Thank you! I was thinking the other day that all this ridiculous "news" and the Presidential tweets were being used as weapons of mass distraction, to divert our attention from what is really happening.

Donna

well it is not really as simple as that...for instance...

HR147 outlaws sex or race selection based abortion, outlaws soliciting funds for abortion or transporting a woman into the US for abortion. I am not really sure that is a bad thing to restrict selective abortions for race or sex-I mean look at the mess in China after decades of that. I can't imagine any Democrat is in favor of selecting for race either.

HJR doesn't end protection for wildlife...it is returning the power to protect wildlife on state lands back to the states. From what I understand, Alaska needs this because the federal law is messing up their own predator control practices.

HR785 doesn't end unions. It allows unions but also allows workers to refrain from joining as well.

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.

I am not going through them all but you can see why your post is slightly exaggerated. In general, Republicans want to return control back to the individual states.

Thanks for posting that, pal. It's very true, and very disturbing.

Thanks for posting this Pal.

If you want to do further research, this site is helpful. You can search for current proposed bills by subject, sponsor, etc.

Congress.gov

In general, Republicans want to return control back to the individual states.

Swell, so like our governor, who thinks it's a crying shame that state parks are full of land just sitting there not making maximum profit, who's been trying for years to turn them all into giant concessions/amusement parks/farms/factories (all run by his cronies, of course), but so far hampered by law. Now he could start with all the federal lands.

At least I saw a headline to day where a majority of Americans want the Russia/Trump links investigated. Hair Trump has been trying, thankfully so far in vain, to make it an investigation of O instead. Like we are going to forget.

It is all very scary!! The progress and reforms that have been achieved over the last few decades are about to be wiped out. If any of this succeeds, the first 100 days of the Trump presidency (and his pet tame Congress) will be the worst and most disastrous first 100 days of ANY presidency.

I have to say it but Republicans have a lot to answer for........and none of it is good.

A friend of mine shared that list last yesterday & I did go & look up a number of those bills @ House.gov & it appears legit, tho the descriptions for some on that the list seem a teensy bit off the mark. Nonetheless, they clearly represent a rush to eliminate all kinds of protections for many of us, our kids, & our environment (on which we all rely for health & sustenance).

Turning things over to states is just a way to ensure our federal government is weakened. The arguments in favor seem to make sense, until you learn how that really will work. Think about how it would be for someone to have rights in one state yet not in another - & not just individual rights either - how about interstate commerce?

Not everything on that wishlist will pass, thank goodness, & they have to clear both houses (so contacting your senator may be the most effective strategy), but the intent is certainly alarming.

Pal-I get it. But a lot of people don't go and read further so not cutting and pasting the actual summary of the bill as well is misleading. Saying that HR147 criminalizes abortion is simply not true. Or saying that HR 785 ends unions is blatantly false.

We live in a headline reading world unfortunately. I deal with this with my teenagers all the time and challenge them to go further than the surface.

As far as the big agencies...It really comes down to one's fundamental belief about who should decide how their state is run, the actual state or the federal government. Make your voices heard-it is a lot easier to make changes on a state level than a national level when the voters speak.

And I am not the bad guy here...just someone who reads a lot and does in fact support the EPA and the Department of Education (but loves school choice).

Steve Bannon is a Leninist who wants to deconstruct the government. To the extent that the right wing Republicans agree, which they obviously do, this list is just the start of it.

Returning power to the states, given that about 35 are under Repub control at the present, does zero to ensure continuation of any protections. if, however, the states agree to take something on, your taxes will go up to cover the cost of it.

People who voted for this will bear all the blame.

They want to give power back to the states so that some of them can become racist, misogynist, illiterate, intolerant, polluting backwaters, as they wish.

Then, when the voters in those states have children, among those children will be some very talented and ambitious people. Those children will leave, and their parents will proudly brag about their educations (bragging esp loudly if they go to an "elite liberal" university) and their shiny new jobs (no doubt in blue cities). That's what I find so ironic.

"They want to give power back to the states so that some of them can become racist, misogynist, illiterate, intolerant, polluting backwaters, as they wish"

I think they won't necessarily become those things, I think they already are but now they can come out of the closet.

As has been mentioned in several publications today--part of what Trump does so effectively is toss random firecrackers that go boom, draw folks' attention and allow him to shift the focus away from things he doesn't want discussed or probed. It's no accident, I think, that over the weekend the wiretap firecracker was lobbed; note that the Russian connection/Sessions/recusal is no longer the top story. And how interesting the revised travel ban was announced this morning while everyone else was watching the pretty sparklers given off by the weekend tweetstorm.

Nice points, I've learned, as have many, I'm sure, that when an incendiary tweet from the chief executive appears, it behooves us to be skeptical & find out what else is going on...

I am not a political science major and some of my ideas about some of this are pretty simplistic, but with regard to returning power to the states and school vouchers, I can think of reasons why both sound like great ideas but why they won't work well.

I think that while our government was set up to divide powers between a centralized Federal government and state and local governments, there are good reasons why our country became "The United States of America" and not "The Loosely Affiliated States of America".

Are states with more resources to govern themselves and maintain their own infrastructure (Maryland, New Jersey) getting more power to govern themselves and maintain their inftrastructure than poor states (Mississippi, West Virginia)? If not, why not? Why should a state that can't take care of itself financially be allowed to govern themselves as fully as one who can? Should we even bother with federal funding in states that are financial losers anyway? What if a state wants to reenact misegenation laws? Is that their business?

With regard to vouchers, my feelings are similar. Vouchers sound like a good idea, but all they do is marginally improve the options of people who already have more options and make the options for people who already have limited options worse. I teach in both a premier school within world-renowned Ivy League institution and the city community college, so I see both sides of education.

The voucher amount returned to someone who is paying $40,000+ each to keep their kids in a local private grade school (Like the owner of the practice I work part time in) has much less of an impact on him than it does on how its loss helps to subsidize the education of someone else --like the people who work in the service industries--in that already exemplary public school system. Besides that, where is my voucher? I do not have kids in any school system. Why should I pay the portion of my taxes that go to public schools at all? I have no personal interest in public education. For that matter, I don't utilize public pools, public parks or the public library. Actually I utilize a pocket park that's about 1000 square feet about a block from my house, lets pro-rate my tax, I will pay for that one. I don't have a car. I take underground transportation. Why should I pay for the interstate system, I rarely use it. If I travel I travel by train and if I go more than about 70 miles I go by plane. Why should I pay taxes for public utilities I don't use? I travel on the interstate system perhaps 6 times a year. I will gladly pay a per-use fee. But I think people who use it multiple times a day should pay Much more than I do, that's only fair, right?

Why don't we get to choose where Any of our Taxes go? Because taxes are not a buffet line, where we only have to take food we like in whatever amounts we are going to consume at that sitting.

Fwiw, I was in a group who had a recent meeting with our Republican Representative. The staffer told us that the Representative is opposed to vouchers. And that HR 610 is not going anywhere. Which doesn't mean they are right or that other similar bills won't be introduced.

Interestingly recent research suggests that vouchers actually result in worse educational outcomes for students who use them (so not just for the disadvantaged kids who are left behind). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/upshot/dismal-results-from-vouchers-surprise-researchers-as-devos-era-begins.html (I gave a copy of this article to the staffer at our meeting.)

What I take to be the main point of the orginal post is a good one in that a lot is happening right now and though it is nearly impossible to pay attention to all of it, we should do what we can.

We all have an interest in public education, since we all profit from an educated populace.

My opposition to 'choice', a.k.a. school vouchers, is that it is unequal for the very reasons stated above about poorer states/localities vs. richer ones. What good is having a coupon for education when the availability of multiple good private schools is not guaranteed in every community? Additionally, why should public monies designated to benefit children be funneled into private businesses, which are not obligated to follow the same standards as public institutions?

We've had a number of examples of abuse here in my state: charter schools shunting disabled kids away so they don't have to provide aides & pay their salaries, high-scoring public high schools shunting lower academically performing kids into so-called alternative high schools, which turn out to be scams & have deprived those kids of real educational opportunity.

Sorry to go off-topic, but it is an issue I feel strongly about, since I've worked w/ school age kids for a couple of decades now.

I have also heard from 2 sources that the education bill HR 610 is not going anywhere.

And now he's introduced his version of trumpcare and few are paying attention to it because of his horrific tweets about Obama wire-tapping trump tower.

Or how about BAT? Lower tax rates on companies, higher costs goods for everyone. How regressive.

I was with a group yesterday that visited our Senator's and Representative's local offices. The health care plan was a big focus, especially with the Representative's staff member. I can't say how many calls they are getting on it, but it's definitely on our local groups' agendas.

Everyone I follow on Twitter is very much paying attention to healthcare! Now the American Medical Association and the hospitals have come out against the proposed plans. They have way more to gain by keeping the ACA in place, plus the whole throw people off insurance thing.

To answer the comment on the wildlife rules, SJR 18 and SJR 69 have more to do with destroying the natural balance of nature. The proposals would allow the killing of wolf cubs and hibernating bears in their dens. It has nothing to do with anything other than creating a situation where predators of large game are drastically reduced. This allows for an increase in businesses that cater to wealthy trophy hunters. Also remember that Alaska allows shooting of wolves from helicopters. You might want to read up on the benefits to the land itself when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone. The negative press on wolves serves a twisted purpose, but it does not have anything to do with protecting the environment or other wild creatures.