Longtime US Rep. Richard Neal (MA-1) thought that he had made it as the indispensable man when he became House Ways and Means Chair — in charge of tax issues. But as so often happens, particularly in an area that is so abstruse as tax law, one finds that the ambition ends once one gets there. He’s the dog who caught the car.
Neal been slow-rolling the pursuit of Trump’s tax returns. He has said he’ll sue to get them … but hasn’t gotten around to it yet. This is a kind of You Had One Job omission — what else could he want? If you’ve been voting for Democrats, surely you want to hold Trump accountable, in this very basic way? Isn’t this vitally important to the integrity of our Republic?
Is something else going on?
Well, we know that Neal likes fancy fundraisers. Deep-pocket Dem fundraiser Jack Connors gives him an unctuous defense that, I suspect, will reassure very few about Neal’s fundraising, or in the plutocratic norms that have embedded themselves in our Gilded Age politics.
And donors expect a certain level of hospitality when they are being asked to contribute (at least I do), so Representative Neal, in addition to adhering to the spirit and letter of the law, has complied with customary practices as well.
Oh, well, do carry on then.
In any event, David Dayen of the Intercept (I really can’t believe I’m quoting a Greenwald joint, but they do some good work) suggests that Neal may be holding back because he wants to get through a law allowing the conversion of 401k’s into annuities — a move of dubious worth to most ordinary jes’ folks investors, opening up that market to some nasty predatory practices, lack of transparency and high fees. But some of those fancy donors must expect that certain level of hospitality when it comes to getting their priorities through. And since Neal wants the President to actually sign this legislation, he doesn’t want to alienate Trump — yet — by playing hardball vis-a-vis the tax returns.
So here’s where Massachusetts politics plays in, particularly Western Mass. You are up to bat, 1st district. As Josh Marshall puts it:
With Neal though, I think he needs to be pushed. A lot. Prying open the President’s business interests isn’t just a matter of seeing how much money he makes or seeing how much of his money comes from people in Russia. There’s the much bigger issue of how his business interests are playing into his conduct of the nation’s foreign policy (and domestic policy for that matter) and more generally what if any financial crimes sustain his family enterprise. It’s a big deal and I don’t think it’s Neal’s biggest priority. To make it that he’ll need a lot of pressure from the outside.
Neal represents an inside-baseball, donor-cultivated, don’t-humiliate-me-in-front-of-the-money era. Democrats like Neal eagerly divide their loyalties between the donor class and the rank-and-file, which leads to morally muddled politics and, in this case, irresponsible governance.
The bluntest corrective we have is the primary challenge. For what it’s worth, here’s hoping a credible challenger emerges in MA-1; I can think of a few folks who I hope will consider it.
Convert my 401-K into an annuity? Why not just take all my savings and hand it to the “financial adviser” who has no fiduciary obligation to me, but runs some sweet ads on TV shows aimed at my demographic with a star quality spokesman….Yes, he needs to go.
Get a reverse mortgage while you’re at it.
When I watch Fox News in the morning, I am struck by the number of ads aimed at veterans who can now “borrow up to 100% of your homes value” with this “special” veterans benefit.
I guess it makes sense, If you are a veteran and voted for Trump, you’ve already shown that you are an easy mark and ripe for the picking.
And there is this: Whenever you see a “stupid” ad on TV that “no one in their right mind would go for”…..remember this: If the ad was not bringing in business, it would have stopped running long ago.
But hey Fox News, wave the flag, support our men and women in uniform, and rake in the profits from ad revenue While you’re at it, run ads to convince retired folks on limited income to “invest in gold coins”….(so yes, I applaud Elizabeth Warren’s decision to boycott that vile network)
Which brings me to my final point: Not all Trump supporters are racists and bigots and the rest, many are just easy marks for a good con. And sadly the same it true at times with Democrats who elect guys like Neal.
Those who are easy marks for a good con also tend to be “racists and bigots and the rest”, because the latter is just another con (and not even particularly good).
This phenomenon is not limited to veterans or even Trumpists.
On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that those who are “racists and bigots and the rest” are more likely to be Trump supporters (or at least GOP voters) because Mr. Trump and the GOP panders to them while the Democrats do not.
I join JamesConway in not wanting to guess about Mr. Neal’s support. I encourage you to be cautious about assuming that his supporters are in any way similar to Trumpists (veterans or not).
When I look at how Obama saved the bankers but not the homeowners, the 8% pay cut delivered to retail workers by the Massachusetts legislators,Clinton’s deregulation of the banks and media while tightening regulations on the poor and numerous other examples, I can;t say that all those who are easy for a mark at racists, bigots and the rest. Both parties have their cons and marks.
That said, I have faith that the Democrats have the only political figures today who are not cons. We just need more like them.
I don’t see the relevance of anything you mention in your first sentence.
There is a difference between a con and policy you don’t agree with. None of the things you enumerate are cons, each is a policy you don’t agree with.
The GOP has based virtually its entire ideology on cons — Paul Krugman has enumerated them in devastating detail. The GOP also panders to racists, bigots, and the rest. This is why those who are “racist, bigots, and the rest” are easy marks for cons.
In any case, we each seem to agree that Mr. Neal should go. Perhaps it’s best that we leave it at that.
…and if I wanted to do something stupid like buy an annuity, what is so hard about taking all my 401K money (assuming I’m 59 and 1/2) and pay a annuity? No doubt the financial industry has conjured up even easier and more destructive ways to do that.
As far as Neal goes, I’m with the purists.
Unfortunately I have a paucity of experience with Western MA and it’s politics. No politician knows where all the bodies in Springfield are buried and Mark Bail is my only other real contact in the hinterlands. Seems like Neal got by last time on the fact that is opponent was a total unknown and he carried Springfield.
His no name opponent nearly cracked 30% in his last primary, so there’s a base there to build on. Downing and Lesser come to mind as young pols with big ambitions and current ceilings on how far they can rise. As Ayanna Presley and even Seth Moulton showed, the candidate willing to cut in line gets the leg up on the ladder.
Agreed. (June 5: https://twitter.com/MatHelman/status/1136364608250363905)
Sadly, Mr. Neal is following the lead of Ms. Pelosi.
The Democrats, even in the majority, seem to be primarily interested in whining and table-thumping. When it comes to action, we are paralyzed.
The New York Times reports today that freshmen Democrats “need more evidence” before beginning an impeachment inquiry.
We are showing ourselves to be a spineless herd of sheep, bleating loudly while awaiting a knife to our collective throat.
Sadly, my rep, Lori Trahan, is also being a spineless sheep. Not that I’m surprised. She only received 21.7% of the vote in the primary – how is it that no one has announced that they are primarying her?!
I actually emailed her via her website a few days ago asking that she support impeachment. I received the following reply:
I intend to call her office in a couple of days when I am available to follow up, mostly to correct the assertion made above that impeachment is a two-step process. Whoever wrote what appears to be a form letter made the common error of conflating impeachment with removal. While I would love to see Trump removed, impeachment is a significant step even if removal is unlikely. For example, while neither was removed Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton WERE impeached and history remembers that.
Man five dense jargon filled paragraphs that say absolutely nothing. This is Exhibit A on why low info voters love the directness of Trump speaking in plain English and calling out this newspeak BS. Bernie does this too which is why he’s popular with every Trump voter I know.
These jargon-filled paragraphs are the tried and true way that every politician says “no” to an audience that the politician knows wants to hear “yes”.
Elizabeth Warren demonstrates that even low-info voters like policy details when they are part of a response that leads with a clear “yes”.
I know a form letter when I see it since I’ve written them too as an intern. That’s clearly what this was, though at least it acknowledged which issue I addressed and which side I took. As I mentioned I would I called her office yesterday to follow up. That was pretty uneventful. The staffer just listened, thanked me, and said my call would be put in the record.
Though I will quibble with one point. I don’t see a lot of jargon in it, but I do see verbose explanations. Maybe it’s OK she’s not talking down to people?
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) announced for impeachment tonight moving the total to 68.. She is very close to the Speaker and the strategy appears to be to build momentum to start impeachment after Labor Day.
Clinton’s impeachment started in October and he was impeached in December.
I don’t believe this steady drumbeat call for impeachment by Pelosi’s confidantes is happening by accident.
What’s the end game for impeachment? It goes through the House and he gets acquitted in the Senate and we use those votes to attack Collins, Gardner, Tillis, and McSally and hope to get the Senate back? It’s also putting Doug Jones on the pyre. And taking eyeballs and cameras off the agenda of our 2020 candidates.
I’m 100% there on constitutional grounds and if Justin Amash can make a clear as day right vs. wrong call so can Lori Trahan, Richard Neal, and the other hacks twisting themselves into knots to avoid saying Trumps a crook but the optics are bad. But what if the hacks aren’t wrong-he is a crook and the optics are bad? Is it worth making an election that should be fought on the economy a referendum on Trumps fitness for office? Didn’t we try that playbook and fail already?
There are MANY end games for impeachment, we enumerated at least some of them here (perhaps while you were on sabbatical).
The one I like best is to:
1. Formally initiate an impeachment investigation now. This cuts away what’s left of the already flimsy arguments being offered for resisting legitimate Congressional demands for information. Continued refusal itself becomes additional impeachable offenses.
2. Use the resulting evidence to build a detailed, compelling, and airtight case. This is what the Congress did in the Nixon investigation and did not do in the Clinton investigation — in part, because there was a target-rich in environment in the first, and nothing to find in the second (despite the many millions wasted by the Ken Starr investigation).
3. Draft and present impeachment resolutions, if appropriate, so that they are passed before the 2020 elections, but late enough that the Senate trial is deferred until after those elections.
4. Use the evidence and resolutions as part of the 2020 campaign to retake the Senate and retain the House — along with a long list of positive policy proposals. Again, this what Democrats did in the Nixon investigation and Republicans did not do in the Clinton attack.
If flagrantly criminal conduct by the executive branch is resolutely ignored by Congress — or worse, turned into a badly-done media spectacle — doesn’t that normalize and compel such behavior in the future? Didn’t we do that with Nixon, with Iran-Contra, and with the George W. Bush administration war crimes?
You present a false dilemma in your sketch of the 2020 campaign. Elizabeth Warren clearly demonstrates that Democrats can fight this election on the economy AND on the criminal behavior of the current administration.
I find your end game proposal very reassuring. Warren’s ability to walk and chew gum on both issues is also very reassuring. It’s a lot more measured than the Pelosi wait and see beyond any shred of doubt approach and the Tom Steyer do a vote tomorrow route.
I think that’s a big part of why this process is so controversial, Trump’s stonewalling of subpoenas leaves the House with literally no other recourse to obtain information. He is doing that deliberately for this reason. Hence the reluctance to call his bluff but also that’s the only avenue left for discovery.
We teeter on the brink of initiating nuclear war with Iran. Every additional hour that Donald Trump remains in office brings us closer to the ultimate nuclear holocaust.
Nancy Pelosi is endangering all of humanity.
The Sschakowsky example may indicate she is deliberately letting her associates get out ahead of her so when she gets critical mass she can pounce.