understand why people that perceive that we’re doing that are pretty fired up about it,” said Carr.

“I think why people are getting so much wrong information about this is because it’s a very technical issue at the FCC at the end of the day.  Is this a Title II service?  Is this a Title I service?

“It really doesn’t get any more wonky than that and I think people are trying to characterize this and pitch it in a way that the mass audiences will understand it  and that is resulting in some hyperbole that is really apocalyptic and is not reflective of the reality of what we’re doing,” said Carr.

But when the vigorous debate spills into activists posting Chairman Pai’s home address on social media and even disrupting FCC proceedings or people like Kimmel referring to Pai on national television as a “jackhole”, the passion has gone too far.

“There’s a lot of passion.  I get that.  but the vitriol that we’re seeing certainly crosses the line.  Our meeting was interrupted with a bomb threat.  There’s been racist and other attacks.  There’s been death threats against commissioners.

“People can strongly disagree about the merits of this issue and they should.  We should have a vigorous debate.  But when you dehumanize people and call them jackholes and shills, that doesn’t advance the debate in a substantive way.  I think it gives cover for people who then go further with these racist attacks and death threat attacks,” said Carr.

Carr is not worried about the courts striking down the FCC decision although several states appear poised to try.  He says the Supreme Court gave the green light to classifying the internet under Title I 15 years ago.

The net neutrality reversal will also take a few months to take effect, while various government agencies take part in the process.

 

Standard Podcast [ 11:58 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Trump Slashes Regulations, Tax Bill Drama, Net Neutrality Hysteria

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud President Trump for making good on his efforts to eliminate and postpone costly and burdensome federal regulations.  They also tense up as five different Senate GOP votes could be in jeopardy as vote nears on tax reform.  They shake their heads as liberals lose their minds and predict an internet wasteland after the Federal Communications Commission votes to return internet regulations to where they were two years ago.  And Jim offers a spoiler-free look at the new Star Wars movie.

Share

Free Market Advocates Hail ‘Net Neutrality’ Repeal

by

The Federal Communications Commission voted to reverse Obama-era ‘net neutrality’ regulations Thursday, cheering free market advocates and sparking fierce resistance from opponents who fear customers will be at the mercy of service providers.

The final vote, as expected, came along party lines.  Three GOP appointees voted for the change, while the two commissioners appointed by President Obama voted against it.

In recent weeks, critics of the reversal intensified their protests, claiming that reversing net neutrality would allow internet service providers to gouge consumers and force them into buying more of their products.  They also suggest removing government control increases the likelihood of fewer players in the industry.

However those verbal protests have escalated in ways that draw alarm, going so far as to publicize the names of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s children.  Thursday’s proceedings were briefly interrupted by a security scare.

After the vote, the mainstream media posted alarming headlines.  “End of the internet as we know it,” stated the headline at CNN.com.

On the CNN cable channel, the bottom of the screen read, “Party-line vote ends rules to keep internet open and fair.”  On Twitter, the Associated Press reported, “BREAKING: The FCC votes on party lines to undo sweeping Obama-era ‘net neutrality’ rules that guaranteed equal access to internet.”

But is that what happened?

“Those folks obviously don’t need to know what they’re talking about to put out what they call news,” said former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who is now director of the Regulatory Action Center at FreedomWorks.

“What happened today is that the internet was returned today to the state of light regulation.  The word ‘light’ was used by Congress – you know the people who write the underlying laws for this stuff – way back in the nineties, that it had for its entire life until 2015,” said Cuccinelli.

Nonetheless, in recent weeks, critics of the reversal intensified their protests, going so far as to publicize the names of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s children.  Thursday’s proceedings were briefly interrupted by a security scare.

“Violence is acceptable to many on the left to achieve their political goals.  Let me say that again.  Violence is acceptable to many on the left to achieve their political goals.  Those goals always involve more government control and power,” said Cuccinelli.

For those fearful of what a reversal of net neutrality might mean, Cuccinelli offers a challenge.

“I would challenge any of the conspiracy theorists on the left to identify one thing that was impaired before 2015 that was suddenly fixed by those regulations or in the whole two years since then that is suddenly imperiled again.  The answer is they can’t.  What has been provided is certainty of the freedom of the internet again,” said Cuccinelli.

But while opponents of the reversal face that challenge, critics might fire back by asking how the internet supposedly got worse over the past two years, thus requiring such a move from the FCC.

Cuccinelli says internet service providers slowed down the expansion and upgrading of their networks long before 2015 in anticipation of net neutrality from the Obama administration.

“Investment in the internet began to drop.  We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars.  The internet doesn’t just exist.  It has to be built and the government didn’t build it.  Private entities built it and it’s expensive to build.

“So what the Obama administration was trying to do was tell people who built pieces of the internet what they could and couldn’t do with their own property.  If that’s your option, are you as likely to build stuff if the government’s going to tell you what to do with it.  Of course not,” said Cuccinelli.

“We were freed from that with Chairman Pai’s proposed and now adopted freeing of the internet, the actual freeing of the internet from government.  Leftists believe freedom comes from government,” he added.

But what about the concerns that rolling back federal regulations will be bad news for consumers?  Cuccinelli says there are still plenty of provisions in the law to help any customers being gouged by their service providers.

“When consumers are preyed upon on the internet, the [Federal Trade Commission] is still there and state attorneys general – something I know about – are there to police fraud and that sort of behavior, whether it’s on the internet or not.  That opportunity still exists,” said Cuccinelli.

He also says there’s little reason to worry that competition among service providers will suffer.

“The ability to capture market share with no one else having any option to close in on you doesn’t exist anymore because of technology,” said Cuccinelli, who asserts that there is a much greater likelihood of competition eroding with the government picking winners and losers with respect to the internet.

Cuccinelli says if any regulations need to be added, they should not spring up from government bureaucrats.

“Let’s do it in the accountable body, the Congress, the one people vote for,” said Cuccinelli.  “Although I hope they end up right where they are now, that Congress looks at all this and decides we don’t want more regulation on the internet.  That has never worked,” said Cuccinelli.

With one side proclaiming freedom reigns on the internet and the other dreading the future with net neutrality kicked to the curb, Cuccinelli says reality will prove who is right.

“Thankfully, we’re going to have years of experience without this Obama-era regulation in place.  People are going to see productivity is going up, more access, more opportunity, more products available,” he said.

Cuccinelli says when it comes to opportunity, expecting progress through the federal government is a proven failure.

“More regulation from government has never expanded opportunity, freedom, or productivity in the marketplace.  There’s no reason to expect it to happen on the internet,” said Cuccinelli.

Share

Closer to a Tax Cut, Disney to Gobble Up Fox, Strzok’s ‘Insurance Policy’

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are cautiously optimistic that Republicans may soon pass a tax cut and while the proposal is not perfect, it moves in the right direction on a number of fronts.  They also react to Disney becoming an even more mammoth presence in entertainment with the news it is paying over $52 billion to buy most assets of Fox.  And they discuss the latest hit to the credibility of the Russia investigation, as a recently fired Mueller deputy referred to pursuing an “insurance policy” just in case Trump won the election.

Share