At the beginning of the year, TPP ran three articles, right beneath each other, telling why you thought Nancy Pelosi was the correct candidate to lead the Democratic Party in the House. I received the paper about one day before the election, but I felt cheated that there had never been an opportunity to comment on the choice before it was made. And now, even more so. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Saturday, 3/30, had Nancy Pelosi encouraging the Democratic Party to move toward the Center.
It was a tactical mistake to try to stop Trump’s declaration of an emergency to get additional funding for “the wall” via legislation. Trying to use law to change the fact that Trump usurped the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution was not smart. because the two-thirds vote that was needed to override his obvious veto was not forthcoming from the Senate Republicans. What were she and the Democrats thinking? The political watchdogs of our society had the right idea by immediately suing. The courts are where this should be decided. Passing legislation that ultimately got vetoed, makes Congress look weak.
Republicans have stonewalled the Democrats for six years. How will it help to pursue bipartisan support for watered-down legislation that might do a small amount of good. The changes needed are not “some small amount of good,” they are significant changes that need to be implemented to show what can be done. And the Democrats can pass them in the House. Even if they fail in the Senate or at the president’s door, ”We the People” will know where the problem lies. And that should play out in the 2020 election.
If you don’t know by now that Trump is a street fighter, a “no hold barred” bare-knuckle kind of a guy, then you haven’t been paying attention. He will always try to control the situation. Like his call for “the wall” — the real problem is the immigration policy/law that has been “kicked down the road” for years/decades. There are humanitarian issues. There are cost issues and accountability issues with private detention centers. There are problems with knowing who is undocumented and who is not, mainly because employers continually deflect any kind of effort required on their part to check. What will happen to them?
Reagan created an amnesty program for them, when he was in office. Coming to grips with these problems and offering a solution to them that can be discussed and implemented will be a giant step forward.
If Congress gets serious about working on immigration reform, then shouldn’t the decision to extend the wall be put off until it was decided if it was necessary? Congress must act decisively, and not with moderation. The truth is that Congress hasn’t been doing their job. So the people have looked for a strong executive, a “strict father” image, to get things done. But in a democracy, “We the People” get things done through the Congress.
BARRIE EICHHORN, West Chester, Pa.
Ted Rall, in your 4/1/19 issue, says “Voters prefer a president who does something stupid to fix a problem than one who pretends it doesn’t exist.” To which I would ask, “Really?” People would really want to spend billions of dollars on a problem and have it not fix the problem? When did that happen in this country?
If a wall on the Mexico/US border would solve our problem who would be against it? And wouldn’t it have been put up way before now?
Trump offered no proof that a physical wall would end our immigration dilemmas. Meanwhile, he puts innocent (no trial, no proof of any guilt but “showing up”) people in cages, for how long nobody seems to ask or know. And this is costing billions.
Trump gives the impression that Democrats don’t care about the issue of immigration on the Southern border, or never did. I’m his age, and I know this has been addressed by Democrats for as long as I’ve been here, so where has Trump been? Or other Americans, even Republicans?
Everyone wants this issue fixed. We have legislators so they will discuss and fix this. It’s not a party issue. It’s a solvable human issue.
Perhaps if Trump had lost some of his own money when he punished the federal workers with losing pay, it might have encouraged him to have worked harder to find a solution that was more reasonable. With all these people involved in the problem, more creative, real solutions will emerge and the problem will be solved.
That’s all we really want to happen.
When did that become asking for too much from our elected officials?
CHERYL LOVELY, Presque Isle, Maine
On Jan. 24, US Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, spoke at a news conference at which she stated that her former husband had seriously assaulted her while they were married some years ago. Her statement was prompted by the divorce file of her and her husband becoming unsealed, which would reveal allegations of the assault that were used in the legal proceedings.
At the news conference, the senator additionally stated that she had been raped by a boyfriend when she was 19 years old and a student at Iowa State University. Ms. Ernst informed the press that she did not report the rape to authorities and did not tell any living soul about the incident. She did not provide the news media with the name of the former boyfriend.
In regard to the alleged rape, if I were to judge the senator’s credibility in the same way the Republicans judged Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, I would have to be skeptical. Based upon her own statements, there would be no corroborating evidence against the boyfriend.
However, I have no reason to disbelieve Joni Ernst. Then, please explain to me, in the name of the Holy Mother, how a woman who was raped by her boyfriend at age 19 would not believe the story of Christine Blasey Ford and then vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court? Not only did she vote to confirm Kavanaugh, she and other female Republican senators gathered together, all smiling, and enthusiastically announced their support for him. How could Sen. Joni Ernst act that way? What is wrong with her?
STEPHEN LANDUYT, Quincy, Ill.
I was pleased to see the extensive article (2/15/19 TPP) by Jonathan Cohn on Medicare for All legislation and to see the use of “Medicare for All” instead of “Single Payer System.” The two terms are seen differently by the public and the former would draw much less dissent than the latter. After all, Medicare is very popular.
What seems to be missing in the article is the fact that Part B recipients of Medicare make payments now. As a Medicare recipient with Social Security benefits of $25,152 for 2018, $1,608 was deducted for Part B benefits.
Many of us, especially those with additional income in pensions, could certainly afford to pay much more for the benefits that we get. I’ve talked with several others in my income bracket (roughly $75,000 per annum) who agree that we should pay much more for Medicare. A sliding scale would make sense.
If Sen. Sanders and Reps. Jayapal, DeLauro and Schakowsky could provide comparisons between their proposed premiums and premiums currently paid to private insurance companies, this would be helpful. The administrative costs would certainly be less under Medicare than it has been under private health insurance plans.
May Progressives Proliferate!
DON PILCHER, Bellingham, Wash.
Regarding Gene Lyons’ “Psychology’s Theories Don’t Always Stand the Test of Time” [2/15/19 TPP], it’s hard to know where to start. Should I follow his stylistic lead: more knee-jerk denial than discerning understanding, more short-term yowl than the hard, collaborative work forward?
We old feminists used to say, “You can’t understand unless you stand under.” That’s the necessary second shoe to drop in this discussion. Just like every well-meaning individual knows that “Black Lives Matter” is not all either/or, but means “Black Lives Matter Too.”
But if you want it punchy and “fun,” Mr., Lyons, we’ll start there. Apparently, surveying the state of the planet in 2019, we’ve got all the time in the world for your theatrics.
So, of course, the current and necessary furor over gender politics has to start with your machismo war wound on the rugby field lo, those many decades ago. And, equally pretentious, your conclusions about Freudian theory must rest on the very thin reed of your intellectual capacities when you were barely old enough to buy beer!
Here are some contemporary facts:
1) Given that women deserve equality and have not yet achieved it, rather than defending your dusty old turf, the peace-path is preferred to the war-path. The peace-path would start with your acknowledgement that women have some very urgent and legitimate complaints, NOT your cheap shots against both your mother AND Liberace in the same sentence. Are you trying to be a stereotype?
2) And for those of us bumping along the slow and arduous road toward scientific knowledge (isn’t it every citizen’s duty?), Freud’s contributions are not “bunk,” but the nucleus of what is now referred to as depth psychology. The ethical standards allowing therapists to maintain their licenses rest solidly on Freud’s discoveries of transference and counter-transference, in other words, the science behind what we have coms to understand as “good boundaries.” So, yes, in short, Dr. McDermott is correct: “[Gender is] no longer just this male-female binary.”
Just because you’re an old white guy with cherished memories doesn’t mean you can’t plant one foot in a fairer future.
MELANIE HANSON, Minneapolis, Minn.
When in the course of human events things become a bit too goofy for belief, a dollop of saucy poetic satire eases the churning of body and brain. Accordingly, Rosie Sorenson’s feisty lyrical flight, “Trump Fall Down Go Boom: “ [4/1/19 TPP], was welcome comic relief.
These are tense and troubled times of childish prattle and twaddle. To maintain collective sanity, we have to lighten up!
Let’s treat our spoiled brat with a degree of wry bemusement. Let him shake his rattle ’til he tires of his pettish penchant for attention.
WILLIAM DAUENHAUER, Willowick, Ohio
From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2019
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652