Southwest Florida faces fiscal storm as great as Hurricane Ian

*A scene from the 2000 movie “The Perfect Storm.” (Image: Warner Bros.)*

Jan. 24, 2023 by David Silverberg

In 1997, the book The Perfect Storm told the story of the fishing boat Andrea Gail, which sailed into weather that was a “perfect” combination of three different storms blending into one catastrophic tempest.

Today, Southwest Florida is facing a “perfect” fiscal storm that blends three political squalls into a single horrendous gale that could prove as devastating in its own way as Hurricane Ian.

This storm is not of Southwest Florida’s own making. It’s the result of extreme ideas and doctrines being pursued in the nation’s capital. Nor will it affect Southwest Florida alone; the entire nation and the world will also suffer if the worst comes to pass.

However, Southwest Florida has unique factors that will increase the impact of this fiscal hurricane if it reaches full strength.

It’s a classic case of political passions being blindly pursued without an appreciation for their impacts on the ground or on the lives of everyday citizens. It’s also an illustration of the ways national policy affects an area as remote from the center of power as Southwest Florida.

The trend is dangerous, damaging and needs to be stopped. Fortunately, it’s the result of decisions yet to be made. So it’s not a perfect storm—yet.

Storm 1: The debt limit

On Thursday, Jan. 19, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen sent a letter to congressional leaders informing them that the United States had reached its statutory debt limit. Treasury would now take “extraordinary measures” to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States. However, those measures would only sustain the nation until June.

In the US House of Representatives, extreme Make America Great Again (MAGA) Republicans are insisting that raising the debt limit be accompanied by major concessions by the White House. House Speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-23-Calif.) has largely followed their direction. President Joe Biden is maintaining that the United States paying its debts is a national obligation that transcends party politics and is refusing to treat it as a political football. If the House doesn’t act, the United States will go into default for the first time in its history. (A fuller explanation of the debt limit is at the end of this article.)

How would Southwest Floridians feel the impact of a US default? In a 2021 paper explaining the issue, White House economists pointed out that: “everyday households would be affected in a number of ways—from not receiving important social program payments like Social Security or housing assistance, to seeing increased interest rates on mortgages and credit card debt.”

In other words, everyone would get poorer—in Southwest Florida and everywhere.

Storm 2: Social Security

The Social Security program has been in Republican crosshairs since it was initiated in 1935. Eighty-eight years later, that hasn’t changed and the threat, if anything, has become more acute.

Most recently, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) issued a “Commitment to America” plan last year that would have subjected Social Security to five-year reauthorizations, meaning that it could be eliminated at any time. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) proposed renewing the reauthorization every year, making it even more precarious.

Given the age of its population, Southwest Florida’s seniors are particularly dependent on Social Security to maintain their fiscal viability. Some 3,984 Collier County residents and 12,547 Lee County residents were Social Security recipients as of December 2021, according to the Social Security Administration. Nationally, 65 million Americans receive Social Security benefits.

If Social Security is severely cut or eliminated—for example as a result of a federal default or a crippling deal on the debt limit—those seniors would lose a significant chunk of their income. That, in turn, would kick a major pillar out of the year-round local economy, depressing it further after the blow of Hurricane Ian.

Storm 3: Attacks on healthcare

Among the cuts being discussed are those to Medicare and Medicaid, the two major health insurance programs. No Republican has threatened these programs more than Scott, whose Commitment to America would have stripped Medicare of the right to negotiate drug prices and removed a $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses.

Given the age of its residents, cuts to these programs would disproportionately affect Southwest Florida’s population. In 2021 Collier County had 109,305 Medicare enrollees and Lee County 210,408, according to the Florida Department of Health.

If Republican-proposed cuts went through, not only would the recipients see an abrupt cut in their benefits but Southwest Florida’s otherwise robust healthcare system would face a sudden, drastic drop in its revenues, which in turn would affect the rest of the regional economy.

This would come on top of the physical devastation of Hurricane Ian—at a time when affected Southwest Floridians need all the help they can get with shelter and the basic necessities of life.

Commentary: Avoiding the storm

At this point there’s no telling how the discussions over the debt limit will play out. Even responsible Republicans are horrified by the prospect of an American default.

“America must never default — we never have, and we never will,” vowed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) the Senate minority leader, in 2021.

Interestingly enough, even former President Donald Trump has warned against cutting Social Security and Medicare.

“Under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security,” Trump warned in a two-minute video message posted online on Jan. 19. While otherwise attacking Biden, Democrats, immigrants and advocating cuts in other areas, he emphatically stated: “Do not cut the benefits our seniors worked for and paid for their entire lives. Save Social Security. Don’t destroy it!”

For once, both the former and current presidents are in agreement: “This is something that should be done without conditions, and we should not be taking hostage key programs that the American people really earned and care about — Social Security, Medicare, it should not be put in a hostage situation,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre yesterday, Jan. 23.

Locally, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) has warned that cuts are coming. “Newsflash for the admin: We’re going to negotiate, we’re going to have meaningful spending cuts & we can talk about the debt ceiling,” stated Donalds in a tweet yesterday morning, Jan. 23. “We should end COVID-era overspending. We have to get our budget back on track! If they think they’ll be cutting some side deal they’re mistaken.”

Is there anything that a citizen opposed to this cataclysm can do about this? The measures for voter feedback and input are in place: contact lawmakers to make opinions known—in the case of Southwest Florida that’s Donalds and Reps. Mario Diaz Balart (R-26-Fla.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) (currently laid up due to a fall from his roof and not voting in Congress until he can return to Washington).

Even if e-mails, phone calls and letters don’t change members’ public stances it at least registers the opinions of their constituents and they have to take that into consideration as they stake their positions.

Also, members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) have a powerful lobbying voice in Washington and active engagement with that organization can help shore up important programs of vital importance to seniors.

The impact of local officials on these matters should not be overlooked either. Officials like county executives and mayors are in contact with Washington lawmakers. If they know the importance of these programs to local residents and the fact that residents—and voters—are watching, that concern will percolate upward to congressional lawmakers. Local officials need to be pressed to make their positions known by issuing public letters to members of Congress stating the importance of programs like Social Security, Medicare and aid to the region and their jurisdictions.

Treasury Secretary Yellen’s “extraordinary measures” run out in June. If an agreement isn’t reached before then, the fiscal storm will hit and Southwest Florida will feel the brunt of it.

And that’s one storm that can’t be mitigated with hurricane shutters and extra bottles of water.

* * *

A brief primer on the debt limit

The “debt limit” or “debt ceiling” is the amount of debt that the United States is allowed to have outstanding. The “national debt” is all the money the United States has borrowed throughout its history. It incurs that debt when revenues, for example from taxes, don’t cover its needs and it issues bonds or sells securities to cover the shortfall. These are perfectly legal and well established means that all governments use to meet their needs.

Since its founding in 1776, the United States has always met its obligations. It has incurred debts but it has paid those debts on time and in full. Through war, depression and political change, this reliability and predictability has made the United States the foundation of the world financial system. People, institutions and other governments have been able to count on America honoring its promises (its “faith”) and making its payments (its “credit”).

The US national debt currently stands at $31.381 trillion and it needs to raise its statutory limit to cover payments on its debt. This is not discretionary; the full faith and credit of the United States depends on it meeting its obligations. Its creditors, which include other governments, are depending on its payments. If the United States fails to meet its obligations, the entire global financial system could collapse, setting off an international panic and bringing about a crash as terrible as that of 1929.

The debt limit must be raised by Congress. Since the debt limit was established by Congress in 1917, raising the limit to cover obligations already incurred through legislation has been a relatively routine and non-controversial matter. Congress passed appropriations legislation to spend money that must be covered by borrowing, now the United States would pay the obligations it had freely and deliberately incurred.

It was a practice based on a simple proposition: honorable people pay their debts and they do it on time and in full. As it was for individuals, so it is for the nation. Support for US solvency has been broad and bipartisan throughout its history.

However, because raising the debt limit is essential, it has become a political wedge in an effort to extract concessions, with the ultimate threat of allowing a US default.

This brinkmanship started in 2006 when Democrats—including then-Sen. Joe Biden—threatened to refuse to raise the limit to protest the ongoing war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy by the administration of President George W. Bush. The refusal was meant as a gesture of protest, not an attempt to bring down the United States.

In 2011 and 2013 Republicans threatened to allow a default to force spending cuts by President Barack Obama. This time, the threat was more serious and a faction of Republicans was ready to accept default in order to get its way.

In all these cases compromises were found, the debt ceiling was raised and the United States met its obligations, although in 2011 the US credit rating was downgraded by the Standard & Poor’s rating service from AAA (outstanding) to AA+ (excellent), the first time in history that happened.

In 2023, the extremism, fanaticism and leverage of the MAGA faction in the House of Representatives, as well as the weakness of McCarthy Republicans, makes a default a much more serious and possible prospect than in the past.

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

House approves $1.7 trillion spending bill, including disaster aid, despite ‘no’ votes from SWFL reps

*The US Capitol with the congressional Christmas tree. (Photo: AoC)*

Dec. 23, 2022 by David Silverberg

In an characteristically Grinchian gesture just before the Christmas holiday, Southwest Florida’s representatives voted against a $1.7 trillion spending bill that includes $27 billion for relief of communities like those in Southwest Florida afflicted by hurricanes and other natural disasters.

The 4,155-page bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (House Resolution 2617), passed today along a largely party line vote of 225 to 201. Nine Republicans voted for the bill. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-13-Mich.) voted “present” and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-14-NY) cast the sole Democratic vote against it.

The bill funded all the agencies of government and avoided a shutdown, which would have occurred had it been defeated.

Southwest Florida Reps. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.) all voted against the bill.

On Thursday, Dec. 22, the Senate approved the bill on a bipartisan vote of 68 to 29, with Florida Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) opposing it.

“As communities across the country work to rebuild after unprecedented natural disasters, this bill provides the urgently needed support to help families, small businesses, and entire towns and cities get back on their feet and repair damaged infrastructure,” stated Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-3-conn.) chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

In what she said was probably her last speech in the role she has played since 2018, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-12-Calif.), urged passage of the bill, noting that “We have a big bill here, because we have big needs for our country.”

She pointed out: “We have the largest defense appropriation ever and, again, to help us honor our oath of office to protect and defend and what the Constitution says: ‘provide for the common defense.’” Beyond its $858 billion for US defense, the bill also provided $45 billion for Ukraine.

Pelosi noted, “…This bill is about our heroes, honoring our heroes, our heroic veterans with a major increase in veterans’ health care,” and benefits for firefighters and first responders. It also helps working families with “critical investments for their health, housing, education, [and] economic well-being… .”

Republican resistance

Republicans fought the bill through its drafting, first passage through the House and passage through the Senate.

Echoing the Republican line against the bill, Donalds long inveighed against it in media appearances and on social media.

“Every Republican should be a NO on the omnibus spending bill,” he tweeted on Dec. 19. He criticized it for not focusing more narrowly on border security issues.

“I voted NO on the nearly 2 trillion dollar omnibus spending bill because I’m a CONSERVATIVE that doesn’t make bad deals with a party hellbent on bankrupting our nation while refusing to secure the border,” he tweeted after the bill passed. “I work for WE THE PEOPLE, not political gamesmanship.”

Steube also criticized what he said was insufficient border attention: “This steaming pile of omnibus prohibits DHS [Department of Homeland Security] from using funding to secure our border” he tweeted. “Meanwhile, Democrats (enabled by several Senate Republicans) are sending millions to Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and Oman for their own ‘enhanced border security.’”

“Despite having months to work on the [Fiscal Year] 23 funding bill in good faith with House Republicans, this 4,000+ page spending package was drafted behind closed doors and released less than a week before government funding expires,” complained Diaz-Balart. “As the American people continue to suffer the consequences of this Administration’s reckless spending and wasteful economic policies, increasing non-defense discretionary spending on these radical left-wing policies will only further fuel and lengthen inflation.”

President Joe Biden is expected to swiftly sign the bill into law.

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

DeSantis budget cuts hit Cape Coral, Fort Myers Beach, Marco Island, Bonita Springs, Sanibel, Venice—Updated

*Times Square in Fort Myers Beach, Fla., above, had $1 million for upgrades and improvements vetoed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in actions announced yesterday. (Photo: City of Fort Myers Beach)*

June 3, 2022 by David Silverberg

Updated June 4, with addition of Sanibel, Venice, Charlotte County Utilities and new totals

On Thursday, June 2, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) vetoed $7.825 million for projects in Southwest Florida communities.

The vetoes were part of an overall line-item cut that sliced $3.1 billion from the $109.9 billion state budget that takes effect on July 1 for the next fiscal year. The budget was the product of extensive legislative work and negotiation. (The full list of vetoes can be seen here.)

Of all of Southwest Florida’s communities, Cape Coral lost the most with $1.625 million in cuts. Those cuts were:

$1,000,000 for North Wellfield Expansion, a project to improve water treatment;
$375,000 for a Tactical Intelligence and Analytics Center to improve police response times and fight crime;
$250,000 for boardwalk replacement at the Four Mile Cove Ecological Preserve along the shore of the Caloosahatchee River, so residents can enjoy the wild local environment.

Fort Myers Beach lost $1 million for Times Square renovation, a project to improve and upgrade the town’s prime gathering place, commercial center and tourist attraction.

Marco Island lost $1.5 million for the Marco Island South Water Treatment Plant West High Service Pump Station, which processes brackish well water into potable water for residents.

Bonita Springs lost $750,000 for Phase 2 of the Bonita Springs Community Park Baseball Complex, which builds on prior upgrades to landscaping, storm water management and pedestrian access.

Sanibel Island lost $100,000 for slough dredging and muck removal.

Venice lost $850,000 for a water treatment plant 2nd stage membrane phase 1.

Charlotte County Utilities lost $2 million for improving communications and cybersecurity.

Another regional recipient was not tied to a specific community: Fakahatchee Strand State Park lost a $3 million appropriation.

Some $350 million was taken from appropriations for unspecified grants and aids to local governments for water quality improvements and Everglades restoration.

The region may also feel indirect impacts from a $750,000 cut to training for the Florida Association of District School Superintendents and a $250,000 cut for teacher retention.

When DeSantis unveiled the vetoes at a press conference at The Villages, a retirement community northwest of Orlando, he did so in front of the Republican House and Senate leaders who had constructed the initial budget. He told them “that’s just the way it goes” as they applauded his vetoes of projects for the communities they represent.

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!

Editorial: Rep. Byron Donalds has failed Southwest Florida and can’t be allowed to do it again

*PBS reporter Lisa DeJardins interviews Rep. Byron Donalds on his refusal to request earmarks for his district. (Image:* *PBS Newshour*)

March 16, 2022

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) has utterly failed the people of Southwest Florida. He has done this defiantly, deliberately and knowingly and will do it again if returned to office.

By refusing to request any earmarks from Congress when he could have done so, he deprived the people of Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, Estero, Bonita Springs, Naples and Marco Island—the 19th Congressional District—of millions of dollars in improvements, resources and funding to which they and their communities were entirely entitled.

These people, like all Americans, pay their taxes. They have a right to get the benefits of what those taxes can buy. But Donalds, by his blind fanaticism and incompetence denied them those benefits. It is as though he reached into their pockets and stole their cash.

Getting these people, his constituents, their rightful benefits is his job. When everything else that comes with congressional office is stripped away, when all the titles are put aside and the campaign hoopla dies down and the media’s spotlights are turned off, a core function of a congressman is to get his constituents everything from the federal government to which they have a right.

In this, Rep. Byron Donalds has failed spectacularly.

It is not as though this is a man who doesn’t love money. He said so directly and brazenly when he went before the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) in Orlando: “Folks, I like money. Can we be honest about this? I like money!”

He loves money for himself, for sure. His fundraising is relentless and incessant. He loves the money from his corporate political action committees and has raised over $3 million for his 2022 campaign.

But when there was $1.5 trillion on the table for the benefit of Americans in their local communities, he refused to make even the slightest effort to get Southwest Florida what it was due. Indeed, he voted against the entire package.

His neighbor to the north wasn’t so shy: Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.), a far right-wing conservative, requested $38 million in earmarks for the communities he represents. As a result, Lee County, among other recipients, stands to get $720,000 for managing a nature preserve.

His neighbor to the east wasn’t shy, either. Rep. Mario Diaz-Dalart (R-25-Fla.) submitted $12 million in earmark requests. Thanks to his efforts, Immokalee in Collier County will get badly needed sidewalks and Everglades City will get a new wastewater plant and pump station, finally repairing damage done by Hurricane Irma in 2017.

But the coastal communities of Southwest Florida in the 19th District will get nothing—nothing! Nada! Zip! Zilch! They will get nothing from the federal government to build resilience for climate change, nothing to make repairs to their infrastructure, nothing for improvements for their people in any way, shape or form.

All Byron Donalds had to do was ask. He was encouraged to ask. He had a clear and unambiguous way to ask. But he couldn’t be bothered.

As has been clear from the day he took office, Byron Donalds doesn’t care about his district. He doesn’t even live in its boundaries. On Election Day he can’t even vote for himself because the ballot he gets shows Diaz-Balart as his congressman.

For Donalds, the 19th District is nothing more than a stepping stone to higher office. His involvement in its affairs and the needs of its people has been halting and hesitant and only the result of outside prodding. In his weekly newsletters he counts his local activities under the heading “community engagement” as though drudgingly marking them off a checklist.

Instead, Donalds would rather play the cultural, ideological warrior. He’d rather slam President Joe Biden and Democrats than make any kind of constructive contribution. He’d rather disparage scientists like Dr. Anthony Fauci than tend to the actual health and wellbeing of the people he represents. He’d rather take money from PACs than get Southwest Floridians the federal benefits they’re due. And he’d rather take the time to make endless rounds of fringe right-wing talk shows and bask in their hosts’ flattery and empty adulation than do the actual labor of working for his district and its constituents.

Surely, there were at least 10 worthy projects and priorities that Donalds could have submitted to Congress. Surely he could have asked for aid for the people whose homes were devastated by storms and tornadoes in Cape Coral. Surely, he could have gotten the City of Naples $900,000 to fix its sagging seawall. Surely there were new schools and roads that could have been built or repaired if he had the energy or imagination or willingness to just ask.

There’s no way to know how many millions of dollars Southwest Florida lost this year because of Donalds’ refusal to do his job—and this as the region comes out of the economic pain and damage caused by two years of pandemic.

This is not a culture war question. This is not part of the debate over wearing masks, or critical race theory or personal freedom. This is a clear, unambiguous, tangible issue of getting cold, hard cash and having enough of it to do what needs to be done.

But wait! There’s more!

Not only did Donalds refuse to submit earmarks this year because of his ideological blindness and rigidity but he will likely not submit them if he’s re-elected. In fact, it’s not certain that the opportunity to request earmarks will even present itself in the next Congress.

This may have been a once in a lifetime opportunity and he blew it.

For the sake of Southwest Florida, Donalds should not be returned to office for another term. If he is, he will doom Southwest Florida and the district he represents to perpetually lagging all the surrounding congressional districts—indeed, lagging the entire country—in getting its rightful and legitimate help from the federal government. He will turn the Paradise Coast into an eternal sucking swamp of expenses and needs without any aid from any outside agency.

The boundaries of the newly redistricted Florida have not yet been drawn; they’re hung up in litigation and contention between the governor and the legislature. It’s not clear that the 19th District will still be the 19th or where its lines will run by Election Day.

However, wherever the lines land, whatever the district that emerges, the people of Southwest Florida should be aware that Byron Donalds, if he runs for representative office, will not represent them effectively but will only represent himself.

What’s passed is past. But being forewarned is being forearmed for the future.

We sometimes forget that our elected representatives are our employees. As voters we hire them at election time, we pay their salaries with our taxes and when their contracts are up, we vote whether to renew them. They work for us.

Byron Donalds has not done his job. On November 8, his contract should not be renewed

* * *

To read full coverage of earmarks and Southwest Florida, see: “SWFL loses out on federal millions when Donalds won’t ask for cash.“

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate!

SWFL loses out on federal millions when Donalds won’t ask for cash

Diaz-Balart, Steube seek money for Everglades City, Immokalee, Lee County

President Joe Biden signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022 in the Indian Treaty Room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House Campus in Washington, Tuesday, March 15, 2022. (Photo: AP /Patrick Semansky)

March 16, 2022 by David Silverberg

Yesterday, March 15, President Joe Biden signed a $1.5 trillion spending bill covering government expenditures for the next fiscal year.

Ukraine will receive $13.6 billion. Billions of dollars will be provided for all federal agencies, public schools, healthcare, housing, child care, climate change, veterans, police and a host of other causes including specific projects in towns, counties and states across the country.

But amidst all this, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, Estero, Bonita Springs, Naples and Marco Island won’t see a dime.

That’s because Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), whose district covers those towns, refused to request any money for them even though he had the opportunity and was encouraged to ask for it.

Such requests are called “earmarks.”

In contrast to Donalds, Southwest Florida’s other representatives energetically pursued the money available for their districts.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25-Fla.) requested nearly $12 million in earmarks for his district, the area roughly from Rt. 75 in the west to Hialeah in the east including Immokalee and Golden Gate in Collier County.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) requested nearly $38 million for projects in his district covering six counties including Charlotte and parts of three others, including Lee.

To fully appreciate and understand the consequences of Donalds’ refusal to request funding for his district, a brief explanation of the nature and history of earmarks is in order.

A quick primer on earmarks

When it comes to cattle and hogs, an “earmark” is a distinctive cut on an animal’s ear that designates it as some human’s personal property.

When it comes to budgeting and management, “earmark” means money set aside for a special purpose.

And when it comes to the Congress of the United States, an earmark is money intended for a specific use in a particular member’s state or district.

For years, congressional earmarks were in disrepute. Everyone made them but there were abuses, sometimes spectacular.

For example, in 2005, when Alaskans proposed a bridge between the town Ketchikan and tiny Gravina Island, the powerful Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) inserted a $225 million earmark to fund what came to be known as the “bridge to nowhere.” It was seen to be the most egregious example of pork barrel earmark spending. (The opposition was so strong that the bridge has not been built to this day.)

Many of the earmarks were made in the dead of night, slipped into enormous, must-pass appropriations bills at the last minute, without hearings or notice, using obscure or confusing language. Members didn’t have to identify themselves as requesting the earmarks or clearly state their purpose.

What was more, the possibility of their passing depended on the clout of the members seeking them. Powerful representatives or senators sitting on key committees had a much better chance of getting their earmarks included or approved than freshmen or back-benchers.

Yet for all the abuses and allegations of waste, earmarks played an important role in aiding local communities. Congressional representatives understood their local communities’ very specific needs and could seek funding to meet them.

Further, earmarks were a way for taxpayers to get a return for the taxes they paid. After all, taxes are not a one-way street. The taxpayer pays into a collective pot—in this case the federal treasury—but has a right to expect and receive government benefits and services in return. Earmarks made by a local representative were a way to get those benefits down to the grassroots. While the abuses got all the attention, many of the local needs were legitimate and pressing.

The abusive aspects of earmarks and the clamor against them led Congress to reform its earmark process beginning in 2007. In 2009 members of Congress had to post their earmark requests online along with a signed letter certifying that they and their immediate families had no direct financial interest in the earmark.

In the 2010 election, Republicans took control of the House and banned earmarks within their caucus. In 2011 President Barack Obama furthered the anti-earmark movement in his State of the Union address by threatening to veto any spending bill that contained earmarks. Then, in February of that year, earmarks were formally banned by the entire Congress.

Last year Congress lifted the ban on earmarks for the 2022 fiscal year. It started with Democrats recognizing the urgent and desperate needs of local communities as a result of the pandemic. The House and Senate appropriations committees invited members to make earmark requests. In the House, these earmarks were called “Community Project Funding” and in the Senate, “Congressionally-Directed Spending.”

To prevent abuses, new rules govern earmarks: They must be posted online, be searchable, fully explained, the members have to certify that they and their families have no financial interest in them, and members must provide evidence of community support for the project. From an administrative standpoint, for-profit entities can’t receive earmarks and members were limited to 10 requests. The overall percentage of earmarks in spending bills was limited. To further ensure compliance, all earmarks are audited by the Government Accountability Office.

The change to allowing earmarks again did not happen painlessly. Republicans in particular had to wrestle with the legacy of their anti-government spending creed. Almost exactly a year ago the Republican caucus held a vote that, unusually for them, was closed and secret. The result was a decision to bring back earmarks by a vote of 102 to 84.

And so earmarks have returned.

Earmarks and Southwest Florida

Few Republican members expressed as much torment in accepting earmarks as Rep. Greg Steube. In fact, so excruciating was the change for him that Steube was the poster child for Republican angst in a May 5, 2021 article on the subject called “GOP’s earmark schism evident in ‘earmark’ disclosures: The return of home-state projects has many Republicans pitching for funds,” in the congressional newspaper, Roll Call.

On March 10, 2021, Steube was a signatory to a Republican letter urging top Democrats not to bring back earmarks.

“Nothing epitomizes what is wrong with Washington more than pork-barrel spending in the form of congressional earmarks,” stated the letter, signed by 35 Republican representatives and senators.

Nonetheless, when earmarks were approved, Steube dug right in. In fact, so vigorous was his earmarking that he came up with 11 projects—one more than permitted—for his district. His requests were:

$720,000 for Lee County to implement best management practices at the Bob Janes Preserve Restoration Project (the reserve is a massive 5,620 acre nature preserve north of the Caloosahatchee River on a portion of the former Babcock Ranch);
$500,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville to study shoreline erosion in Charlotte County;
$3.2 million for Charlotte County to convert 2,135 septic lots to sewer systems to reduce water pollution;
$3.5 million for North Port to build a child advocacy center;
$2 million for DeSoto County to use sewer rather than septic systems in new developments;
$1.5 million for the Florida Endowment Foundation for Florida’s Graduates in Flagler Beach to help at-risk youth;
$1 million for the Okeechobee Utility Authority to convert septic tanks to sewer systems on Treasure Island to reduce water pollution;
$1 million for Sarasota County to lower the risks of water delivery disruption to residents;
$2.5 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge sections of the Intracoastal Waterway;
$21 million for Charlotte County to widen Harborview Road;
$1 million for Sarasota County to widen the River Road Regional Interstate Connector.

A much more experienced legislator than the two-term Steube, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart was far less tormented by the notion of earmarks and celebrated passage of the spending bill.

“This year’s spending package is a tremendous win for our nation’s defense priorities and national security interests,” he stated when the bill passed. Praising the money spent on defense and $14 billion in aid to Ukraine, he noted: “Although not perfect, these bills are a huge win for Republicans who were successful in eliminating left-wing, radical policies while prioritizing funding to enhance our infrastructure, reinforce our military, strengthen our national security, bolster school safety initiatives, and support our nation’s veterans.”

Diaz-Balart was not shy in making his earmark requests:

$3 million for Everglades City to build a new wastewater plant;
$2 million for Everglades City to replace the Chokoloskee Master Pump Station;
$750,000 for Miami Dade County to install new sewer systems for Doral and Sweetwater;
$1 million for Miami-Dade County to extend water mains;
$987,000 for Collier County to build sidewalks and drainage in Immokalee;
$999,858 for Clewiston to improve portions of Ventura Avenue;
$500,000 for Hendry County to rehabilitate and improve the Harlem Academy;
$1.135 million for Florida International University in Miami to establish the Aquarius Coral Reef Observatory.

In the final bill, Diaz-Balart had something to crow about when his requests were granted:

“I am especially proud of the $5 million secured for much-needed infrastructure improvements to a wastewater treatment plant and master pump station in Everglades City and Chokoloskee, which were both damaged after Hurricane Irma,” he stated. “In addition to funding for infrastructure projects in Sweetwater, Doral, Immokalee, Clewiston, and Harlem.”

Donalds’ denial

Donalds chose not to submit any earmark requests. When asked by PBS Newshour’s Lisa DeJardins, why not, he replied: “We don’t have any money. Like, we are deficit-spending in Washington, DC.” When she pointed out that earmarks have a long history and have done good for communities, Donalds replied: “With all due respect to my colleagues who’ve been up there longer, I’m here now. And so my job isn’t to look at what has always happened.”

When the entire bill came up for a vote, Donalds voted against it.

Donalds was not the only Republican to eschew earmarks. Of 435 members of the House, 332 submitted earmark requests and 103 did not. (Interestingly, five of the seven freshmen members of the Republican “Freedom Force,” the conservative Republican answer to the Democratic “Squad,” of which Donalds was a founding member, requested earmarks. Only Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-20-Ind.) joined Donalds in not making any requests.)

The change to allow earmarks is not necessarily permanent and could be changed in the next Congress, so members who didn’t have their requests granted may not get a second chance to get funding in 2023.

(For commentary on Donalds’ refusal to seek funding for his district, see: “Editorial: Byron Donalds has failed Southwest Florida and can’t be allowed to do it again.”)

Liberty lives in light

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate!

Congress votes to keep government open; Diaz-Balart breaks with Donalds, Steube, Republicans to approve bill

Sept. 30, 2021 by David Silverberg

The US House of Representatives today approved a bill to fund the government until December 3 by a vote of 254 to 175.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25-Fla.) joined 33 other Republicans to vote for the bill, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act.

Reps. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) voted against the bill. Had the bill failed, the government would have shut down at midnight.

For Southwest Florida, passage of the bill means that federal parks, facilities and offices will remain open and operating, including the US Coast Guard and the Social Security Administration.

The bill, House Resolution 5305, also known as a Continuing Resolution, concurred with a Senate bill and now goes to President Joe Biden for signature.

Liberty lives in light

US House votes to keep government open; SWFL Reps. Rooney, Steube oppose, Diaz-Balart approves

The US House vote to keep govenrment open. (Image:C-SPAN)

Sept. 23, 2020, by David Silverberg

By an overwhelming majority, the US House of Representatives voted last night to keep the government operating until Dec. 11.

The bill, House Resolution 8337, known as a Continuing Resolution (CR) continues to fund the government at existing levels past the Oct. 1 start of the new 2021 federal fiscal year at roughly $1.4 trillion.

The vote in the House was 359 to 57, with one member, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-14-NY), voting “present.”

Of Southwest Florida’s representatives, Reps. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.) and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) voted against the bill. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25-Fla.) voted in favor.

The bill was the subject of long and contentious negotiations, with the White House insisting on including aid to farmers through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Democrats were concerned the farm aid would actually be used by the administration to assist the oil and energy industry and also feared that President Donald Trump would use the CCC funds as what some termed a “slush fund” to buy votes with aid to farmers hurt by his trade wars.

The final agreement reached between House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-12-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Republicans added safeguards against abuse of CCC funding and added $8 billion in nutrition assistance for needy families and schoolchildren.

“To help the millions of families struggling to keep food on the table during the pandemic, Democrats have renewed the vital, expiring lifeline of Pandemic EBT [Electronic Benefits Transfer] for a full year and enabled our fellow Americans in the territories to receive this critical nutrition assistance,” Pelosi said in a statement.

In a brief statement, Rooney explained his opposition vote:

“This continuing resolution contains an excessive amount of spending which far exceeds what we need for Covid relief at a time when the government is already trillions in debt. Congress has not passed a budget for three years. This abject lack of fiscal responsibility has pushed our country to the brink, with over $26 trillion in debt. Our children and grandchildren will suffer from our profligate spending. We have corrupted the ethic upon which our country was built; this wasteful spending must stop.

“I have continually fought against the irresponsible, excessive and injudicious appropriations from both parties. I have voted against legislation like this in the past and will continue to vote against it in the future. We simply cannot afford to be increasing government spending when we should be making cuts to reduce the deficit.”

Neither Diaz-Balart nor Steube issued statements explaining their votes.

The government shut down for 35 days in January 2019 following a similar budget standoff. At that time, Trump was insisting on funding for his border wall.

In Southwest Florida the government shutdown also meant a shutdown of national parks and preserves like Everglades National Park and a halt to US Coast Guard operations in local waters. It was also responsible for an estimated $11 billion in costs to the US economy, of which $3 billion was permanent.

This year, among its many other effects, a shutdown had the potential to disrupt federal monitoring of conditions leading to harmful algal blooms in Southwest Florida.

The bill has gone to the Senate, where it is considered likely to pass, given its overwhelming approval in the House and the desire of members to avoid a government shutdown on the eve of the election. Trump is expected to sign it.

Liberty lives in light

Trump budget harms SWFL seniors, Medicare, Social Security; local politicos react–or not

Congressional staffers unpack fiscal year 2021 budget documents.

Feb. 11, 2020 by David Silverberg

Southwest Florida seniors are likely to suffer if President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2021 budget request is enacted as proposed.

The president’s $4.8 trillion budget, officially unveiled yesterday, Feb. 10, would cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).

Medicare spending would be reduced by 7 percent or $756 billion between 2021 and 2030. Doctors, hospitals and hospices would receive lower reimbursement rates for the services they provide.

Two Social Security programs, SSDI and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which pays monthly benefits to people with limited income and resources who are disabled, blind, or age 65 or older, would lose $75 billion over the same period, with $10 billion in cuts coming from retroactive benefits a person can receive after he or she is considered disabled.

Other programs important to seniors like Meals on Wheels, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Senior Community Service Employment Program and legal services for seniors would be cut or eliminated.

These cuts and reductions would fall heavily in Lee and Collier counties, which have double the national percentage of people 65 or older.

According to 2018 Census statistics, 28.6 percent of Lee County’s 618,754 people are 65 or older (which works out to 174,488 people). Of Collier County’s 321,521 people, 32.2 percent are 65 or older (103,530 people). Both counties’ populations have been steadily increasing.

According to DataUSA, a private consortium that repackages government data, 14.7 percent of Lee County’s population is on Medicaid and 20.8 percent is on Medicare. In Collier County that is 12 percent on Medicaid, 24.9 percent on Medicare.

These are significant populations that could be significantly, adversely affected by Trump’s proposed budget cuts.

Southwest Florida reactions

This will be Trump’s last budget proposal before the 2020 election, making it particularly significant and politically impactful.

However, reaction in Southwest Florida from both candidates and sitting representatives was surprisingly mixed.

The only congressional candidate in the 19th Congressional District to immediately comment was Democrat Cindy Banyai.

“The thing that is so disappointing about the #TrumpBudget and every similar austere fiscally conservative move, is that SS, Medicare are macroeconomic drivers that other countries wish they had. Funding only the ‘deserving’ is crippling,” she tweeted as soon as the budget was released.

Among Republican candidates for the 19th District seat only State Rep. Dane Eagle (R-77-Cape Coral) issued any sort of comment at all and his was a generic partisan tweet urging people to vote Republican if they believe in strong borders, lower taxes, low oil prices, law enforcement and the military. He made no mention of the budget or the cuts to social safety net programs.

Sitting SWFL Republican members of Congress were active on Twitter as the budget was released—but each addressed topics as far from the budget and constituent impacts as possible.

Rep. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.) was concerned with events in El Salvador: “Reports of armed police and soldiers entering #ElSalvador’s National Assembly are deeply concerning. I urge all sides to come together in a peaceful and constructive manner to address the needs of the Salvadoran people,” he tweeted at the time.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25-Fla.) thanked President Trump for funding Everglades restoration. “As my colleagues from the Everglades Caucus & I stated in our recent letter to POTUS, the #Everglades is a national treasure & fundamental to Florida’s economy. I thank @POTUS for including the requested $250 million in his proposed budget to Congress.”

Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) was more concerned with the costs of investigating President Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors: “Now that @realDonaldTrump has been acquitted, I am proud to announce I am co-sponsoring the SHAM Act. It is time we audit that entire bogus process to figure out exactly how much taxpayer money was wasted.” (The Statement of Harm to the American Majority Act or SHAM Act, House Resolution 5769, would initiate an audit of the costs of the presidential impeachment inquiry.)

On a national level, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-12-Calif.) issued a statement saying: “President Trump’s latest budget continues his relentless attacks on the health and economic security of hard-working Americans. It is a complete reversal of the promises he made in the campaign and a contradiction of the statements he made at the State of the Union.”

When it came to social safety net programs affecting seniors, Pelosi stated: “President Trump has broken his promises to seniors and families by slashing half a trillion dollars from Medicare, taking $900 billion from the lifeline of Medicaid, and cutting Social Security Disability Insurance.”

She concluded: “The federal budget is supposed to be a statement of national values. Once again, the President is showing just how little he values the good health, financial security and well-being of hard-working American families. The President’s budget is anti-growth, does not create good-paying jobs and increases the national debt.”

The budget proposal will now be considered by the House of Representatives, where it is likely to be substantially altered.

Liberty lives in light

SWFL environment: On budgets and birds, Trump giveth and taketh away

A flock of ibis on the wing.

Feb. 7, 2020 by David Silverberg

When it comes to Southwest Florida’s natural environment, President Donald Trump’s administration is both giving and taking away.

The giving consists of a reported $250 million request for next fiscal year’s federal budget.

The official request is scheduled to be revealed on Monday, Feb. 10 with the rest of the federal budget. The Everglades funding was widely reported in Florida media, attributed to a “senior administration official.”

The taking consists of a proposed rule that reinterprets the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to decriminalize the unintentional killing or injuring of migratory birds—a major consideration for the wildlife that inhabits Southwest Florida and the Everglades.

The money

The report of the $250 million request comes in advance of release of the Fiscal Year 2021 budget, which is scheduled to be released Monday, Feb. 10.

If the $250 million is in fact requested as reported, it would provide a stark contrast with last year when Trump requested only $63 million of the $200 million the federal government had promised to provide Florida for Everglades restoration.

The inadequate $63 million request so alarmed Florida’s senators and representatives that on March 14, 2019 Rep. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.) and Rep. Brian Mast (R-18-Fla.) joined Florida’s Republican senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott to issue a letter to Trump calling for full funding. It was the third time since Trump took office that he had failed to meet federal funding obligations.

Trump took a trip to Lake Okeechobee on March 29, were he was lobbied by Florida officials and made vague promises to provide more money. Following the lawmakers’ complaints Florida did receive $200 million in the 2020 fiscal year budget.

This year is an election year and Florida is crucial to Trump’s re-election chances. Additionally, he is now officially a Florida resident.

When he announced his retirement after stating that he was open to hearing impeachment evidence against the president, Rooney stated that he had done what he had set out to do in Congress by getting the $200 million. Everglades restoration was a Rooney priority since his election in 2016.

The Paradise Progressive has requested comment from Rooney’s office regarding the budget request.

The birds

On Jan. 30 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that it was proposing a new rule that decriminalized unintentional injuring or killing of migratory birds under the MBTA.

While the rule will not directly affect the large migratory bird populations of Southwest Florida, it does peel back one more layer of regulatory protection for them.

In the previous administration, the MBTA was interpreted as covering accidental killing and injury of migratory birds, making such injuries and deaths a criminal act.

While prosecutions were few, the rule provided regulators and prosecutors with an additional tool to prevent harm to migratory birds. For example, when birds were killed due to the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, BP was charged with criminal acts in addition to civil damages, providing further inducement for the company to settle with the government.

The rule has long been appealed by industry, which argues that it should not be held criminally responsible for accidental bird killings in the course of normal operations.

“With five federal circuit courts of appeals divided on this question, it is important to bring regulatory certainty to the public by clarifying that the criminal scope of the MBTA only reaches to conduct intentionally injuring birds,” Rob Wallace, assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks stated. “That said, we will continue to work collaboratively with states, cities, conservation groups, industries, trade associations and citizens to ensure that best practices are followed to minimize unintended harm to birds and their habitats.”

The rule is in the proposal stage and members of the public have until March 19 to comment on it.

According to the FWS statement, comments for or against the rule can be made by going to:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: JAO/1N; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.

We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.

Interested readers can follow the links to view the proposed rule and notice of intent.

Liberty lives in light

The Rooney Roundup and Mario Monitor: Mum on Mueller — and Rooney and Bernie agree (?!)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who introduced the Raise the Wage Act in the Senate and Rep. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.), one of only three Republicans who voted for it in the House.

520 days (1 year, 5 months, 5 days) since Rep. Francis Rooney has met constituents in an open, public town hall forum.

July 27, 2019 by David Silverberg

Congress has now adjourned for its August recess, so it’s time to look back at the activities of Southwest Florida’s two representatives since our last Rooney Roundup and Mario Monitor in April.

This period provided a very mixed bag. Rep. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.) proved to be something of an odd and unpredictable maverick. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25-Fla.) continued his record of unimaginative, party-line votes.

When it came to the testimony of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the highlight of this period, neither of Southwest Florida’s representatives expressed an opinion—probably a wise course. While other members of the Florida delegation, some of them members of the Judiciary or Intelligence committees, were quite vocal, neither Rooney or Diaz-Balart, sat on the relevant committees, so they weren’t in the room.

There was a lot of action on the issue of Southwest Florida’s environment, so much so that it will be the subject of a subsequent Rooney Roundup and Mario Monitor.

But here, some highlights from the past two months of congressional activity.

Rooney stands with Bernie Sanders (What?!)

In a surprising vote at odds with President Donald Trump’s position, the Republican Party and his own conservative record, on July 18 Rooney voted in favor of raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour.

The bill, the Raise the Wage Act (House Resolution (HR) 582), passed by a vote of 231 to 199. Rooney was one of only three Republicans to vote in favor of the measure. (The others were Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-1-Pa.) and Chris Smith (R-4-NJ)). Diaz-Balart opposed it.

The bill increases the minimum wage over a six-year period by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. After the first and second years the wage’s economic impact will be assessed by the General Accounting Office.

In a statement, Rooney explained his position: “This 6-year gradual increase brings the minimum wage in line with inflation. The 6-year increases avoid disruptive changes to the workplace. Earlier this week I offered an amendment, which was rejected, to establish a ‘purchasing power parity option’ which would allow states and cities to adjust the wages for local conditions. What $26 buys in Ft. Myers may cost $50 in New York City. While this would have been a better option, the bill that passed will provide the gradual increases necessary to improve worker pay, keep up with inflation and mitigate the wage inequality which has increased over the last 20 years.”

In January, the bill was introduced in the Senate as Senate 150 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described democratic socialist and Democratic candidate for president. It has not yet been reported out of committee.

Two-year budget deal

In another dissent from the Trump line, on July 25, Rooney voted against the two-year budget deal worked out by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-12-Calif.) in a rare, bipartisan bit of cooperation.

The bill, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (House Resolution (HR) 3877), stabilizes the budget process and wards off possible government shutdowns over raising the national debt ceiling. It sets the budget at $1.37 trillion and suspends the debt ceiling until July 31, 2021.

Trump endorsed it in a tweet: “House Republicans should support the TWO YEAR BUDGET AGREEMENT which greatly helps our Military and our Vets. I am totally with you!” The House duly passed it by a vote of 284 to 149. As of this writing it has gone to the Senate where it was expected to be passed and the President was expected to sign it—although with this president, one never knows until the ink dries.

Diaz-Balart voted for it along with 64 other Republicans. But it was more than Rooney could stomach.

“This budget act fails the American people, especially our children and grandchildren,” he raged in a statement. “Saddling future generations with insurmountable debt instead of making the hard decisions on spending is irresponsible legislating. Just a campaign cycle ago, Republicans across the country ran on a platform of balancing our budget and eliminating our debt. I intend to continue my opposition to out of control Washington spending.”

Humanitarian standards for detainees

Both Rooney and Diaz-Balart voted against the Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act (HR 3239) on July 24.

Among a variety of standards of care for detainees, it requires US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to conduct a health examination for every person it takes into custody and provide health care for those who need it. It also requires that detainees have access to drinking water, toilets, sanitation and hygiene products.

The bill passed by a vote of 233 to 195 along party lines. It is likely to die in the Senate.

Rooney skipped an earlier vote on June 25 to provide emergency funding to relieve conditions on the US southern border (HR 3401), which passed the House 230 to 195 and ultimately became law. Diaz-Balart voted against it.

Fallout from disaster relief vote

On June 3, Rooney voted against the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2019 (HR 2157), a $19.1 billion spending bill that provided emergency funds for disasters around the country. In Florida it was particularly critical for the panhandle, which had been devastated by Hurricane Michael. Diaz-Balart voted for it.

Rooney voted against it because he said it was fiscally irresponsible. In this he was joined by Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.)

Rooney’s vote created a political storm of its own in Florida where the relief bill was not only popular but deemed essential. The rest of the Florida delegation, both Republican and Democrat, voted for the bill (with the exception of two members who were absent, Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-20-Fla.) and Frederica Wilson (D-24-Fla.)).

“If I was in their district, I’d vote ‘em out,” Jimmy Patronis, Florida’s Republican chief financial officer told reporters in Tallahassee immediately after the vote. “Those individuals that do not realize the harm and suffering that’s happening in Northwest Florida and the recovery that we’re trying to endure right now, for them to put themselves over the better good of the recovery of other citizens in the United States is shameful. Unfortunately, it’s a round world and they’ll probably get what’s coming to them somewhere, somehow.”

When the House leadership was struggling to move the bill, Rep. Neal Dunn (R-2-Fla.), who represents hard-hit Panama City, took to the floor to denounce members who blocked it.

“For those upset at the cost, OK, spending in Washington is a problem, but are you actually willing to make an empty gesture about balancing the federal budget on the backs of Americans who have lost everything?” he said.

Other votes

Predictably, Rooney voted:

Against holding Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress;
Against condemning President Donald Trump’s racist comments attacking four members of Congress;
Against the National Defense Authorization Act;
Against protecting Dreamers.

In the next Rooney Roundup and Mario Monitor: Southwest Florida’s swamp meets Washington DC’s swamp.