Claims And Issues

D.C.'S GUN CONTROL LAWS SAVED THE REPUBLIC .... Cont'd.

Reflecting on a further insight into how the gun-control laws in the District of Columbia saved the Republic.  

          It was because of those laws that the insurrectionists did not bring guns on January 6th.  They did not bring guns because they couldn't.  Most of them flew into D.C.  They ran two grave risks, it seems to me.  The first is that the airlines would expose their guns and them to law enforcement authorities.  Insurrection over, even before it started.

    The second risk they faced if they flew into D.C. with guns is that the airlines would not let them fly.  Again, insurrection over.

    Imagine how many people they could have killed if only they had their guns with them on January 6th.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.    

BARRING PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC FILES HAS BAD CONSEQUENCES.

There is a good reason for the presumption of public access to public records including court files.  The consequences of preventing public access can be very bad, indeed.

         There have so far been no worse consequences than hiding the sex-trafficking and sex-abuse behavior of people like Jeffrey Epstein.  I just finished reading Perversion of Justice / The Jeffrey Epstein Story, by Julie K. Brown (2021).  Ms. Brown deserves tremendous credit for her outstanding dedication to journalism and, in the final analysis, to the truth itself.

The book is upsetting on several levels, not the least of which is the sealing of a great deal of the evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's behavior, so that the public could not see it and, in many instances, still are not allowed to see it.  As Ms. Brown writes:  "Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement and prison officials contribute to the maelstrom by condoning the sealing and redaction of public records pertaining to Epstein's crimes on such a large scale....  This only sows mistrust and suspicion and undermines our justice system.  It's one thing to seal records to protect Epstein's victims; it's another to keep them secret to cover up crimes."  Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice 579-80 (2021).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE GUN-CONTROL LAWS IN D.C. SAVED US.

The gun-control laws in the District of Columbia saved the Republic.

          It was because of those laws that the insurrectionists did not bring guns on January 6th.  Oh, they brought weapons, all right:  hockey sticks, baseball bats, rebar, and chemical spray, among other things.  Just ask the police they attacked.

          But they did not dare risk bringing guns and ammunition into D.C.  If they were found with guns, it would be game over.  The police and other law enforcement authorities would have had no choice then but to round up the whole crew before they tried to overthrow the government and kill people.

          As it was, they killed people.  But they did not kill nearly as many people as they would have if they had brought guns.  The D.C. gun-control laws were so strict that the insurrectionists had to store arms in Virginia, outside the District.

          The gun-control laws of the District of Columbia saved our democracy.  If it had been left to the supreme court, there would not be any gun-control in Washington, D.C.  Remember how the supreme court gutted the previous D.C. gun-control ordinance?  If their way had stayed the way the gun-control law was in D.C., then the insurrectionists would have been clear to bring guns to their attempted coup.

          But they didn't, because they couldn't.  Enough of the gun-control laws of D.C. survived to save our lives.

          This time.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BRING CLOSURE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS.

The victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve to have questions asked about his death.  This does not mean that he must have been murdered.  It means that questions about his death have not been asked, still need to be asked, and should be asked, including:

• Why was he left alone in his cell when he was on suicide watch?
• Why was he not watched, for that matter? Every person who is on suicide watch is supposed to be checked at least every 30 minutes.  Epstein's guards said they did not check on him for 3 hours.  Why not?
• Epstein had two guards. They both claim to have fallen asleep.  A forensic pathologist is a doctor who investigates deaths under these circumstances.  An expert forensic pathologist who specializes in unexplained prison deaths says that he has never had two people fall asleep at the same time who were keeping an eye on a supposed suicide risk.  Not in his entire career.  Not once.  What happened here?
• The surveillance videos of the area surrounding Epstein's cell, including the hallways, are corrupt and show no pictures. What happened to the surveillance videos?
• Bill Barr infamously said that the New York City jail where Epstein was incarcerated was not safe for him. That is the reason Barr gave for moving Epstein into a federal prison, where Epstein died.  What was the reason, really, that Epstein was moved?

There is a new government in town.  The department of justice has a second chance now.  It has a chance to be a Justice Department.  The FBI also has a second chance now.  Second chances are rare indeed, but they too have one.  The FBI can and should investigate now; it did not investigate before.

"The government has an obligation to investigate this part of the story, if for no other reason than to bring closure for all the women he abused."  Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice 566 (2021).

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"THE CONSENSUS WAS" IGNORANT RE: AFGHAN COLLAPSE AND TALIBAN TAKEOVER.

The consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not collapse in 11 days.  This is what President Joe Biden said earlier in the afternoon on the day these words are written, Friday, August 20, 2021.

          Either this is true or it is not.  It cannot be both and it cannot be a little bit of each.  It is either all one, or all the other.

          But before we get to whether it is true or false, how is it an excuse for delayed response to the need to evacuate?

          I hesitated a long time before I wrote this column.  I do not want to give ammunition to those who seek to do harm to the Biden Administration.  The Biden Administration is a breath of fresh air after the former guy.  Before now, they have shown an ability to pull rabbits out of a hat, they have been so successful in my judgment.

          So what explains this apparent failure to get people out of harm's way?  We are not talking about 11 days.  We are talking about three, four, or five months.

                   

          Not acting during that time is only part of the problem.                         

• We have reports about the Department of State sending EMails to people in Afghanistan telling them to show up at the Kabul airport, but after these people risk life and limb to get to the airport passing through territory and checkpoints controlled by the Taliban, no-one is at the airport who will let them in and they are turned away.
•   Update And a Repeat:  President Biden told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News "that chaos was in fact always inevitable."   If this was known, why then was it not planned for?
• We have other reports of French and British military and police units rescuing their nationals by going out beyond the airport perimeter, finding the people, and successfully bringing them back to the airport to be evacuated. What is stopping the American military from doing the same thing?
•   Update:  The Pentagon reported that the United States military does not have the capacity to extract people from downtown Kabul like the French and the British.  This report may have been meant as a distraction for security purposes.  See the Update immediately below.
•   Update:  U.S. helicopters under the command of various agencies including the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency are operating like the French and the British to travel to downtown Kabul and to other parts of Afghanistan, piek up evacuees, and return to the Kabel airport for eventual evacuation.
• Worst of all, perhaps, we have reports of concerned private citizens in the U.S. contacting sources, raising money, and chartering aircraft to get their Afghan friends and former colleagues out of Afghanistan. Their conduct is inspirational, but why do they have to do it?
• Doesn't the U.S. Government know how to evacuate people?
• By rights, shouldn't it be the one to do them? What is "American exceptionalism" all about, if not that? 

If it is true that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  How was this the consensus view in the face of the facts? 

• FACT: The U.S.-built and U.S.-funded Afghan Government was incurably corrupt.  Few Afghans, and I mean very few, were willing to die for it.
• FACT: The U.S.-funded and U.S.-equipped Afghan Security Forces -- army, air force, and police -- were mostly unwilling to fight and die for the Afghan Government.  Some units were special.  In the end, they were nowhere near enough to stop the Taliban takeover.
• FACT: Reports are clear that there were rumors and hard evidence available that local officials and local commanders were cutting their own private deals with the Taliban.  The deals were that the Taliban would not kill them, and the local officials and commanders would not fight the Taliban.  With many rumors and a lot of hard evidence, why did the "consensus" fail to reflect them?  And why did the Administration fail to learn the truth?

If it is false that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  Why then would the U.S. Government be pretending otherwise?

          Why, indeed?

•   Update:  Unnamed "aides" of President Biden reportedly echo his view that Americans do not care about what is happening to people in the Taliban chaos of Afghanistan, so long as Americans are not the ones being injured and killed.  Well, of course they do.  They obviously do not know how to handle the current situation.  All they know is what they call "the bigger picture."  By that they mean the old, discredited failure of so-called "Centrists" who are more arrogant than competent, more failure than flexible.  If they were boxers -- a thought which makes many of them shudder -- they would be caught flat-footed.  They do not know how to get out of the way.

 

PHOTOS:    1.  Afghans with Afghan flag face Taliban fighters with guns in Kabul.  (Victor J. Blue / New York Times).

                    2.  (Jim Huyelbroek/New York Times).

Updated to reflect recent developments.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.    

"THE CONSENSUS WAS" IGNORANT RE: AFGHAN CORRUPTION AND TALIBAN TAKEOVER.

 

The consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not collapse in 11 days.  This is what President Joe Biden said earlier in the afternoon on the day these words are written, Friday, August 20, 2021.

          Either this is true or it is not.  It cannot be both and it cannot be a little bit of each.  It is either all one, or all the other.

          But before we get to whether it is true or false, how is it an excuse for delayed response to the need to evacuate?

          I hesitated a long time before I wrote this column.  I do not want to give ammunition to those who seek to do harm to the Biden Administration.  The Biden Administration is a breath of fresh air after the former guy.  Before now, they have shown an ability to pull rabbits out of a hat, they have been so successful in my judgment.

          So what explains this apparent failure to get people out of harm's way?  We are not talking about 11 days.  We are talking about three, four, or five months.

                   

 

          Not acting during that time is only part of the problem.                         

• We have reports about the Department of State sending EMails to people in Afghanistan telling them to show up at the Kabul airport, but after these people risk life and limb to get to the airport passing through territory and checkpoints controlled by the Taliban, no-one is at the airport who will let them in and they are turned away.
• We have other reports of French and British military and police units rescuing their nationals by going out beyond the airport perimeter, finding the people, and successfully bringing them back to the airport to be evacuated. What is stopping the American military from doing the same thing?
• Worst of all, perhaps, we have reports of concerned private citizens in the U.S. contacting sources, raising money, and chartering aircraft to get their Afghan friends and former colleagues out of Afghanistan. Their conduct is inspirational, but why do they have to do it?
• Doesn't the U.S. Government know how to evacuate people?
• By rights, shouldn't it be the one to do them? What is "American exceptionalism" all about, if not that? 

If it is true that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  How was this the consensus view in the face of the facts? 

• FACT: The U.S.-built and U.S.-funded Afghan Government was incurably corrupt.  Few Afghans, and I mean very few, were willing to die for it.
• FACT: The U.S.-funded and U.S.-equipped Afghan Security Forces -- army, air force, and police -- were mostly unwilling to fight and die for the Afghan Government.  Some units were special.  In the end, they were nowhere near enough to stop the Taliban takeover.
• FACT: Reports are clear that there were rumors and hard evidence available that local officials and local commanders were cutting their own private deals with the Taliban.  The deals were that the Taliban would not kill them, and the local officials and commanders would not fight the Taliban.  With many rumors and a lot of hard evidence, why did the "consensus" fail to reflect them?  And why did the Administration fail to learn the truth?

If it is false that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  Why then would the U.S. Government be pretending otherwise?

          Why, indeed?

 

PHOTOS:    1.  Afghans with Afghan flag face Taliban fighters with guns in Kabul.  (Victor J. Blue / New York Times).

                    2.  (Jim Huyelbroek/New York Times).

                    3.  Taliban taking a rest last year in Afghanistan.  (Jim Huybroek/New York Times).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.    

"LET'S MAKE A DEAL" WITH THE TALIBAN.

Mike Pompeo and Mullah Barradar, leader of the Taliban who was released from jail in order to make an agreement with the Americans in 2020.  (Patrick Semansky/Associated Press)

This is Part 3 in a series of articles looking at the Afghanistan "collapse" which is not really a collapse.  It is a contract.

The former guy and secretary of state Mike Pompeo negotiated a deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar in 2020.

          This was the deal:  The Taliban would not kill Americans in Afghanistan and the Americans would withdraw from Afghanistan. 

          Unfortunately, very unfortunately, they famously excluded the Afghan Government (and its Security Forces) from their negotiations.  Being Afghans, the ones who were excluded made their own deals with the Taliban as a result.  The deals made by local officials of the Afghan Government, and local commanders of the army and the police, called for the Taliban not to kill them in exchange for withdrawing from power.

          So, they made little deals that mirrored the big deal with the Taliban.

          When the time came in early August of 2021, the little deals came due.  The Afghan Government officials and the Afghan army and police gave the Taliban the keys to their office buildings, equipment, and bases, and then they left power to the Taliban.  This came clear -- if it wasn't clear before -- with some remarkable reporting which is repeated here because it is so good:  See  Susannah George, Afghanistan's Military Collapse:  Illicit Deals and Mass Desertions, Washington Post online Sunday, August 15, 2021.

          That's the deal.  That's why the sudden "collapse" of Afghanistan is not a collapse at all.  It was planned last year.  It is not a collapse, it is a contract.

          The end of this Part 3 is once again the same as the end of Part 1 and the same as the end of Part 2:   The truth is different from what we were actually told.  Based on what we already know now, the difference determined the outcome.  There is more to come.

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

AFGHANISTAN: BARACK OBAMA INHERITS THE WIND AND DOESN'T TELL ANYONE.

Taliban.  (Rahmat Gul/Associated Press)

Second of four parts.

When he became President, Barack Obama inherited the mess in Afghanistan that we discussed in Part One.

President Obama's administration was left with a dispirited rabble, more or less, instead of an ally.  So the Obama administration decided to up the ante, as it were.  They staged a so-called "surge" of added American soldiers, named after George W. Bush's surge in Iraq which was widely deemed to be successful there.

The Afghanistan surge did not work.  The Afghan Government and the Afghan "Security Forces" (army and air force, and police) were not much better at being able to defend themselves after the surge and the country was not as secure from the Taliban as the Obama people hoped.

Yet President Obama did not tell anyone.  No-one in the Obama administration said then what they say now, which is that the so-called Afghan "collapse" was inevitable and that there was never really any hope for a different outcome.

No-one in the Obama administration said so at the time.   There would be nearly another decade of death before the American involvement in Afghanistan finally came to an end.

President Obama and his administration knew that the Afghan Government was incurably corrupt, yet they did not say so at the time.  They certainly did not say then that the Afghan armed forces would surrender to the Taliban rather than fight the Taliban.  If they thought so then, they should have said so.

They did not say so.  But they knew that failure was inevitable.  They just didn't want it to happen on their watch.  That is why they left things to President Obama's successor.

The end of Part Two is thus the same as the end of Part One.  The truth is different from what we were actually told.  Based on what we already know now, the difference determined the outcome.  There is more to come.

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

AFGHANISTAN: WHAT SEEMED TO BE A COLLAPSE WAS A CONTRACT.

Captured Armored Personnel Carrier in Kabul.  (Jim Huylebroek/New York Times)

Afghanistan has fallen.  Or at least the Taliban have retaken control of Afghanistan.  Lots of commentators particularly in the media write that it was inevitable for the past 20 years that this would happen as soon as the U.S. withdrew.  They say they knew it all along.

I don't recall them saying that at all during the last 20 years.  I could be wrong.  I do recall them saying some things but it wasn't that.

New reporting also begins to provide some details about the deals that the Taliban made with the former guy and his secretary of state Mike Pompeo in 2020.  The former guy was notorious for making deals.  The new reporting also begins to provide some information about the deals that the Taliban made after that with Afghan officials.  See  Susannah George, Afghanistan's Military Collapse:  Illicit Deals and Mass Desertions, Washington Post online Sunday, August 15, 2021; Susannah George and Ezzatullah Mehrdad, Hundreds of Afghan Forces Surrender in Kunduz as Taliban Consolidates Hold on Country's North, Washington post online, Wednesday, August 11, 2021.

Making deals is what the Afghans do and have done for a long time.  The Afghans were cut out of deals between the Taliban and those in control of the U.S. government in 2020, which left the Afghans on their own against the Taliban.

And left whatever happened next to the next U.S. president to clean up.

Immediately after the deals between the Taliban and the people in control of the U.S. government in 2020, Afghans began making their own deals with the Taliban to literally turn over the keys as soon as the Taliban showed up.

What seemed to be a collapse was a contract.

But more about the deals later.

This is the first of four parts, one for the time of each person who was elected President of the United States in the past 21 years.

George W. Bush.  Then Barack Obama, followed by the former guy, and finally Joe Biden.

First up, George W. Bush.

They told us then that they were not nation-building.  George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

For not the first time, the people in charge of the American Government lied to us.  We know now that they were nation-building.  The truth is that they were trying to build a democracy in Afghanistan that looked like the U.S.

The thing is, we knew that at the time.  Or at least that is what I recall was reported at the time.

I do not recall, however, it being reported at that time -- or at any other time during the past 20 years before now -- that the Afghanistan built by the U.S. would "collapse" once the U.S. withdrew.

Either the Bush people knew that Afghanistan would collapse as soon as the U.S. withdrew, or they knew that the regime they installed was incurably corrupt.  Either way, the Bush people didn't tell us those things.  They told us instead that their Afghanistan was coming together very nicely.

For its part, the media at the time reported that the regime in Afghanistan was incredibly corrupt.  I do not recall that they reported that the regime in Afghanistan would "collapse" the minute the last American left.

The truth is different.  Based on what we already know now, the difference determined the outcome.  There is more to come.

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE OUR FUTURE.

Taking a quick break from the news in Afghanistan, I wrote a letter to the editor of The Washington Post last week and to my joy, they published it.  I wrote re all the world’s wildfires, the Dixie Fire in California being one big example.  The Washington Post did such a good job in the way they published and presented this issue that I don't think I can improve on it, so here is a link to the Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/this-doesnt-have-to-be-our-future/2021/08/09/a7215d20-f6f8-11eb-a636-18cac59a98dc_story.html

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog post ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  

SCOTT MAXWELL, "OUR NATION TURNS ITS LONELY EYES TO YOU."

One of the joys of becoming a senior is not giving a hoot whether someone likes what you do as long as you like doing it (and it doesn't hurt anyone, of course).  Scott Maxwell's in-box at the Orlando Sentinel was full so my EMail to him came back to me.  There are two other ways that I can think of that I can try to contact him.  One is by blog post.  The other is by Twitter after this blog is posted.  I will try both.  First, my blog post, here.

Mr. Maxwell,

My wife and I read your columns.  We both enjoy your writing, and we both admire your work (most of the time, and more than enough to keep us admiring your work).

At her suggestion, I am embedding in this EMail an article I published on one of my blogs yesterday, Sunday, August 8.  It would be great if you could follow up on this story, for the sake of the children in Florida's public schools -- and for the sake of Florida taxpayers who have to foot the bills run up by the politicians in Tallahassee.

Thank you and stay well and safe.

Best,

Dennis Wall

_______________________________

AUGUST 08, 2021

MAKING YOU PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CHARTER SCHOOL:  FLORIDA COVID REPORT.

(Photo by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER /Los Angeles Times)

You may not choose to send your children to an unvaccinated charter school in a pandemic.  But you will end up paying for it in Florida under a new "emergency" rule reportedly issued by the Florida State Board of Education on Friday, August 6.

The Board of Education's emergency rule in the Covid pandemic would not require any vaccinations or masks so as to protect the children, staff, and teachers in any Florida schools.  To the contrary, it will make Florida State money available to parents who want to move their children to private schools that do not require masks, out of public schools that require masks in the pandemic.

The average cost of private school tuition in Florida is reported to be $9,157 a year.  This may prove to be the most expensive rule ever adopted by Florida's Education Board. 

Some background.  Florida's current governor threatened to withhold Florida State money from school districts that require masks.  It seems a long time ago, but it seems he said that a week ago Friday.  Since then, he was apparently told that he might not actually have that authority, because this Friday, he switched to the "emergency" rule from the State Board of Education to use Florida State money.

Either way, he wants to use Floridians' money to pay for what truly looks like the coming loss of public education in Florida.

(Jae C. Heng / Associated Press)

Whatever happens, you can bet that the governor's children and the Board Members' children and their friends' children will not be hurt.  But you can also bet on the certainty that your wallet will be hurt, because this is a big opportunity for some politicians and their cronies to make a buck by privatizing your children's education even if you have to pay for it, and even if your children are hurt by it.

These people are not letting anything or anyone stand in the way of their making money.  Journalists would do well to explore the bank accounts of these people and their stock holdings, wherever the public has access to this information.  For that matter, Freedom of Information Act requests might cover this information even when it is not publicly accessible.

(Photo taken by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER / Los Angeles Times)

If they are going to issue rules in our name with our money that are likely to hurt our kids, we have a right to know whether they are profiting from it.  It really is as simple as that.

-30 The End-

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE CHILDREN ARE NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

(Mary Ataffer/Associated Press)

 

The children don't want to get sick.

          The children don't want to die.

          Few of the children, probably none of the children, are motivated by the hope of the governor's friends to make money with private schools.   The cronies, not the children, are making public school dangerous.  That does not motivate the children.

The children are not running for president.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MAKING YOU PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CHARTER SCHOOL: FLORIDA COVID REPORT.

 

(Photo by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER /Los Angeles Times)

You may not choose to send your children to an unvaccinated charter school in a pandemic.  But you will end up paying for it in Florida under a new "emergency" rule reportedly issued by the Florida State Board of Education on Friday, August 6.

The Board of Education's emergency rule in the Covid pandemic would not require any vaccinations or masks so as to protect the children, staff, and teachers in any Florida schools.  To the contrary, it will make Florida State money available to parents who want to move their children to private schools that do not require masks, out of public schools that require masks in the pandemic.

The average cost of private school tuition in Florida is reported to be $9,157 a year.  This may prove to be the most expensive rule ever adopted by Florida's Education Board. 

Some background.  Florida's current governor threatened to withhold Florida State money from school districts that require masks.  It seems a long time ago, but it seems he said that a week ago Friday.  Since then, he was apparently told that he might not actually have that authority, because this Friday, he switched to the "emergency" rule from the State Board of Education to use Florida State money.

Either way, he wants to use Floridians' money to pay for what truly looks like the coming loss of public education in Florida.

(Jae C. Heng / Associated Press)

Whatever happens, you can bet that the governor's children and the Board Members' children and their friends' children will not be hurt.  But you can also bet on the certainty that your wallet will be hurt, because this is a big opportunity for some politicians and their cronies to make a buck by privatizing your children's education even if you have to pay for it, and even if your children are hurt by it.

These people are not letting anything or anyone stand in the way of their making money.  Journalists would do well to explore the bank accounts of these people and their stock holdings, wherever the public has access to this information.  For that matter, Freedom of Information Act requests might cover this information even when it is not publicly accessible.

(Photo taken by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER / Los Angeles Times)

If they are going to issue rules in our name with our money that are likely to hurt our kids, we have a right to know whether they are profiting from it.  It really is as simple as that.

Please read the disclaimer.   ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"PASSING THE BUCK:" ARE THEY COMPETENT, INCOMPETENT, OR WHAT?

(Ted S. Warren/Associated Press)

The States have been charged by Congress with distributing quite a bit of federal money lately.  That means that our federal tax dollars, yours and mine, are in the hands of State officials.

          Are they competent, incompetent, or what?

          Most recently, it has come to light that out of $46 Billion in federal appropriations to assist renters and owners with rent payments, the States have distributed only $3 Billion of it.  It is not even their money, it is our money, and it comes to the States from the federal government.  So the States do not even have to worry that spending it will somehow make them, the States, poorer for the spending; it won't.

          Still the States are not spending the federal money.

          States have also been tasked with paying federal money in supplemental unemployment benefits to people who cannot find a job during a pandemic.  In this area, the States are sometimes clear in their intent at least to reject the federal money:  Some States reject having to spend the federal money because, well, they are not clear why since it is not their money.  It is our money, and it comes to the States from the federal government.

          Still the States are not spending the federal money.

          There are other programs in which the States are being given the duty by Congress to spend federal money, and the States are not doing their duty.  States are not spending the federal money appropriated for these programs.  This business of having the States distribute federal money -- meaning, again, federal taxpayer dollars from you and me -- is apparently a new way of "passing the buck" in Washington.

          Are they competent, incompetent, or what?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

P.S. THE NEXT DAY, THEY WALKED THE WALK.

P.S.

The day after the "Walk the Walk" article was posted here, they walked the walk.

    The CDC issued a targeted moratorium against evicting the most vulnerable people who are renting their homes.  The article suggested exactly that.  In fairness, so did many other articles and many other people.

    The CDC put a 60-day term on its new moratorium.  60 days is long enough to allow States at least a further opportunity to get the $46 Billion out in federal aid money that the Congress appropriated to help renters and owners, tenants and landlords.

    Sixty days is also short enough, in a sense.  The Supreme Court is unlikely to be able to act against the new moratorium in that short timeframe.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WALK THE TALK. WALK THE WALK.

 

Covid Coffins.  (Associated Press)

This story began when Brett Kavanaugh and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have the authority to impose a moratorium on all evictions.  This ruling it must be noted came within one vote of an opposite decision, during a pandemic which makes it impossible to earn money to pay rent.

          It must also be noted that the legal issue before the Supreme Court was the CDC's authority to impose an eviction moratorium that would broadly prohibit all evictions across the board.

          The current administration has accepted this ruling as a limitation instead on its authority to declare a moratorium more narrowly, on any evictions at all.

          We did not know that, or at least I did not know that, until the moratorium expired.  However I and everyone else who knew anything about what I have said so far knew that the eviction moratorium was expiring July 31, 2021.

          The CDC reportedly looked for authority to declare a moratorium on evictions of the people who are most heavily impacted during the pandemic, and reportedly the CDC found no authority.  They just announced that.

          What if anything has this administration done between the time that Mr. Kavanaugh wrote his opinion for the Supreme Court, and the time that the eviction moratorium expired on July 31?  In terms of the eminently foreseeable mass evictions that would ensue without a moratorium, I mean.   We know that this administration has been very busy holding many, many meetings to talk with Republicans in what this administration calls a compromise on building roads.

          If they have been doing anything in terms of the risk of mass evictions, we do not know it.  We do know, however, that now this administration is rightly blaming the States for inaction in distributing federal funds to landlords so that the landlords do not evict their tenants who are behind on their rent.

          But we have known for months about the slowness of the States in distributing federal funds which were appropriated to rescue America, not only to prevent evictions but to address many other issues as well.  Looking at just the distribution of eviction prevention monies, we knew long before today that the States were dragging their feet, or to put it differently, taking their time.  So why is this news to this administration now?

          This administration came to power with the votes of many of the people who are facing the threat of eviction as a result of inaction.  And it's not a risk caused only by the inaction of States.  In a continuing pandemic, it's a deadly risk that's caused as well by the inaction of this administration.  They came to power talking the talk.

          Now they need to walk the talk.  Even better, they need to walk the walk.  If it's not too late already.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.