Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Biden and McCarthy play ‘Let’s Make a Deal’

 Over the weekend, Democrats and Republicans reached a tentative deal on the debt limit. This was good news that sent foreign financial markets higher on Monday as American markets stayed closed for Memorial Day. 

As predicted, the deal on the debt limit is being forged in the middle. My first clue that a deal had been reached was a Twitter friend’s Sunday morning tweet that “the Republicans folded like a cheap card table again and basically got steamrolled.” Then I saw reports that progressives were upset about the deal as well. 


It’s axiomatic that a good compromise often leaves both sides unhappy. If that’s the case, this deal seems to fit the definition of fairness. 

So, what is in the deal? 

From various sources, the tentative agreement includes:

  • A suspension of the debt limit through January 2025 

  • A limit of one percent for Fiscal Year 2024 for increases in nondefense spending 

  • A three-percent increase in military spending to $886 billion

  • Veterans programs will be fully funded for FY 2024 at $121 billion, which includes $20.3 billion for a toxic exposure fund 

  • $637 billion for other nondefense programs

  • Cuts of up to $21.4 billion in funds previously authorized for IRS enforcement. About $1.4 billion is rescinded immediately and the rest over several years.

  • Rescission of up to $29 billion in unspent COVID funds

  • An increase in the maximum age of able-bodied, low-income adults who are required to work in order to qualify for food aid through SNAP. The maximum age will be increased to 54 from 49.

  • Eliminating work requirements for the homeless, veterans, and young people leaving foster care

  • Lowering the share of exemptions from work requirements that states can grant from 12 percent of recipients to eight percent

  • Forces a one-percent cut in government spending if all 12 appropriations bills are not passed by the end of the year

As you can see, there’s a little something for everyone… and a little something for everyone to hate. Republicans like the slowdown in the growth of spending, the cuts to the IRS budget, and the stiffer work requirements for federal aid. Democrats like the fact that Joe Biden won’t preside over a default and the elimination of work requirements for some groups.

Last week, I wrote that this year there seemed to be a real possibility of default. The fact that there is an agreement is a good sign, but it still has to get to President Biden’s desk. It must pass a Republican-controlled House where Speaker McCarthy has a tenuous hold on his caucus and a narrowly-divided Senate where a filibuster is a possibility. Ultimately, passage is likely, but the wingnuts at both ends of the spectrum may try to ensure that passage does not come easily. In truth, McCarthy probably doesn’t want to go down in history with a default on his record any more than Biden does.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a Freedom Caucus member, has already announced that he will oppose the deal. Other members of the “usual suspects” crowd such as Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Lauren Boebert (R-Col.), and even Ron DeSantis have indicated that they are opposed to the deal. I have not seen a statement from The Former Guy, but he presumably opposes the deal since he previously said Republicans should “not make a deal on the debt ceiling unless they get everything they want (Including [sic] the ‘kitchen sink’).” 

Some have indicated an intent to make every one of the appropriations bills an individual battle. The provision for automatic cuts if the appropriations bills don’t pass could easily become a temptation to scuttle the whole process. 

The deal may be even more costly for McCarthy than he now realizes. Thinking back a few months to January when McCarthy eked out enough support to become Speaker after 15 ballots, he agreed to several conditions in order to win over the necessary holdouts. One of those was a change to House rules that would allow a single Republican congressman to call a vote to fire the Speaker. With a lot of unhappy Republicans in his caucus, McCarthy may find that the bill for his speakership has come due. 

Open opposition from sitting Democrats has been harder to find, but the White House has been on the defensive against progressives angry at the work requirements and who believe that there should have been no concessions at all. 

I do think that there is a segment of the Republican Party that would be willing to default to either force spending cuts or simply to own President Biden. Similarly, some progressive Democrats would prefer to force a confrontation over the 14th Amendment. Thankfully, cooler heads seem to have prevailed. 

Thank you for reading The Racket News. This post is public so feel free to share it.


JANUARY 6 DEFENDANT STATS: The Wall Street Journal has a series of interesting graphics that break down the disposition of January 6 cases. It’s behind a paywall but worth your time if you have a subscription. 

ERDOGAN CLAIMED VICTORY in Turkey’s presidential elections. Erdogan was apparently elected to another five-year term. 

Monday, May 29, 2023

What do you say on Memorial Day?

 Have you ever struggled with what to say on Memorial Day?

For most holidays, it’s easy to come up with a greeting. Just insert the word “happy” in front of the name of the holiday. Or in the case of Christmas, exchange “happy” for “merry.”

Memorial Day is not like other holidays.

white wooden fence near green trees during daytime
Photo by Janne Simoes on Unsplash

Share The Racket News

Memorial Day is not a happy occasion. Despite our tendency to use the three-day weekend for cookouts and trips to the lake or beach, Memorial Day is a solemn occasion.

Memorial Day is a time that is set aside to remember America’s war dead. It is a time when my friends who are combat veterans are posting lists of their buddies who were killed in action.

To say, “Happy Memorial Day” seems a bit inappropriate, if not insensitive.

Chances are that it isn’t going to be a happy day for the soldier whose buddy didn’t come home. For the spouse who is now alone. For the child without a parent.

So what do you say?

I did a bit of googling and there doesn’t seem to be a correct answer. While some people take Memorial Day as a time to thank veterans and active duty service members for their service, this isn’t really appropriate either. Veterans Day, celebrated on November 11, the anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, is set aside to honor living veterans. Armed Forces Day, the third Saturday in May, honors current military members.

Memorial Day is not for the living.

There are a few pieces out there that consider the options. KSAT in San Antonio, a big military town, makes several suggestions along the lines of “Enjoy your weekend, and I will be thinking about those who are no longer with us.” That makes the point, but it’s a bit verbose and clumsy. The KSAT article is useful for some examples of what not to say as well (i.e. “How many friends did you lose on your deployments?”).

NPR suggests "I hope you're having a meaningful day." That’s succinct, but also a little vague.

Probably the best suggestion that I’ve seen comes from Nine Line Apparel’s website. The company recommends “Remember Memorial Day.” That is specific and it’s in keeping with the meaning of the day.

And follow the new tradition of observing a moment of silence and remembrance at 3:00 pm. This tradition was begun during Clinton Administration and codified into federal law in 2000. If you’re near a military base or an observance, you may hear “Taps” this afternoon at the appointed time.

As you go about your afternoon, no one is going to think less of you if you say “Happy Memorial Day.” If they think about it at all, people will think that you mean well.

But if you do think about it, maybe try one of the other salutations or phrases that better reflect the meaning of the day.

What do you typically say on Memorial Day? What should we say? Leave a comment with your suggestions.

Thank you for reading The Racket News. This post is public so feel free to share it.


As an added bonus, I’m going to reach way back into my files and pull out a piece that I wrote in 2012 for Examiner.com. Examiner no longer exists, but I preserved the article on my blog. It tells the story of some Memorial Day detective work that unearthed the very interesting story of

DeWitt Rucker: Buffalo Soldier of the M.P.E.

It was around Memorial Day 2011 that a high school friend posted a message on her Facebook page. In my hometown, there was a display on the town square honoring the veterans from Hart County who were killed in action. Predictably, there were veterans from the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, but one memorial was a mystery.

This memorial honored Private DeWitt Rucker. The conflict listed under his name was simply “M.P.E.” Since the memorial did not give the date of Pvt. Rucker’s death, my friend wondered what conflict the M.P.E was. After trying unsuccessfully to determine how and when Rucker died, she described the experience on Facebook to see if anyone else knew. Searches of the military and history websites for some clue to Rucker’s story yielded nothing. Googling “M.P.E.” did not turn up any relevant results. Eventually, with a handful of people scouring the internet, some details of how DeWitt Rucker died for his country became known.

The break came when Pvt. Rucker’s name was found listed on a memorial to Buffalo Soldiers at Ft. Bliss, Tx. The Buffalo Soldiers were black soldiers in the U.S. Army. The nickname was acquired during the Indian Wars, but all-black units of Buffalo Soldiers fought in several American wars until the armed forces were desegregated.

The key to decoding the “M.P.E.” reference was also on the website describing the Buffalo Soldiers memorial. Pvt. Rucker was among the casualties of the Battle of Carrizal, Mexico on June 21, 1916. The battle was part of a campaign known as the Mexico Punitive Expedition, the M.P.E.

The adventure into Mexico began on March 9, 1916, when Mexican bandits under Francisco “Pancho” Villa, who led one of the factions vying for control of Mexico, raided the border town of Columbus, N.M. according to the National Archives. The raid killed 10 American soldiers and eight civilians with another seven soldiers and two civilians wounded. An estimated 100 bandits were killed, seven wounded, and one captured before the remainder escaped back into Mexico. The Americans pursued the bandits several miles into Mexico but were forced to turn back due to a shortage of ammunition and supplies.

As a result of the raid, President Woodrow Wilson, apparently without congressional authorization, ordered a U.S. force that eventually numbered 11,000 men under Gen. John “Black Jack” Pershing to capture Villa. With tacit approval, but very little in the way of cooperation, from Mexican president Venustiano Carranza, the U.S. Army set out into the Mexican state of Chihuahua, south of New Mexico and west Texas. For the first time, trucks and airplanes were used in a military expedition (with less than stellar results).

Pancho Villa and his men retreated before the American onslaught, hiding in the rugged mountains of Mexico. Although the local Mexicans hated Villa, they like the Americans even less and offered little help. There were a few skirmishes with Villa’s men, but the bandit chief eluded capture.

To make matters worse, there were also skirmishes with the Mexican army. On April 13, 1916, the Mexican army attacked Americans of the 13th Cavalry at Parral. One American was killed and one was wounded, while the Mexicans lost at least 14 men.

Other skirmishes were fought against the bandits as well. Dozens of bandits were killed or captured with few American losses, but Villa remained at large. At the same time, Mexican raiders continued to raid border towns in Texas. In May and June 1916, Congress approved activation of National Guard units to patrol the U.S. side of the border.

On June 21, American soldiers again clashed with the Mexican army at Carrizal. Acting on intelligence that Pancho Villa was in the town, Pershing dispatched the Buffalo Soldiers of C and K Troops of the 10th Cavalry under Capt. Charles Boyd with orders “to avoid a fight if possible.” Instead of Villa, the cavalrymen ran into Mexican government soldiers who were guarding the town. Max Boot describes what happened next in his excellent book, “The Savage Wars of Peace:”

There was no good reason not to bypass the town, and that is precisely what Boyd’s civilian guides advised, but for some mysterious reason Boyd insisted on going through with it. He was not deterred even when the Mexican general commanding the Carrizal garrison informed him that if he advanced “he would have to walk over the dead bodies of Mexican soldiers.” Boyd was said to have instructed a messenger, “Tell the son of a bitch that we’re going through!”

Boyd dismounted his cavalry and ordered them to advance across a grassy field toward an irrigation ditch where the vastly superior Mexican force was dug in. When the Americans were about 250 yards from their position, the Carrancistas opened fire with rifles and machine gun. Nearly all the men in Troop C were wounded. The Buffalo Soldiers fought bravely, but with bullets “falling like rain,” and their own ammunition running out, they had no chance of prevailing. All the officers, including Captain Boyd, were killed quickly. The troopers, left leaderless, were routed by Mexican cavalry. Twelve Americans were killed that day, 10 wounded, and 24 captured. The rest ran away. The Mexicans lost more men – at least 30 killed, 40 wounded – but the battle of Carrizal was an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. Army.

Pvt. DeWitt Rucker, native of Hart County and U.S. Army Buffalo Soldier, was among the dead. It was rumored that Pancho Villa watched with amusement from a hideout in the mountains as his two enemies battled, but in reality, he is believed to have been wounded at the time.

At this point, the U.S. and Mexico were on the brink of war. Leaders of both countries paused. Carranza agreed to release the U.S. prisoners who had survived the battle. According to Boot, these men blamed Boyd for provoking the battle in violation of his orders from Pershing, which helped calm the situation. Eventually, the U.S. agreed to withdraw its forces from Mexico if Carranza could control Villa. The American forces in Mexico began to return home in January 1917. The conflict officially ended on February 5. The National Guard was demobilized and the troops returned home.
Army units remained along the border to protect against further raids.

In spite of the failure to capture Pancho Villa, the expedition was officially considered a success. The National Archives records the words of Secretary of War Newton Baker: “[the] objective, of course, was the capture of Villa, if that could be accomplished, but its real purpose was a display of the power of the United States into a country disturbed beyond control of the constituted authorities of the Republic of Mexico as a means of controlling lawless aggregations of bandits and preventing attacks by them across the international frontier.  This purpose is fully and finally accomplished."

Only a few months after the end of the American incursion into Mexico, President Wilson and General Pershing were fighting a new enemy as the United States entered WWI. Memory of the Mexico Punitive Expedition was overshadowed by the epic struggle against the Kaiser in Europe. A 1917 silent movie, “A Trooper of Troop K,” was based on Buffalo Soldiers at the Battle of Carrizal.

Fighting continued in Mexico as it had before the Americans had arrived. Carranza fought for control of Mexico against Villa and Emiliano Zapata. Carranza was assassinated in 1920 while fleeing a coup attempt. Pancho Villa was given amnesty by the new government but was assassinated himself in 1923. Another rumor has him saying as he died, “Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something.” In reality, he is reported to have died instantly.

There are many similarities between current Mexican-American relations and those of 100 years ago. Violence along the border is increasing and threatens to spill over into the United States. The National Guard has been called upon to patrol border areas. Tensions are running high between the two nations over illegal immigration and the Obama Administration’s policy of allowing guns to be smuggled to Mexican drug cartels. Perhaps, the lessons of the past can teach us to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Since I included a reference to Fast and Furious in my original piece, I think it’s only fair to comment that invading Mexico may be an issue in 2024. Reason recently pointed out that there is a growing share of Republicans who believe that the US military should be used to attack drug cartels in Mexico. This idea seems very similar to the Mexico Punitive Expedition of 1916.

Maybe we don’t learn from history.

From the Racket News