Yellow Jackets and Fuel Taxes: How NOT to address climate change

I’m more then a little late addressing the Yellow Jacket’s riots in France. However, that’s in large part because I tend to try and focus solely on US politics, instead of the political affairs of foreign governments. However, I was reading an article in New Scientist (from mid-December, I’m a little behind on my reading, kids will do that to you), that got me riled up on the issue, because it tries to normalize the concept of hiking fuel taxes, which could lead to US politicians picking up the idea (although with how well Macron’s proposed tax hike went we are probably safe from that).

The reason behind the author’s support of the tax hikes, climate change. The author, Olive Heffernan, argues that fuel taxes, especially on diesel, are necessary because transportation emissions needs to drop in order to contain global temperature increases. She argues that not only should Macron’s tax hikes stay, but other countries should take note and follow his example.

She goes on to equate an increase on fuel taxes to increases on cigarette taxes, her argument being that they are the same because cigarettes are bad for your health and diesel is bad for the environment, so we just need to get used to the higher taxes to leave the world a better place.

There are a few major problems with Heffernan’s arguments. The first is the idea that cigarette taxes and fuel taxes are even remotely similar. Cigarettes are a nicety, fuel is a necessity. If cigarette prices get too high, you cut back if you can’t afford them. If fuel prices get to high you can’t not go to work. You can’t leave your kids at the sitter because it costs too much to go pick them up. You go on living and cough up the extra money for fuel.

Claiming that France needs higher fuel taxes to curb driving ignores the fact that France already pays an insanely high price for fuel, over 7 dollars a gallon. That’s more than twice what most Americans pay. Additionally, France and the rest of Europe already tax the hell out of fuel. In France, gasoline is taxed at 64 percent, diesel at 59 percent. That means of that 7 dollars a gallon for fuel, 4.52 cents of it goes straight to taxes.

The second problem with Heffernan’s argument is that, in the United States, the average tax for a pack of cigarettes is just over 44 percent of the retail price. That’s 20 percent less then what France pays in taxes for fuel already. And they want to take more.

This of course, ignores the crux of Heffernan’s argument, that these taxes are a necessary evil to combat climate change. The problem is that’s just not true. Yes, global emissions from vehicles need to be brought down to address climate change. But you do that by attacking the companies that are making the vehicles to begin with.

You incentivize their production of all electric and hybrid vehicles, making it more cost effective for the auto manufacturers to make them, and cheaper for the consumer to buy them. And while that takes time to make an impact, there are things you can be doing immediately to combat climate change.

You can ensure that building and HVAC units are upgraded to minimize energy consumption. You can encourage public works projects that protect and expand environmental zones. You can invest in green technology and renewable energies. There is a lot you can be doing.  

But you don’t raise taxes on necessities that are going to have life altering impacts on the lower and middle class. France has given us a blueprint on how NOT to address climate change. And what Heffernan misses is that there is more than one way to skin a goose, and the path France picked is just dead wrong.

No Deal and No Exercises: What Trump Gave up for Nothing

Much has been made of President Donald Trump’s decision to walk away from the Hanoi Summit without a deal towards denuclearization. But when I heard the news, I took a sigh of relief. Not that I wouldn’t have loved to hear about a deal leading to a denuclearized Korean peninsula, but that was never going to happen.

The fear for many US allies was that Trump was going to make some major concessions to for the semblance of progress, when the North has taken no steps towards denuclearization since their first summit. Yet, Trump was so in need for a political win, that many people feared that he would agree to almost anything, just to come back with a deal.

Instead, Trump took the responsible road, and left without an agreement. This was far from a guaranteed outcome going into the summit, even if the world knew that North Korea was never going to give up their nuclear arsenal. Still Trump choose to once again cancel the large-scale war games between the United States and South Korea, because it cost “hundreds of millions of dollars”.

That’s despite the fact that the Pentagon stated that similar exercises have cost about 11 million dollars in the past. Trump has not provided any sources for his “hundreds of millions of dollars” reference. Of course, this is coming from some who thinks war games are “fun and nice”. Something only someone who has never had to complete their day job in MOPP 4 would say.

Trump goes onto say that he doesn’t think war games aren’t necessary, but he doesn’t say they are necessary either. It’s one of those things only Trump himself can articulate:

“And I was telling the generals, I said, ‘Look, exercises is fun and it’s nice and they play the war games, and I’m not saying it’s not necessary because, on some levels, it is. But on other levels, it’s not.’”

Ret. Navy Vice Adm. Robert Murrett had this to say about the repeated cancellation of the joint exercises “It’s very serious because I think our capability with respect to the Korean Peninsula is in the process of atrophying at all the levels”.

But I guess that’s just one of those things that “isn’t necessary”. However, it is important to be able to enter any negotiations from a position of strength, something Trump should be familiar with as the author of “The Art of the Deal”.

And what those war games provides is the ability to negotiate from that position of strength, while ensuring that we are able to defend ourselves if diplomacy fails. Those war games aren’t “fun and nice”, they’re what ensures our service members have the capabilities to defeat any adversaries on the battle field. Giving them up will only hurt our long-term negotiations.

The Rich get Richer: Income Inequality in the US

The United States has a wealth distribution problem. 80 percent of the wealth created in the United States in 2017 was created by the top 1 percent of earners. That’s insane. What’s even more insane is that top one percent of earners now have more wealth then the bottom 90 percent combined.

And yet as a country we seem to be okay with this fact. We seem to be so okay with this fact that we decided to exacerbate the problem by cutting the top tax brackets from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. Even more we cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, in another move that primarily benefits the top earners.

That’s even though income disparity in the United States was already getting worse, not better, before the tax cuts. Top earners now make 90 percent more than they did in 1963, while the bottom only saw their pay increase by 10 percent over that same period. That’s an insane income disparity statistic that we shouldn’t be okay with.

Even worse, the bottom 10 percent of Americans were, on average, 1,000 dollars in debt in 2016. That’s compared to having no wealth, and no debt, in 1963. If you were in the middle (50th percentile) you doubled your wealth in that same span. But if you were in the top 10 percent it increased 500 percent, and those in the top 1 percent saw it increase by 700 percent.

What’s that all mean in one simple statistic? In 1963 the top earners had six times more wealth then the average American. In 2016 they had 12 times the wealth. It’s a problem that is getting worse not better.

We’ve been taught that if you keep your head down and work hard you can claw your way up to the top, but the truth of the matter is if you keep your head down and work hard, you’ll be lucky to claw your way out of debt. That’s what the statistics are showing us.

Income disparity like we have in the United States is crippling for an economy, it stagnates growth and increases the government’s indebtedness. Something needs to be done. We start by identifying who the one percent are.

To be in the top 1 percent of all earners your household must be bringing in a minimum of 481,000 dollars a year. And while that’s no number to sneeze at, it pales in comparison to the top .01 percent of earners, which bring in 35.1 million dollars a year, and the top .001 percent of earners which bring in 152 million dollars a year.

That’s compared to the average American household, those in the 50th percentile, that make just under 40,000 a year. I would imagine that most Americans tend to believe that more than half the households in the country make 40,000 a year, but that’s part of the problem.

We are led to believe that the wealth in our country is better distributed then it is. But the truth of the matter is, as time goes on income inequality keeps getting worse, and that’s a trend we just can’t afford to continue. We need to ensure that income inequality doesn’t get any worse then it is, or else we can rest assured that our economy, and our country, is going to suffer. dlocked0

Amazon and Taxes: Why you should be IRATE

If President Donald Trump was truly worried about working for the American people, the first thing he would have done after getting elected is to start to close some of the loopholes that major corporations use to avoid paying federal income taxes. It’s something that he has a lot of experience in, he’s run these mega-corporations, he’s used these loopholes, so he knows how to close them.

Instead, he expanded those loopholes resulting in corporations like Amazon being able to pay ZERO dollars in federal income taxes for all of 2017 and 2018. To make matters worse, it’s estimated that Amazon not only didn’t pay any federal income taxes in 2017, but it’s estimated they received a $137 million-dollar REFUND.

That’s right, when Amazon filed their taxes in 2017, the government wrote THEM a check, that’s even though they brought in 5.6 billion dollars in PROFIT in 2017, but that wasn’t enough, clearly, we needed to send them another 137 million dollars. I mean, what could Jeff Bezos do with a measly 5.6 billion dollars? The poor man’s company clearly deserved a refund.

Then after getting a tax refund in 2017, what did Donald Trump and the GOP do for mega corporations in their new tax plan? They cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent for 2018 and beyond. In the minds of President Trump and the GOP, companies like Amazon were paying too much, and they needed a break.

What was the result? Despite Amazon almost doubling its profits from 2017 to 2018, to a whopping 11.2 billion dollars, Amazon still got another check from the federal government, this time for 129 million dollars. If it wasn’t for all the federal income tax loopholes, that President Trump and the GOP allowed to stay in place, Amazon would have paid 6.146 billion dollars MORE then it did in taxes over the last two years.

If you’re still wondering why President Trump doesn’t want to reveal his tax returns, it’s because of loopholes like this. The mega rich don’t pay taxes, they find loophole after loophole so they can hoard their billions, then they turn around and claim that they are paying too much, to try and get further tax breaks.

It’s about time we say enough is enough, and demand that these major corporations pay their fair share, instead of giving them hundreds of millions of dollars every tax season.

The REAL impact of Trump’s “National Emergency”

President Donald Trump rocked the political world by declaring a “National Emergency” to try and power grab his way to 8 billion dollars to build his oft touted “border wall”, that is going to stop all illegal immigration, all illegal drug usage, and keep the dragons from storming Westeros and taking over King’s Landing. Well of course that’s not all true, I don’t think he’s claimed that it’s going to stop ALL illegal drug usage, just most of it.

Still the grab at money here still has consequences, even if the money never gets directed to the wall because of the court system. The money will be coming from a variety of programs from military construction projects to drug prevention programs, and while everything goes through the court system, those funds get frozen.

The Trump administration has said that they plan to use 3.6 billion dollars from the military construction budget, which currently sits at 10 billion dollars. But don’t worry according to Trump, he’s already talked to “the generals” about this and this is what he says they told him:

“I was speaking to a couple of them, they think this is far more important than what they were going to use it for. I said what were you going to use it for, and I won’t go into details, but didn’t sound too important to me”

According to The Associated Press those funds are used for improving housing, roads, hospitals, and other facilities. It can be used to eliminate mold or other hazardous conditions in buildings at well. Those Congressional hearings by military families living in mold and rodent infested buildings this past week? President Trump repaid them by cutting funding towards the repair of some of those buildings, and then said it “didn’t sound too important to me”.

Another area that Trump could choose to cut from is towards a hospital being built at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. I guess that doesn’t sound to important to Trump either?

According to Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, “You are cutting a lot of projects the military was planning on, it means there are facilities, barracks, clinics and office buildings, you name it, they won’t be building”. To that Trump says it doesn’t “sound too important to me”.

These are projects designed to improve the quality of life for service members and their families, but I guess that just isn’t important in the eyes of President Trump.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a letter Friday to Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan requesting a detailed list of all the military construction projects that could be impacted by the move. This is something that needs to be done, so the American people can see just what the President is willing to sacrifice in order to get his wall.

Another area that Trump can pull from to fund his border wall, is from the Pentagon’s drug interdiction program that has an annual budget of about $1 billion dollars. That money is currently used towards counter-drug activities, including towards detection and monitoring. As an example, school counter-drug programs run by the National Guard will probably be nixed.

Don’t worry, it’s not like we have a major drug problem in our country or anything, counter-drug programs for high schoolers seems like it’s something that should be cut for sure.

And while major Democrats are using this opportunity to say that they will be able to use this move in the future when a Democrat is in the White House, in order to address things like climate change (which is a far more real national emergency then the need for a border wall), it only further exacerbates the problem. Because it means that if this move is successful, the loss of funds will be more than a one-time thing. Those funds could be taken year after year, which will end up having a significant impact on the quality of life of our military community.

There is NOTHING “radical” about AOC’s Green New Deal

Photo Credit: Senate Democrats

While much has been made about the “Green New Deal” proposed by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, the biggest controversies seem to be coming from what’s not in the resolution. Critics have clung to text from Ocasio-Cortez’s website, which included, economic security for those “unwilling to work”. And while that was posted on Ocasio-Cortez’s website, it isn’t what was in the resolution presented to Congress.

It’s the same when people bring up “airplanes being made obsolete” or “reducing carbon issues from beef”. None of that is in the resolution, it’s all from text on Ocasio-Cortez’s website on how SHE wants to lower carbon emissions. But even if you don’t agree with her specific plan you should still agree with her resolution. Because everyone should be able to agree on the fact that carbon emissions NEED to be reduced and that we NEED to reach net-zero global emissions.

The resolution is intentionally kept vague and doesn’t provide any specifics so that people with differing views on how to reduce carbon emissions can agree to the resolution. Additionally, it provides common sense information on what Congress should be looking into doing to ensure a world that is suitable for future generations.

The resolution starts out by pointing out facts about manmade climate change. These facts are backed up by the scientific community, and every expert in their respective fields. Only Trump and some of his far-right conspiracy theorist supporters are still in the camp of denying the human impact on climate change.

After presenting some eye-popping statistics, including:

(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—

(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;

(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;

(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;

(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;

(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and

(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;

 it goes onto some more generic initiatives, that not too many people can disagree with, even if we disagree on how to get there. Still there are some provisions in the resolution that have provided some minor controversies. For example,  

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

The biggest controversy of this statement is “all existing buildings”, but that doesn’t have to be a major upgrade to make a significant impact. Many climate experts recommend a simple step like switching to LED bulbs or treating your windows to let in less light which can reduce heating and cooling costs.

If every building in the country was upgraded with these simple steps it would make a significant difference. And while we can argue about how to implement such a plan, what shouldn’t be argued is that it’s a worthy goal.

Another section that might be deemed “controversial”

(O) providing all people of the United States with—

(i) high-quality health care;

Once again this is a prime example of an action that shouldn’t be controversial, even if we disagree on how to get there. The problem is right now the GOP has no idea how to get there, so agreeing to the fact that every American deserves “high-quality health care” can be a hard sell.

But it shouldn’t be, nothing in this resolution is radical or ground-breaking information, it’s the reality of the world we live in, and it’s time for Congress to wake up to that fact. Only once we get everyone on board, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, can we start making progress to reducing carbon emissions in the United States and do our part to ensure a world that the younger generation and their family can live in.

Click this link for the full text of the resolution presented to Congress.

Medicare for all and Tricare

single payer
Photo Credit: Michael Fleshman

Medicare-for-all is shaping up to be a major focus for Democrats looking to replace President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Still when Kamala Harris came out in favor of eliminating private insurance companies – a staple in most single payer systems, Democrats recoiled.

That begs the question do Democrats really know what they are pushing for when they are demanding a single payer system? The closest resemblance to a single payer system in the United States is Tricare, the health insurance military members are given (For those that want to be technical, Tricare Prime).

And as such I think that it’s the perfect way to evaluate how a single payer system would work in the United States. Yes, I understand the funding will be different, but most Americans DO realize that going to a single payer system would result in an increase in taxes – and by how much is still up for a bit of debate, although countries in Europe provide a good estimate for this.

Now as a military member I had Tricare for several years, so I know a few things about how it works from a user’s perspective.

The cost to the user has to be the biggest advantage in a single payer system – now I understand that we will all be “paying” for it in a national single payer system through taxes, but the difference is it doesn’t matter if you get cancer, you won’t get a bill. It’s stress free, you no longer have to worry about if your health or a freak accident is going to bankrupt you. You don’t have to worry about copays or deductibles, you just know your covered.

My kids have a variety of (small) medical issues, their therapies never cost me a dime on Tricare. When I talked to their doctors about what they needed I never had to ask about the cost, instead I got to ask about what the best treatment options were without having to worry about if I could afford it.

Furthermore, with Tricare preexisting conditions don’t matter. Now to get on Tricare as a military member preexisting conditions are a thing, they won’t let you join the military if you have a multitude of different health concerns, thus excluding you from Tricare. However, for spouses or kids, it doesn’t matter what they have – as soon as they marry the service member everything is 100% covered. With a single payer system, you don’t have to marry a military member to get this kind of full coverage if you have a preexisting condition. Simply by being an American you would have healthcare.

Still the biggest drawback on a single payer system is your ability to choose your doctor. In Tricare you are assigned a primary care doctor who handles all your day to day care and refers you out to other specialists if you need them. While that works great if you have a good primary care doctor, if he isn’t any good it can lead to a lot of headaches. While you can change your primary care doctor it can be a pain.

In a civilian single payer system there would have to be a system to address who you can see, if not everyone is going to want to see the top doctor every time their nose runs. I think a system where you have a choice between 3 primary care doctors – think a family health doctor, that can refer you out to specialists is the way to go. Of course, being limited on who you can see is a definite drawback of the system.

With this information and my personal experience on Tricare I am a strong activist for a single payer system. It is insane that in the United States there are people that lose every dime in their savings account or go into massive debt because they fall and break their arm. It’s even crazier that there are people with cancer that can’t get treatment because they can’t afford it. They are sentenced to die because they can’t afford the care that could save their life. People deserve better, and in America we have the option to give them better, it’s beyond time we did so.

 

Addressing a potential cause of suicide in the Military: BMT

Basic training

I want to start out this story by stating this for whoever might need to hear it. If you are thinking about suicide seek help. It’s never too late to get help and there are people out there that care about you. Seeking help doesn’t make you weak, knowing when you need someone else to help you out is a sign of strength, if you are thinking about taking your own life, talk to someone and get help.

According to data obtained by Stars and Stripes, a military news source, the Marine Corps hit a 10 year high on the number of suicides committed by its members. Overall 75 Marines killed themselves in 2018, up from 42 in 2008.

The majority of those that killed themselves, 63 percent, were under the age of 25.  Additionally, most of those who killed themselves had not seen combat or been deployed overseas. So that rules out the reason for the increase being related to an increase in combat operations and PTSD, not surprisingly so since our troops are seeing less deployments then they were 10 years ago.

Additionally, suicide has become a high focus item in the military, leading to more training and resources then ever to address the issue.

But that begs the question why are troops killing themselves at a growing rate if the job is getting less dangerous and troops are being presented with more options for help?

With such a complex issue there certainly are multiple underlying reasons, but here’s my take on one of the potential causes, backed up only by my own experiences while in the military:

I went to Lackland Air Force Base in 2013 for Basic Military Training (BMT). When I went it was shortly after a massive sexual assault scandal where trainees were being raped by their MTI’s. Following this scandal every policy surrounding trainees and their treatment by MTI’s was looked at, and rightfully so, no one should sign up to serve their country and get raped while in training.

However, a big result of that was on how MTI’s could treat trainees while in training. For instance, they put restrictions on how much physical training (i.e. pushups, sit-ups, flutter-kicks, etc…) they could issue out as a punishment for things, they made it so MTI’s couldn’t cuss at trainees, MTI’s couldn’t throw mail at trainees, and they even gave trainees a “safe space”, although not one a student on a college campus would recognize!

The “safe space” was our day room, you could still get yelled at by a MTI in there, but they couldn’t make you do physical training in there, and they were supposed to take it a little easier on you in there. In fact, I had a MTI put a fellow trainee “on his face” (made him do pushups) in the day room once, realized his mistake, had him move to the hallway to finish his pushups, then APOLOGIZED TO HIM for making him do pushups in the day room. And I’m not talking about a snarky “I’m sorry”, I mean a full “please don’t tell on me” apology.

Now don’t get me wrong, BMT still isn’t a COMPLETE joke, we did have several people washout and go back home because they couldn’t handle it. But we also had people that shouldn’t have made it get pushed through the system.

In my flight we had a trainee try and kill himself. He failed, mainly because he was in a flight of 49 other trainees that ensured he would fail. He left, got the help he needed and moved on with his life. It’s good he didn’t make it through BMT, for his sake.

You see the military isn’t for everyone, and that’s alright. Service members give up a bunch of their rights and freedoms when they join, they go where the military tells them to, do what the military tells them to do, and that’s that. You work whatever hours they tell you to work, without overtime pay or compensation, for relatively little money. It’s a complete change in lifestyle that civilians can’t understand (The changes in lifestyle are far reaching, not just what is mentioned here, it would take an entire post of its own to even begin to address them all).

BMT is supposed to ween people out that aren’t suitable for a military lifestyle. That doesn’t make these people bad or anything, it just means they aren’t cut out for the military, and like I said before, that’s alright.

But by watering down BMT, MTI’s are less able to weed out those individuals that never belonged in the military to begin with. That’s not a good thing. BMT is supposed to stress you the hell out, that’s kind of the point. If you go to war and get put in a combat situation that’s going to be a hell of a lot more stressful then whatever they put you through in BMT.

But it goes beyond that, BMT is temporary, the stress of a military lifestyle is permanent, well at least until your contract is up, so four to six years. If you can’t handle the stress dished out at BMT you’re not going to be able to handle the stress from a military lifestyle.

And the easier they make BMT the more people are going to get pushed through the system that can’t handle the stress of a military lifestyle. There’s nothing wrong with those people, everyone has their breaking point, but by making BMT easier we aren’t doing anyone any favors, in fact I think they are putting more lives at risk.

Book Review: Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America

founding-faith.jpgOriginally published in 2008, Founding Faith by Steven Waldman has aged like a fine bottle of wine, amazing when it was first published and even better now. The arguments Waldman uses when applying the viewpoints of the founding fathers to the issues of today are well-researched, unbiased, and still ring true.

The book starts out by studying the religious roots of the original 13 colonies, and how they tied into the American Revolution. He presents the facts about how early Christianity was practiced in the 13 colonies, and it is impossible to miss the similarities between the brutality of Christianity at the time and that of the radical Muslims of today, even though Waldman himself never explicitly points this out.

Furthermore, Waldman declares the American Revolution nothing short of a “holy war” and is able to back up his assertation with well researched facts and arguments. His research makes the fact that the colonists’ religious beliefs were instrumental to the Revolution.

Throughout the book, Waldman goes on to present the religious views of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison in a way that is easy to read and accessible to all, while showcasing the early lives of these founding fathers that brought them to their views on faith.

Finally, he digs into the religious arguments being made at the time of the American Revolution, all the way to and through the passage of the Bill of Rights.

Waldman’s ability to present the debates and political tactics of the 18th century in a way that reminds the reader of the political battles of today gives you faith that what we are facing today is not so different from what our country was going through over 200 years ago, and we made it through just fine.

Jam-packed with information about the formation of our country, and how it applies to the issues our country is facing today, this book should be required reading for every high-school student. Below is a link to Amazon if you’d like to get a copy of the book yourself.

Feel free to share this post, re-blog it, or just let me know what you think the comments! If you’ve already read this book, I’d love to hear from you!

 

The Shutdown is Over: Now we need to make sure it NEVER happens again

government_shutdown_sign_(10174816623)What this government shutdown has shown just about every American and politician, is that shutdowns like this cannot happen. Government workers cannot go without paychecks for weeks on end because of political games. And in a sense, we were lucky, this was a PARTIAL government shutdown, and the effects were still profound.

Do you really think that the politicians would have handled the situation any differently if it was a full shutdown? Don’t count me as someone with any confidence that they would have.

With that being said, there is a lesson to be learned here, and a solution to be implemented. The lesson learned? We can’t let this happen again.

What’s the solution? If the federal government cannot get a budget passed on time, then the country should automatically be funded by a continuing resolution until a budget gets passed. To ensure that the CR is not the new permanent budget, it should be reduced by 5 percent every month, with government employees’ salaries the LAST thing to be affected.

This is a bipartisan solution to a problem that has become increasingly worse in recent years. Obama did it in 2013 to get the Affordable Care Act pushed through and now Trump is trying to do it to get his wall built. Holding government employees’ hostage to get what you want is not how you govern.  

A new budget needs to get passed in the next three weeks, and a provision to ensure that a shutdown like just happened never happens again NEEDS to be in it. It’s what the American people deserve.